Lewis Libby indicted

MrJoeSoap

Dick Cheney's top adviser, Lewis Libby has just been indicted on charges of obstruction of justice, making false statments and perjury.

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=X&oi=news&start=0&num=2&q=http://news.bostonherald.com/politics/view.bg%3Farticleid%3D109308
http://news.google.ie/url?sa=t&ct=us/1-0&fp=43627e510eb555b5&ei=F1piQ_PDN7f0FYrtwbEO&url=http%3A//www.wect.com/Global/story.asp%3FS%3D4042691%26nav%3D2gQc&cid=0

Looks very likely Karl Rove will escape prosecution (for now at least) but may face some more investigation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4384126.stm

bonkey

Watching Fitzgerald's live conference.

The man is a superb speaker, and practically oozes credibility and professionalism.

He's refusing to speculate on motive, comment on findings, or on people who weren't indicted....which the press are naturally ignoring and asking questions which he can't properly answer, but he's fielding them very well IMHO.

jc

Victor

And all along I thought Libby was a girl's name.

So to a degree this is Monicagate II, no substantial charges other than about the investigation itself? If the investigation didn't happen there would be no charges.

Memnoch

that's how these thigns work. It's pretty obvious that libby was involved in the leak along with rove etc, but it's something that's incredibly difficult to prove in a court of law. But catching them out when they deny it and proving they lied about it is something that is much easier to prove and makes sense to do.

Ofc anyone who doesn't think that the Bush administration has no problem with lying needs a serious reality check.

MrJoeSoap

No surprises, he has now resigned.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4386748.stm

bonkey wrote:

Watching Fitzgerald's live conference.

The man is a superb speaker, and practically oozes credibility and professionalism.

He's refusing to speculate on motive, comment on findings, or on people who weren't indicted....which the press are naturally ignoring and asking questions which he can't properly answer, but he's fielding them very well IMHO.

jc

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-10-28T192345Z_01_SCH867143_RTRUKOC_0_US-BUSH-LEAK-PROSECUTOR.xml

Good article on him there.

billy the squid

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1028051plame1.html

From what I gather, Rove is going to remain under investigation. No doubt if libby is convicted he will get a pardon from bush at the end of his term.

billy the squid

just for people that missed the press conference and announcement
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Patrick-Fitzgerald-PC-Libby.wmv

dahamsta

Thanks for that billy, couldn't find it last night so you saved me looking again.

adam

TomF

The mountain laboured and brought forth a mouse.

Sand

From what I gather, Rove is going to remain under investigation. No doubt if libby is convicted he will get a pardon from bush at the end of his term.

Following in Clintons footsteps.

This Fitzgerald guy seems to get results, apparently his parents are from Clare, maybe he could be persuaded to come across and sort out the Lawyers welfare system that is our tribunals that go on for decades and produce....nada.

bonkey

TomF wrote:

The mountain laboured and brought forth a mouse.

Err, no.

AS Fitzgerald clearly articulated during his press conference, his job was to find out what happened. Libby has obstructed him in an illegal manner from doing his job. Therefore, he has no choice but to charge Libby.

It was quite clear, though never stated, that until the truth about the original events is known Fitzgerald's job will not be properly done.

Fitzgerald may well determine at the end of all this that no law was broken in the original leak. Thats not a negative conclusion. If thats what happened, thats what happened.

However, the US Administration - as with anyone else cannot be above investigation for potential criminal activity, and if evidence presents itself during the investigation that someone obstructed that investigation, their being in the administration shouldn't give them any leeway.

That you see alleged obstruction of justice by the holder one of the most senior positions in the land as a "mouse" is hardly an high endorsement of the legal process.

As a matter of interest, when they went after Clinton fot lying under oath - was that also a mouse? Or is it unacceptable for the PResident to apparently lie under oath, but fine once you get down a level or two, and unacceptable once more once you get to the level of "ordinary mortals"?

