OK, now Libby goes before a judge...it's out of Fitz's hands, right?

[Gloria]

So, when Boies says there will be plea bargaining... does this thing go to trial no matter what??????? If Libby suddenly offers up more info, does it go to the new Grand Jury....or does this become part of his trial? Can he avoid trial??

[goodhue]

1. If they reach a plea agreement, there will be no trial.

And I would be pretty shocked if BFEE lets it get to trial. Trial would be great fun, but I think Libby will take a fall before it goes down.

[Kagemusha]

2. My understanding is the system favors plea bargains in general.

Fitz said that he'll be involved with the prosecution process and team. Libby will have his mandated opportunities to protest the charges, try to have them thrown out, etc, and failing that, will go to trial. (Fitz's charges are widely considered very strong by legal experts who have reviewed them, because those charges Fitz is going with are narrow and backed by tons of evidence.)

Fitz will probably need a lot of convincing to make a plea of any significance to Libby at this point.

[goodhue]

4. If he pleads guilty there is no trial.

If he agrees to plead guilty to certain counts, other counts may be dropped and/or his recommended sentence limited.

[wakeme2008]

5. Right... Fitz is the only one with the key to a plea bargain...

If Fitz turns down any offers from Scooters lawyers, then trial. OR Fitz could make an offer to Scooters lawyers.... :)

[No Exit]

18. I doubt it would be Fitz making the offers, b/c I've consistently

read that Fitz doesn't ask a GJ to indict until/unless he is sure he can prove the case at trial.

If he knows he can prove it, Fitz will not offer a deal, and Fitz cannot drop the indictments which were handed up by the GRAND JURY.

I have dealt with federal prosecutors on several occasions, and, trust me, they are never soft, nor are they compassionate.

Oh, and they watch like hawks during the post-GJ period, to see if the defendant does anything to try to mess with witnesses or destroy evidence. If he does, they have their goons swoop in and jail the defendant.

If a defendant is jailed, it changes him overnight. It practically marks him as the loser. I have seen this happen.

[wakeme2008]

24. Will Fitz IMHO would offer a deal to get a bigger

fish, not to get out of a trial.

[longship]

3. Could be plead.

But I do not think that Fitz is into offering him much of a deal. Not unless he has something significant to offer. Plus, I would bet that Fitz has a charge of conspiracy still in his hand. That would catch Libby with additional charge(s). Rove might also be toast.

Conspiracy is clearly appropriate here. Whether Fitz has the requisite evidence, is yet to be known.

[Gloria]

6. Yes, my take is that Fitz is angling for conspiracy...so I hope

he continues to play hardball with Libby....

[thinkingwoman]

8. did you notice

that during the press conference nobody asked Fitzgerald if he had any indictments returned that he did not hand up?

They asked if he had asked for any indictments that were not returned. But they didn't ask the other side of the coin question.

Couldn't he be holding additional indictments as leverage?

[longship]

12. He clearly said that he would not answer such questions.

nt

[thinkingwoman]

14. Yes he did

and rightly so.

I was commenting that the "reporters" didn't even ask. It's as if it never occurred to them that he might not show all his cards at the beginning.

[Fescue4u]

7. Fitz can still negotiate a plea agreement or even drop the charges

(in exchange for the goods on others normally)

[Avalux]

10. It's my understanding the charges cannot be dropped.

If Libby pleads guilty, it will be to nothing less than a felony with a reduced sentence.

A lot better than 30 years in jail though.

[Fescue4u]

11. I thought the prosecuter could drop charges

But Im hardly a legal guy.

Its proably a moot point as I suspect the best scooty could hope for would be reduced sentence in exchange for cooperation.

[No Exit]

15. No, the prosecutor can't drop them. The GJ brought them. n/t

[Der Blaue Engel]

20. Fitzgerald IS the prosecutor

He said that his team would be prosecuting the case, didn't he? So it's not out of his hands at all.

[No Exit]

33. But the prosecutor is under the judge. And it is the grand jury,

not Fitzgerald, which handed up the indictments. The law says Fitzgerald must have the judge's approval to dismiss the indictments. They are not his indictments--they are the grand jury's indictments.

[goodhue]

16. I think you are right, a prosecutor can always drop charges.

Unless there is some special rule about grand jury charges, but I don't think so.

[No Exit]

21. No. The most a prosecutor could do would be to move the JUDGE

to dismiss an indictment. It would be up to the judge.

That part is out of Fitzgerald's hands. He himself cannot "drop charges".

I don't think the judge would dismiss these indictments unless there were some very serious procedural flaw in this grand jury. And I'm confident there is no such flaw, b/c I'm sure repuke lawyers would've long since been talking it up, if there were.

The judge CANNOT dismiss an indictment simply because he might "think the defendant is not guilty". A judge's decision on whether or not to dismiss an indictment will center on procedural matters--not on the meat of the case. If the procedure is in order, the indictment stands.

