FYI on Fitzgerald (from 2005) and some good news (I think)

[The Straight Story]

QUESTION: Sir, is Karl Rove off the hook and are there any other individuals who might be
charged? You say you're not quite finished?

MR. FITZGERALD: All I can say is the same answer I gave before. If you ask me any name,
I'm not going to comment on anyone named because we either charge someone or we don't talk
about them. And don't read answer in the context of the name you gave me.

www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/2005_10_28_fitzgerald_press_conference.pdf

I post this not to stir a pot, but to point out Fitz ain't going to tell folks Jack (Unless there were an indictment). He just ain't going to comment to the public - though he would of course to the attorney & client whom he had been questioning.

IMHO he is dead right to do things this way. His job is not to be political, to feed media machines, or anything else. Go to work. Investigate. Indict and announce.

The GOOD NEWS is - he has not packed it all up and went home. Hmmmm - wonder why?? :)

[Patsy Stone]

1. All correct

Also, if it were over, he might be inclined to let the public know the entire leak matter was concluded.

[tulsakatz]

2. that's true........if it were over Fitz would say so

but it's far from over as is obvious since he's still prosecuting Libby!

And another thing..........there was a new statement from Truthout today which says:

Yesterday, most Mainstream Media organizations published reports about a letter supposedly received by Karl Rove's attorney Robert Luskin. As an example of the supposed letter's contents, TIME Magazine stated that, "Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald said or wrote, 'Absent any unexpected developments, he does not anticipate seeking any criminal charges against Rove.'"

To me, this doesn't sound much different from anything else Fitz has said about Rove in the past. And maybe I'm too optimistic but it doesn't sound like a glowing endorsement of not guilty, innocent or whatever! It just means Fitz is not willing to charge him now.

[The Straight Story]

3. Now there is an interesting question you bring up...

What HAS fitz said about rove at all? Do we have any quotes where he mentions him by name?

Just wondering based on Fitz saying he does not mention people unless indicted.

I will see if I can find anything. Hopefully someone has already done their homework and can enlighten me. If not, maybe a new thread asking just that question is in order (in case this one dies off).

[Catherine Vincent]

5. He mentioned Official "A" a few times.

But was Karl Rove Official "A"?

[The Straight Story]

6. If it was 'A' must be bush - A is for ASShole :) (nt)

[tulsakatz]

8. it's always been assumed that Rove is official A.....

...and so far as I know, Fitz has never denied that.

In fact, David Shuster, who has done some great reporting on this topic says that Rove IS official A!

[H2O Man]

9. Mr. Fitzgerald

can not confirm or deny that. However, Rove's attorney, Mr. Luskin, did confirm that.

Those who asked why Mr. Fitzgerald had not issued a statement about Rove do not understand what his role is, and what it is not. More interesting in this situation is to consider why Mr. Fitzgerald notified Mr. Luskin that he decided not to indict Karl. I can say without any chance of being wrong that Mr. Fitzgerald has not contacted the attorneys for the vast majority of people who testified before the grand jury, or who spoke to FBI investigators. That is something that people should think about.

[stop the bleeding]

12. All I know is

Fitz seems to have Cheney on the horizon, the notification and the you bring it up will give me something to ponder tonight. One other thing I know is Fitz has not packed up camp yet, one has to wonder if this is related to Cheney and Luskin's "notification".

[tulsakatz]

16. I think Fitz wants to nail Cheney too!

Fitz seems to be more involved in the Libby case especially where it concerns Cheney, for example the evidence of the Wilson op ed that had Cheney's notes scribble on it.

I think Fitz is simply more focused on Cheney and Libby right now.

[The Straight Story]

23. I have a weird gut feeling this case is going to take an interesting turn

within the next 60 days.

Scooter got his, rove got off, and work still seems to be obviously moving along - ie, the investigation is not closed. Which leaves us with very few suspects left that would be being investigated.

I have no inside sources or track on this thing, just a hunch. Not even wishful thinking, just this nagging suspicion that a big shoe is about to drop - and it will be a surprising one...

[Chiyo-chichi]

11. Didn't Shuster also say that every time Fitz has used the term

"Official A" in other cases, "Official A" was eventually indicted?

[tulsakatz]

14. yep!

There was a situation in Chicage where Fitz investigated some politicians. I remember hearing about it but I don't remember the exact information. Anyway, I believe there was a guy named Ryan (I think he was a governor) who had been official A and he was eventually indicted.

[stop the bleeding]

15. correct that - Ryan was not only indicted but

Convicted as well only after 12 years of investigations/trials/ and 70++ indictments later against others.