Victor wrote:

If the investigation didn't happen there would be no charges.

That is true of any case, though, isn't it Victor? You can't bring charges in any case without an investigation to see if they are warranted.

jc

TomF

bonkey wrote:

As a matter of interest, when they went after Clinton for lying under oath - was that also a mouse? Or is it unacceptable for the President to apparently lie under oath, but fine once you get down a level or two, and unacceptable once more once you get to the level of "ordinary mortals"?

To refresh the memory of anyone who has lost interest, Clinton lied under oath and then when found-out, neglected to resign. Libby may have lied and when the grand jury's indictment was published, promptly resigned. Also, Clinton was the chief executive of a nation, while Libby was an advisor of the vice chief executive (at about the level of Mary Harney's advisor, whoever that might be). The contrast between the styles of the Clinton and the Bush administrations is so glaring it could hurt the eyes.

Let's also remember that an indictment is a charge of having committed a crime: it is not a verdict of guilt.

Victor

bonkey wrote:

That is true of any case, though, isn't it Victor? You can't bring charges in any case without an investigation to see if they are warranted.

>.< You know what I mean. The charges are about the investigation itself, not the original accusation, although I do (to a degree) accept the point "why lie if you didn't do anything wrong" (the flip side of this is at risk of being a police state).

TomF wrote:

Clinton lied under oath

Did Starr really have good reason to ask the question? No question, no lie. The Plame affiar potentially (and possibly really) put life and limb at risk.

TomF wrote:

Let's also remember that an indictment is a charge of having committed a crime: it is not a verdict of guilt.

Not guilt, but having been through a Grand Jury would indicate there is a much stronger case to answer than say, if the local sherriff was charging you.

billy the squid

TomF wrote:

To refresh the memory of anyone who has lost interest, Clinton lied under oath and then when found-out, neglected to resign. Libby may have lied and when the grand jury's indictment was published, promptly resigned. Also, Clinton was the chief executive of a nation, while Libby was an advisor of the vice chief executive (at about the level of Mary Harney's advisor, whoever that might be). The contrast between the styles of the Clinton and the Bush administrations is so glaring it could hurt the eyes.

Let's also remember that an indictment is a charge of having committed a crime: it is not a verdict of guilt.

yeah but nobody died as a result of clinton's indescressions. nor was national security comprimised.

may I ask why you feel the need to be an apologist for these greedy warmongers?

Sparks

So TomF, to summarise; Clinton lied about a blow job, he's the ultimate evil; Bush wants a war that's so far cost in excess of a hundred thousand lives and which has thrown us into a degree of global terrorism not seen in decades, so his advisors seek proof of WMDs in Iraq and in the process out a CIA operative to punish her husband who wouldn't back up their case - but his is a fair and just administration?

In what world, exactly?

bonkey

TomF wrote:

To refresh the memory of anyone who has lost interest, Clinton lied under oath and then when found-out, neglected to resign. Libby may have lied and when the grand jury's indictment was published, promptly resigned.

Yes, because under the rules, indictment requires that you step down. Libby had as much choice as deLay.

Personally, I believe Clinton should have been indicted for lying under oath. Arguably, he should have resigned as well, but without an indictment there was no requirement for him to do so.

Also, Clinton was the chief executive of a nation, while Libby was an advisor of the vice chief executive (at about the level of Mary Harney's advisor, whoever that might be).

Equating Mary Harney with Dick Cheney?!? Thats possibly the funniest thing I've read all week, whether it was intended that way or not.

The contrast between the styles of the Clinton and the Bush administrations is so glaring it could hurt the eyes.

No disagreement from me, but this has nothing to do with why you see allegations that the Chief of Staff (not just "an advisor") of the Vice President lied under oath, and obstructed a Federal investigation as "a mouse".

Your criticism of Clinton only serves to highlight the difference. You clearly disapprove that the law did not hold him accountable, while are belittling the law for doing it in a comparable situation.