[punpirate]

9. The process is the same as for all other trials...

... Libby will be arraigned, and given the opportunity to plead. If he pleads not guilty, the case goes to trial, and either Fitzgerald or any of his associates or both can try the case.

If he pleads guilty, the judge can accept the plea and go directly to sentencing. In very rare cases, the judge can also refuse the plea and enter a not guilty plea for the defendant and proceed to trial. The latter happens mostly when the judge suspects that the indictment is thin or that a confession was coerced from the defendant. But, that's rare, and doesn't seem to apply in this case.

Now, if Libby determines, along with his attorney, that they can work a deal to avoid part or all of the punishment coming, they might want to arrange one. That can happen at virtually any point in the process--even in the middle of trial.

If Libby agrees to testify to a new grand jury in exchange for a more lenient sentence (usually termed "cooperation with the investigation"), then he would be expected to testify truthfully about both his activities and those of others--at grand jury and at any later trials.

So, it's not done yet.

Cheers.

[No Exit]

19. Libby will NOT plead guilty at arraignment! That is a given.

His lawyer doesn't want to be sued for malpractice!

[punpirate]

23. If Libby is afraid of what else might come out at trial...

... then his lawyer's got nothing to do with it. If his lawyer advises him to plead not guilty, and he pleads guilty, anyway, for his own reasons, there's no malpractice.

Moreover, if his attorney makes a deal between now and arraignment, at Libby's request, he would be pleading guilty.

Cheers.

[bluedawg12]

27. thanks punpirate- BTW, my money is on a plea

I can't imagine dragging the high value witnesses into court for the defense. They would be humiliated, esp. Darth by pass, and possibly Tenet, and more dirt will liekly come out.

I think scoot's reason for his alleged actions is to conceal and not reveal and a trial would dig much deeper.

Am I correct on some of these?

[punpirate]

29. Fitzgerald is the person to answer those questions...

... and he's not talking much about the future. :)

But, we'll have a hint based upon what happens between now and trial.

If the Bushies are as sleazy as we think they are, then there's been a deal made with Libby that he pleads guilty, does not cooperate, and is pardoned by Bush at the most politically expedient opportunity.

If Libby has no guarantees of being pardoned, he's going to get a little nervous over time, and might be willing to deal, but I wonder.

What is common to all these people is that they are true believers--they really think that they are doing the right thing, even if the law says otherwise. They have their own moral reality.

It's going to take quite a while to bring this to trial, and delays work in Libby's (and the administration's) favor. The closer to the end of Bush's term that the necessity for pardon occurs, the better. What they most want, right now, is for this to go away for a while--at least until after the 2006 election. What may complicate that is if "Official A" is identified that way in the indictment because the person is still a target. That drags things out in a way that is very much unwanted by the administration.

Cheers.

[No Exit]

32. bluedawg12--at some point Scooty-boot has got to start

thinking about Scooty-boot. Even if Scooty-boot pleads guilty, he may turn over valuable info to the prosecutor in exchange for a downward departure on his sentence. (And the federal sentencing guidelines, as Fitzgerald said, are now advisory, rather than mandatory--leaving even more room for negotiation.)

OTOH, if there is a trial, it will not be the defense dragging in the "high-value witnesses". It will be the prosecution.

My posts seem to offend you. What's the beef?

[hang a left]

36. Fitz holds all the marbles in this game. Libby's lawyers will come to

PF. It is of no benefit to Fitz to take a plea bargain from Libby without getting EXACTLY what it is he wants from him. Scooter, at this point, is not ready to do that. All bets are off though if someone else gives up Cheney.

[No Exit]

31. Do me a favor and go down to federal criminal court sometime

and see how many people plead guilty at arraignment.

Pleading not guilty at arraignment keeps all your options open, while you (your lawyer) makes sure your case is totally in order. This is a big case. If Scooty-boot pleads guilty, it will not occur at arraignment.

[punpirate]

34. We're not talking here about...

... drug possession or credit card fraud. We're talking about a small group of people who are highly ideological and fanatical about protecting their cause, their purpose and the people in charge of those, which includes Cheney.

There have been some questions about why Libby would, in the first place, lie about the matter in ways that were so obvious and easy to refute (his conversations with Russert, for example). They were obvious attempts to lead investigators away from Cheney.

Trial opens up all sorts of possibilities for more information to be revealed, something this bunch--as quite practiced in excessive secrecy that they are--would be loathe to see happen.

I'm not saying that it's an inevitability, rather just that it's one more possibility in a range of such, which should not be discounted--especially if there's a presidential pardon waiting in the background. There aren't too many of those floating around the average case in federal court these days....

Cheers.

[No Exit]

37. I understand that the * regime has a great interest in preventing

an open trial of this matter, and I agree that they would do all they could to prevent that.