Fitz runs marathons not sprints

[tulsakatz]

18. haha.........that's true!

Fitzgerald's investigations can last for yrs but he always gets what he was after!

[yodermon]

22. ya know, you're right

And I'd be willing to bet that he'd wait until AFTER 2008 (yes 2008) elections if he's at all worried about shithead/darth pulling "executive immunity" interference.

[tulsakatz]

28. I know we all wish it didn't have to take that long..........

....but if it does last past '08, at least that might eliminate any possible Presidential pardons.

And I also like the way Fitz is so thorough.........if he indicts, he usually gets a conviction too! We would all feel terrible if he did all of this work and the crooks managed to wiggle out of it!

[tulsakatz]

7. well, you know Fitz!

He doesn't say anything unless he's ready to indict!

And another point that the truthout article points out is that there is a filing related to this (I believe the date on it is something like 5/10/06) and instead of naming someone to indict, it says 'sealed vs sealed'. This is unusual because most of the time when a sealed indictment is filed (according to the article and I have no reason to question it) it usually says US vs sealed. What this means and the significance of a sealed vs sealed indictment.........I don't know. But Truthout claims that this could be related to their story of the Rove indictment.

I know back before the Libby indictment and republicans were saying that Rove was not a subject, as a justification of his innocence. And really that means nothing! The only thing that means, is that he's not a subject now but that could change at any time based on evidence. And the Fitz quote from the Truthout article, to me, is saying the same thing.........just that he's not willing to indict him now. It doesn't mean that he did nothing wrong, just that Fitz is not willing to indict with the evidence he currently has.

[emulatorloo]

4. Kicking n/t

[Crabby Appleton]

10. I'm glad to see this posted (again)

I had seen this comment on TV and posted here, buried in one of the Fitz threads. Don't expect to see any press conferences except for indictments.

[stop the bleeding]

13. Welcome to DU Crabby Appleton

:toast:

[ramblin_dave]

17. Can Gonzales restrict Fitzgerald's authority?

This was discussed some weeks ago...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2639426

It's still not clear if Gonzales could somehow curb Fitzgerald in some way. I have heard arguments here that Fitzgerald has all the power of the Attorney General, and can't be fired by Gonzales. Even if true, what else could Gonzales do to limit Fitzgerald?

[WiseButAngrySara]

19. This is good news! Could one of you please give me a recap of the

lengthy Rove/TO thread? re: TO changing story? When is Leopold releasing his sources, and if he's not, why not?

[tulsakatz]

20. here's a link to the TO story I read.........

http://forum.truthout.org/blog

And they are supposed to post more info next Monday.

About their sources, they also said:

The Confidentiality of Our Sources

As journalists, nothing is more critical to being able to report guarded facts than the guarantee of confidentiality we provide to our sources. Truthout has never compromised the identy of a confidential source. We will protect our sources on this story, as we have on every other story we have ever published.

And actually, it seems a little unethical to reveal their sources whether or not the story is true. If they're willing to, so easily, give up their sources, why would anyone else ever want to confide in them?

[WiseButAngrySara]

24. Thanks for the link and info. RE: sources. Because Leopold said he

would divulge their identities, or was that just another dream/lie/inconvenient truth on his part?

[gkhouston]

25. he did say he'd burn them, which seemed

a bit over the top. I assumed that meant he'd burn them if they burned him. Does he believe they unwittingly gave him a bum steer? I'm trying to figure out who these "sources" are. Sounds like Shuster's were defense lawyers familiar with but not necessarily tied to the case, i.e., they might make better-informed guesses than your average DUer, but they'd still be guessing. That counts as a source? :shrug:

[WiseButAngrySara]

26. I still think it was a set-up by Rove (or certainly Rove-style)) like

Hatfield and Rather, to discredit the LW blogosphere, using an already unbelievable conduit. The similarities between Hatfield and Leopold are more than just coincidence, IMO. Who knows if Leopold believes that they unintentionally or intentionally misinformed him. He should stick by his original promise, and divulge his sources or explain fully his reasons for not doing so.

[tulsakatz]

27. yeah, I thought that was a stupid thing to say..........

[Cetacea]

21. Funny how most reports ignored the disclaimer

'...Absent any unexpected developments...'
he does not anticipate seeking any criminal charges against Rove.'"

[tulsakatz]

29. true, and it seems to me that's what an investigation is all about!

Discovering what happened and many times those developments ARE unexpected!

We certainly never expected Rove to be involved in this (at least I didn't) after he had been telling all of us for 2 yrs that he didn't have anything to do with it!!