So unless you're suggesting that the lower down the food chain one is, the less of an issue it is to lie under oath and obstruct federal investigations, I'm at a loss as to how to understand your position.

And if that is what you're suggesting, either the common man should basically be allowed lie under oath and obstruct justice with relative iumpunity, or you've some sort of "acceptableness curve" which means Presidents and common men should be held accountable, while those in-between get some sliding scale of accountability.

Let's also remember that an indictment is a charge of having committed a crime: it is not a verdict of guilt.

Indeed. We should not lose sight of this, although it should not prevent us from each having our opinion or belief as to his innonence or guilt, as well as what really went on.

However, his innocence or otherwise has no bearing on the seriousness of the charges, so still doesn't explain your belittling of them.

jc

TomF

I certainly am no expert on legal matters, but I would think the Executive Branch of the US government has certain immunity privileges and I have seen Cheney quoted that he "regretted" that Libby resigned, or that he accepted Libby's resignation with "regret". Earlier references say Libby promised to resign if he were indicted of anything, and I have seen nothing about rules saying he had to resign. But as I say, I am certainly no expert.

And as for Cheney not being comparable to Mary Harney, maybe we should think of Cheney being comparable to Al Gore. (Remember? He was the US vice-president under Clinton.) Let's ask ourselves: Who was Al Gore's chief of staff?

billy the squid

And as for Cheney not being comparable to Mary Harney, maybe we should think of Cheney being comparable to Al Gore. (Remember? He was the US vice-president under Clinton.) Let's ask ourselves: Who was Al Gore's chief of staff?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Klain

no mention of lying under oath there from Gore's chief of staff.

lazydaisy

Perjury is a very serious crime in the US. Clinton was impeached for it. It nearly doesnt matter what you do, but whether or not you lie about it afterward. If anyone else did what Clinton did [i refer to perjury and not sexual harrassment of a schoolgirl], they would have gone to gaol for lying under oath. I dont know know why Clinton lied, unless it was some self sabotage child of an alcoholic people pleasing dysfunction. No lives were ruined - well, there were a couple of in-house suicides, Monica Lewinsky certainly hasn't had her life back since. Not to mention that he ruined the democratic party.

The Executive Branch does not have immunity from perjury. They lie, as all politicians do, but lying under oath in a courthouse has a whole different consequence for EVERYBODY. The rapper Lil Kim was just sentenced for a year in prison for perjury. If he is found guilty he will most likely go to prison too. It is not taken lightly in the US at all. I don't know how Clinton escaped that fate.

Then there is the 5th ammendment, the right to remain silent, which is not considered perjury, and Im suspecting it might be excersized under the auspices of national security.

All his lawyers have to do is raise reasonable doubt and he will be acquitted.

A charge is not a verdict of guilt, they have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he is guilty and then get a unanimous vote from the jury and the judge will apply sentencing. Yes let's see how long jury selection will take.:rolleyes:

Anyway - a little humour for you....

http://www.mdna.net/kooks.html

TomF

A very informative and interesting post, laisydaisy, thanks. It is very unusual on this board to see a post that doesn't veer-off into attacks and sputtering.

bonkey

lazydaisy wrote:

All his lawyers have to do is raise reasonable doubt and he will be acquitted.

Reasonable doubt that he didn't lie? You make it sound so simple.

Unfortunately for this theory, there appears to be a mountain of evidence in the way which contradicts Libbys statements. About the only reasonable doubt he could muster is by undermining every single ability which would make him suitable to hold his position.

In short, he can invoke reasonable doubt by making himself out to be incompetent at the job he carried out. Hardly what I'd see as an easy way out.

A charge is not a verdict of guilt, they have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he is guilty

Thats correct. However, before taking too much solace from the rigors of due process, ask yourself how likely Fitzgerald is to have brought charges that he didn't believe he could make stick.

and then get a unanimous vote from the jury and the judge will apply sentencing.