But Libby is now just like thousands of other persons who are accused of a crime in federal court. That's the law. While there may be special treatment of classified documents in this matter, still, Libby has to get process just like any other defendant. If he doesn't, he can later cry foul if he were to be convicted and appeal.

And the arraignment is really judt an on-the-record procedure to inform a defendant of the crimes he is accused of. Of course it's done so that it can never be argued that the defendant was not informed, and that the defendant couldn't defend himself because he wasn't informed.

Oftentimes, a not guilty plea is just a procedure for getting more time for the defendant's lawyer to work out all his options. If a defendant does not yet have a lawyer when he reports for a federal arraignment, the fed magistrate judge enters a not guilty plea on his behalf.

I just don't see how Libby's lawyer could possibly explore all Libby's options so quickly that he would have thoroughly explored them all by the time of arraignment.

[punpirate]

39. You continue not to mention that one word...

... "pardon."

That shifts the possibilities in ways that don't exist for other criminal defendants. The Bushies can't afford to be exposed--they take down the rest of the Republican Party with them if they are. And they don't really care about popular opinion, so an immediate pardon is a possibility. Maybe an outside one, but a possibility, nevertheless.

That changes the calculus.

Cheers.

[No Exit]

40. Sure, but an immediate pardon would be suicide for *.

And if he is considering anything to do with suicide, I rather think he has it in mind for someone else, if you get my drift...

[Garbo 2004]

35. Larry Franklin (AIPAC case) initially pled non guilty. Months later

he pleads guilty and is cooperating with Fed investigation. Sentencing will be next year, no doubt to ensure that he keeps his end of the deal if he wants any consideration at sentencing.

[No Exit]

38. Right, chances are Franklin and his counsel knew he was

guilty all along, but just pled him not guilty initially in order to give them more time to plan. Making a not guilty plea at arraignment loses a defendant nothing. And the plea can be changed even during the trial. OTOH, a guilty plea is much harder to backtrack from. MUCH harder.

[No Exit]

13. He can only avoid trial if he pleads guilty to as many counts as

Fitzgerald demands he plead guilty to.

Libby, at this moment, has no prior felony record at all! You'll find that "white collar" types don't want to have even ONE felony conviction (and of course a guilty plea IS a conviction), even if they are offered straight probation and no jail time!

People w/o criminal records take one single conviction much more seriously than do those who've previously racked up some criminal conviction (be it felony or misdemeanor).

I firmly believe that Libby does not want to plead guilty to ANY felony.

But he will HAVE to plead guilty to at least one felony (and probably more than one) if he wishes to avoid a trial.

Therefore: there will be a trial. A trial is required BY LAW to be public.

[Gloria]

17. Another thing...Toobin today on CNN pointed out that any trial wouldn't

start for maybe 6 months or longer....due to the classified info that might be involved, there will be lots of back and forth before a judge to decide what can be revealed.

Toobin felt this would have a significant impact on what ultimately transpires...

It makes me think that there may be alot of legal stalling going on...or that Fitz will really have to play hardball with Libby to get the info he needs more quickly. Fitz talked about the politics of all this in his press conference...he's aware of how the spin can intrude into what he's trying to do, at least in terms of the trial being held.

[No Exit]

22. How's about they start the trial in, oh, say, October, 2006?

Screaming headlines daily, during the election season? I like it. Ditto for DeLay's trial--and Frist's.

[Gloria]

25. Yeah, the buildup could do a lot of damage, too.

This "stalling" will be about classified info...what goes out to the public or not.....so, the Libby lawyers can put a good face on it....but over the long hall, a protracted pre-trial build up could be "speculated" to death!

[sundancekid]

28. on top of which, the Rovester will likely be a witness at Libby trial,

especially if the AP update posted on dailykos turns out to be correct that he was Official A (another likelihood about the identity of Official A is Stephen Hadley - if you have followed the story closely)
and, Rove testifying at trial is another bunch of preparation time if he is not indicted ... or the Rovester can tell all he knows truthfully and shorten up the judicial process ... Rove? ah, no; he's infamous for last second turn screws, just like he did his 11th hour 11th minute dance on this indictment.

http://www.dailykos.com/

SNIP
Update <2005-10-28 19:55:2 by Hunter>: The AP story has now changed: Instead of the bolded text, it now quotes Luskin directly:

"The special counsel has advised Mr. Rove that he has made no decision about whether or not to bring charges," attorney Robert Luskin said. "We are confident that when the special counsel finishes his work, he will conclude that Mr. Rove has done nothing wrong."

Prosecutors identified Rove in the Libby indictment only as "Official A," recounting a conversation he had with Libby about Plame and Wilson in the days just before the CIA operative's identity was revealed. The mention could make Rove a witness at any Libby trial.
SNIP

[No Exit]

30. Oh, yes! I'll have another helping of speculation, please!!

[Zen Democrat]

26. If he pleads guilty -- he'll do the time.