Why I believe there will be no leak charge

[BL611]

Fitz doesn't have the proof to indicte Libby or anyone else as INTENTIONALLY outing a COVERT agent, without intent there can be no leak charge, I think this may very well be it as far as charges. That being said a public trial could be VERY damaging...

[Pachamama]

1. My take is he is going into this slowly & being thorough...I think that he

will be making Libby squirm and see if Libby wants to "cooperate"...Meanwhile, he'll let the rest of the Cabal "squirm" and wonder what is coming next....

The best way to "out" conspiring people is to let them all squirm and wonder who's talking and in the end, who is going to protect their own hide...

Remember, this isn't over....

[BL611]

2. Yes but since nobody else was charged

with perjury, it seems that he now has the story straight, I'm not saying its impossible, but I would say unlikely...

[longship]

3. How can you say that?

Fitz hasn't said anything to lead you to that conclusion. In fact, he has specifically said that he cannot comment on anything concerning the case other than the specific indictments issued today.

His minimizing of future events may be a misdirection. This guy's making sure that future indictments are not jeopardized. All we know is that Libby is the first indictee.

I would say one thing, though. If he weren't going to issue further indictments, why would he be keeping the investigation going?

[BL611]

4. Not a conclusion,

its the sense I get, again we'll see, thats my take for now.

[Nederland]

5. Wrong

Fitz charged Libby with Obstruction of Justice. I'm pretty sure you can't convict someone with obstructing justice unless you can prove that they hampered the investigation of a crime. If there was no crime, there can be no obstruction of justice. IOW, if there was no leak, Libby can't be guilty of obstruction.

Not only must Fitz believe that someone commited the crime of leaking the name of a CIA agent, he must also believe that in the long run he can prove it. If he didn't, I don't see him bringing the charge against Libby.

[Igel]

6. I have this sneaking feeling that if you obstruct things so that

they can't determine if there was a crime, that counts.

I.e., I suspecti t's hampering the investigation; it's not necessarily hampering charging somebody.

[Nederland]

8. Maybe

In truth I don't know.

Any lawyers out there know if you can prove an obstruction of justice charge without proving there was a crime?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

7. What, did Libby accidentally hand the wrong folder to Novak?

I mean, the information got out, and it couldn't have been an accident. And they KNEW she was covert.