And then not get a Presidential pardon.

It is very unusual on this board to see a post that doesn't veer-off into attacks and sputtering.

TomF, all posters are doing is asking you to clarify some of the comments you've made here or defend them because they disagree with the partisanship you so clearly exhibit.

That you see asking for clarification on your position as "verring off", and disagreement with said position as "attacks and sputtering" would strike me as more of a comment on your reasons for posting here than it is on the posts from regular contributors that you are attempting to denigrate.

jc

pete

lazydaisy wrote:

Then there is the 5th ammendment, the right to remain silent, which is not considered perjury, and Im suspecting it might be excersized under the auspices of national security.

AFAIk the 5th amendment gives protection against self-incrimination, not a catch-all right to silence.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

lazydaisy

bonkey wrote:

Reasonable doubt that he didn't lie? You make it sound so simple.

Well, it's not simple, that's how it is. The burden of proof lies on the prosecution. Dont forget they also have to prove intention.

Its the defense counsels job is to raise doubt for the jury about the evidence supporting the charge.

Just remind yourself of Michael Jackson's trial. I'm sure the prosecuting attorneys and parents thought they had a case, but thinking you have a case, and providing enough evidence to move the jury beyond reasonable doubt are two different things.

bonkey

lazydaisy wrote:

The burden of proof lies on the prosecution.

I don't doubt it for a second. I'm also pretty confident that the prosecution wouldn't have sought an indictment in the first place had there been some doubt about the strength of their case.

Dont forget they also have to prove intention.

No. They don't. They have to prove he knew he was telling something other than the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. His reasons for doing so are irrelevant.

You may be confusing the requirement to show intent when trying to make the leaking of classified information a criminal offence, but thats not what Libby is charged with. He's charged with obstructing the investigation of said leak and lying under oath (i.e. perjury). Intent doesn't enter into those charges.

Its the defense counsels job is to raise doubt for the jury about the evidence supporting the charge.

Given the evidence already referenced (i.e. other witness testimony), about the only defence possible is Libby is incompetently incapable of recalling what he talked about when, to whom. An alternate would be that he's being framed by Cheney, the media, and pretty-much everyone else involved, but I think you'll agree that he's not going to go with that defence.

Personally, I reckon he's more likely to cop a plea so that no details emerge in public. Remember that the findings of Fitzgerald will not be publically released, so if Libby can avoid a trial, the public get to find out SFA....which I reckon will be the best result for the Administration.

I expect either a plea with a soft sentence (maybe 6 months to a year of house arrest or something purely financial), or a plea followed by a Presidential pardon.

Just remind yourself of Michael Jackson's trial.

Not quite the same problem.

If Libby casts doubt that he lied, he can really only do so by either claiming his own memory was faulty when on the stand (effectively an admission of incompetence given the time he had to prepare etc.), or by suggesting the other evidence, (such as testimony supplied by other people under oath) is false.

In other words, he could get free by making a reasonable case that his fellow Administration bods lied to frame him, perhaps by suggesting there is a large conspiracy against him, or he can try and convince a jury that his ability to clearly recall information with due warning on such important topics as national security is suspect.

I'd still put my money on him copping a plea. Its the least embarrassing move for all concerned, and it can be sold as a move to avoid compromising Fitzgerald's investigation by airing that which should no be aired. I'd also guess that part of the plea-bargain will be that Libby will not be asked to re-testify in the Fitzgerald investigation

In otherwords, Libby will plead guilt to obstruction and perjury whilst maintaining not only his innocence, but his deepest commitment to the process which has resulted in these charges. The President will be so moved by this act of self-sacrifice that he will issue a Presidential pardon.

We will then see the usual suspects here, voicing utter outrage at such a cynical manipulation of events or utter respect for the man willing to lay down his career to serve the greater good. The latter will almost certainly contain those who have cautioned us repeatedly that Libby is innocent until proven guilty, but who will not take a sentence of guilt from a plea as the necessary proof of guilt. Libby will be the innocent martyr for these people, showing once more how Democrats and Libertarians alike are nothing but the scum of the earth, and Republicans are the finest, most upstanding gentlemen.

I may be wrong. I hope I'm wrong. Innocent or guilty, I seriously jope a public trial is held. I don't believe it will be.

jc

bonkey

pete wrote:

AFAIk the 5th amendment gives protection against self-incrimination, not a catch-all right to silence.

And, IIRC, the judge may compel you to give your reasoning for pleadiong the 5th in private, at which point he will decide if it is indeed sufficient grounds to prevent you from testifying in front of witnesses.

Outside of the 5th, holding silent is typically called contempt of court. The name Judith Miller springs to mind.

jc

lazydaisy

Actually intent is very important - it's the difference between the accused being mistaken and deliberately out to deceive. And yes they do have to prove it.

I know the Michael Jackson trial is not the same problem. I'm not in special ed you know. I was illustrating how hard the burden of proof is despite how much evidence prosecution has. Dont forget OJ Simpson either. The prosecution may feel that there is no doubt, but a defense team can raise sufficient reasonable doubt to clear a non-guilty verdict. Its all about what the jury perceives. Im not a mind reader, I have no idea what the prosecution thinks. They may think they have solid irrefutable evidence or they may be just taking a stab at it and hoping for the best. I dont see the point in having fantasies about what is going through these people's minds.

Why do you want a public trial, by that you mean televised?

Pleading the fifth in this case will probably, depending on the judge and hard to say here - because the judge apparantly is pretty hard core, be given some room because of the whole national security issue.

lazydaisy

Here's a copy of the indictment for anyone who is interested or wants to know more from Fitzgeralds office at the Department of Justice.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/

sceptre

lazydaisy wrote:

Actually intent is very important - it's the difference between the accused being mistaken and deliberately out to deceive. And yes they do have to prove it.

The prosecution case basically accuses Libby of lying about when and where he found out about Valerie Plame Wilson's covert CIA identity and then telling journalists about it (rather than as he says, hearing from journalists about it). To prove that they don't have to demonstrate any intent, malicious or otherwise, merely that he wasn't telling the truth about when he found out and who he told.

Note that Libby hasn't been accused of breaking the terms of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, specifically the section dealing with knowingly revealing the identity of CIA operative. Nor has he been accused under the Espionage Act. Patrick Fitzgerald's been very clear that the reason he hasn't made a charge under either is because both have a strict interpretation requiring knowledge and intent to be proved, specifically that he knew at the time of transmission or communication that it was classified information and that he transmitted or communicated that information recklessly.

What he's been accused of doesn't require the passage through the always-difficult process of proof of intent. Essentially if the order of events is proved by the prosecution, Libby falls afoul of what's essentially strict liability under the three US codes under which his five indictments have been made. All without even hazarding a guess as to intent or even speculating on the existence of intent. Except for lying under oath. If the order of events is demonstrated to be as the prosecution team maintains he gets done for that too.

I'll say this much for Fitzgerald - whether you like his style or not (and I assume there are suddenly many Republicans who don't), his investigation cost has reached about 700k at this point. Which sounds like a lot until you remember that Kenny Starr's cost over 50 million and produced little but an entertaining summer and a dress that needed dry cleaning.

lazydaisy

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9059279?query=perjury&ct=

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/perjury

Here is a definition of perjury from 2 sources. Believe me I am not lying to you --- that is willfully trying to deceive you. They are charging him with perjury and not with being mistaken which means they have to prove intent. There are a million other sources which will confirm this definition.

sceptre

lazydaisy wrote:

They are charging him with perjury and not with being mistaken which means they have to prove intent. There are a million other sources which will confirm this definition.

All they need to show is that the statement made under oath was false, that Libby knew it to be false and that it concerned a matter that was material to the investigation. That comes from the US DOJ handbook for prosecutors referenced in the Washington Post last Friday. That's all they need to prove - they don't need to prove why Libby did it, they don't need to prove an underlying crime. Just that it was false and that he knew it to be false.

Now, given that this is the way it is, is there a possibility that I've misinterpreted what you mean by "intent"? I've stated here numerous times (unfortunately usually in a mod capacity while making rulings on accusations by posters) that no-one is lying unless they're either making a statement presented as fact that is untrue and that they know to be untrue or in a vaguer sense are making a statement presented as fact that is untrue where they're being reckless enough that they don't care whether it's true or not. Obviously the latter is harder to prove either here or for Libby so they'll presumably be seeking to prove the former in Libby's case.

Of course there are the other charges to consider as well, the perjury charges only make up part of the whole. Perjury's the big bad word that gets the headlines I suppose.

lazydaisy

Quoted from the boards.ie politics guidelines thread -

If you are going to level allegations of lying at another poster, please be willing to prove that they are lying - that they deliberately intend to deceive.

This is what I mean by intention and what the US law means by intention when it comes to perjury or lying under oath. They have to prove that the misinformation was deliberate and willfull. What do you mean by intent?

sceptre

lazydaisy wrote:

This is what I mean by intention and what the US law means by intention when it comes to perjury or lying under oath. They have to prove that the misinformation was deliberate and willfull. What do you mean by intent?

I've made it clear using US prosecution guidelines what has to be demonstrated to be so for that particular indictment to stick above, I've no intention of using an dictionary reference (even one from a site with a fine name like "legal-dictionary.com") or the boards.ie politics guidelines to debate what they have to prove as no-one's going to be referencing either in court when they've got their own guidelines to work with. Having said that, if the boards.ie politics guidelines are what you meant, keeping in mind that under those guidelines it's enough for someone to make a false statement and present it as factually true when they can demonstrably be shown to have known at the time that the statement was false, then that's what I've been working with as what needs to be demonstrated (as can be plainly seen from what I've posted). Can I assume that people are in general agreement that this is where the burden of proof lies with the added requirement of it being a material statement? That and nothing more?

lazydaisy

they can demonstrably be shown to have known at the time that the statement was false,

That's intent.

Here's an entertaining perspective on the whole thing if you're interested.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/27/AR2005102701857.html

bonkey

lazydaisy wrote:

Here's an entertaining perspective on the whole thing if you're interested.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/27/AR2005102701857.html

Excellent piece. Very funny.

Only one bit niggled...

Why should Scooter Libby go to jail -- involuntarily -- for having a conversation with you that you think the Constitution should protect and even encourage?

He shouldn't. But that's not what he's been charged with, so whats it got to do with anything?

jc

sceptre

lazydaisy wrote:

they can demonstrably be shown to have known at the time that the statement was false,

That's intent.

How's about this: because I've illustrated that what needs to be proved for these specific indictments is A, B and C (see above) and because, despite wasting time on it so far, I'm not interested in fannying about over whether a word includes a sub-definition of X or Y when all I need to know is what needs to be proved, which I do, heck, which I've demonstrated to be true, it does indeed mean intent. I've dedicated enough time to this irrelevancy already, keeping my position crystal clear all the time. Now that this presumably distracting issue is out of the way, leaving people utterly free to discuss the other three indictments on the table in a meaningful way, as well as the two for making false statements, if no-one's thinking of answering no" to the two questions I closed my last post above with then I'm done till someone has something interesting or relevant to say.

TomF

It grows more bizarre by the day. Now I read that the saintly Bob Woodward, gray eminence of Watergate fame with the Washington Post newspaper (Washington, D.C.) revealed recently that someone else told him about Valerie Plame-Wilson being a CIA operative before Libby may have told another somebody else. Woodward also thinks it is possible that he is the one who originally told Libby about her being in the CIA, and that the two of them may have thought they were indulging in ordinary Washington D.C. gossip.

Could this be the begin of the fizzle-out of the whole "Get Karl Rove" affair?

billy the squid

doubtful, here is what fitzgerald said at the indidtment press conference last month

Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when [syndicated columnist] Mr. [Robert] Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003.

But Mr. Novak was not the first reporter to be told that Wilson's wife, Valerie [Plame] Wilson, Ambassador Wilson's wife Valerie, worked at the CIA. Several other reporters were told.

In fact, Mr. Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter when he talked to Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson.

Like quoted above, the investigation into the whole affair was aware of the fact that several reporters knew.

For all we know Rove could have told woodward.

bonkey

TomF wrote:

Could this be the begin of the fizzle-out of the whole "Get Karl Rove" affair?

I'm always amused at all-but-dead threads being brought back to life to ask if the topic is dying out.

I would also ne remiss if I didn't point out that Libby's indictment is a seperate issue to who leaked what and why.

Ajnag

Ahh but in an ongoing case it's a question worth asking

For those who are intrested, this site has pretty good on-going coverage of the case:
www.rawstory.com

TomF

I'm amused, too, but by how this whole thing is slowly draining-away as an issue to remove Karl Rove from his position as Bush advisor. Here is the latest I've seen:

"But [Bob Woodward] has repeatedly emphasized on talk shows and in interviews that when all the facts become known, the Plame affair will be seen as much ado about very little."

"So who is ... Woodward's source—and why will his identity take the wind out of the brewing storm? ... former deputy secretary of State Richard Armitage...was one of a handful of top officials who had access to the information. He is an old source and friend of Woodward's, and he fits Novak's description of his source as "not a partisan gunslinger." Woodward has indicated that he knows the identity of Novak's source, which further suggests his source and Novak's were one and the same.

If Armitage was the original leaker, that undercuts the argument that outing Plame was a plot by the hard-liners in the veep's office to 'out' Plame. Armitage was, if anything, a foe of the neocons who did not want to go to war in Iraq. He had no motive to discredit Wilson. ... last month, Woodward was dismissive of the special prosecutor's investigation, suggesting that the original leak was not the result of a 'smear campaign' but rather a 'kind of gossip, as chatter ... I don't see an underlying crime here.'"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10117465/site/newsweek/

bonkey

TomF wrote:

I'm amused, too, but by how this whole thing is slowly draining-away as an issue to remove Karl Rove from his position as Bush advisor.

I wouldn't be too sure on it draining away. Although it didn't seem to get much media-coverage (although I was offline - in RL too - pretty much all weekend), It appears that Fitzgerald has apparently said he will be calling a second grand jury.

It should be remembered that no matter how some would like to see this whole investigation as "going after Rove", it should be remembered that there is no indication whatsoever that Fitzgerald is doing any such thing.

He is attempting to find the truth of what happened. He is also not permitted to make those findings public, which undermines any suggestion that the purpose of the investigation was to smear anyone, unless there are indictments ensuing.

So if this was ever a "get Rove" campaign, it could only be so if Rove were to be indicted, and from all evidence, Fitzgerald is not the type to call for indictment lightly to curry political favour with the Democrats (or any faction for that matter).

This may all fizzle, of course, but it is dissapointing that any interest in seeing that due dilligence has been paid with respect to the law and what occurred is demeaned by being assumed to be a smear- or hatchet-job.

former deputy secretary of State Richard Armitage...

Seen his name mentioned in a number of speculative articles in the past couple of days alright.

I wonder should Armitage find Fitzgerald going after him, will any reactions change? Will supporters turn to opposers? Will dismissers suddenly agree on how important it was to get to the truth, should Rove et al be cleared?

Me...I'll wait to see what is determined at the end, and judge it on both what was adjudged to have occurred. As it is unlikely that we will ever see a public report on the findings, it will be effectively impossible to judge them themselves.