He wouldn’t pursue it in a trial, for the fact that there are so many prinicpals involved, just to get one indictment. Anything can happen, and given that there are multiple grand jury testimonies, the liklihood of the witnesses he would need to make the case, not mistating again…

The deal would include no jail time, and Libby admitting to the fact that he misled prosecutors-obstruction. Fitzgerald gets his out-an indictment to satify the left, and no complaints from the right for the fact that Rove is saved.

In that hypothetical-Libby is offerred a deal, with the promise that this would be the only indictment-what would be the opinion of Cheney, Rove, and W?

Cut your losses? If Libby takes the hypothetical deal-is it good or bad?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/18/AR2005101801489.html

“…so far, in the accounts given by reporters about their conversations with administration officials, no such crime has been described. What has been depicted is an administration effort to refute the allegations of a critic (some of which did in fact prove to be untrue) and to undermine his credibility, including by suggesting that nepotism rather than qualifications led to his selection. If such conversations are deemed a crime, journalism and the public will be the losers.”

or the Slate/Weisberg article…
http://www.slate.com/id/2128301/

“Rooting for Rove’s indictment in this case isn’t just unseemly, it’s unthinking and ultimately self-destructive. Anyone who cares about civil liberties, freedom of information, or even just fair play should have been skeptical about Fitzgerald’s investigation from the start. Claiming a few conservative scalps might be satisfying, but they’ll come at a cost to principles liberals hold dear: the press’s right to find out, the government’s ability to disclose, and the public’s right to know. ”

linked at Instapundit yesterday…

Seems the lack of crime is starting to sink in, with the cooler heads starting to weigh in…I bet Fitzgerald is being made aware of the significance of seeking indictments on this matter.

I would love to defend any of the potential indictments in court. Fitzgerald would not want to attatch his name to such prosecution.

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200510190902.asp

The title:
“Indicted? For What?”

some key elements from his story?

the 1918 espionage act:

“Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it;”

York offers that-

“In addition, if the case focused solely on the disclosure of classified information to those who are not authorized to receive it, administration defenders might well argue that ambassador Joseph Wilson, the man whose wife’s CIA identity was exposed in the matter, has done something similar. While that argument might on the surface appear plausible, on closer scrutiny it is not clear whether it applies to Wilson’s actions.

The CIA has never released the written report made from Wilson’s February 2002 fact-finding trip to Niger. (Wilson himself did not write a report, but the agency wrote up his conclusions from his oral report on the matter.) The document has not been released, apparently, because it is classified.”

If Fitzgerald does not address this in a report or in his indictments-the defense will pick the Wilsons apart if it went to trial. The jury will be less than sympathetic to a guy complaining about his wife’s name being leaked against the subtle(or not so subtle) inferences that she was leaking info to her husband, who was going to the press.

There is a reason the left hates Miller, she was their last chance at proving the obscure…and that chance is gone.

Fitzgerald has another case involving Miller. Apparently there was a Islamic group that was a front ‘charity’ that Fitzgerald was going to move in on. Supposedly Miller got the leak, and called the Charity to ask questions, they realized they were being investigated, and bolted a day before the Feds showed up.

I’m pretty sure that ftizgerald was the one pursuing the arrests. He has no love for Judy Miller. IT also demonstrates that he himself has been a victim of leaks, and may stir his angst. Angst directed against the press? Who really haven’t been helpful in this current case. Angst against leakers-and remember there are two sets-the ones who supposedly leaked Plame’s name, and those at the CIA who were leaking information to discredit the President.

A CIA working against change?
http://www.insightmag.com/media/paper441/news/2004/07/19/Politics/Analysis.Cia.Dismay.At.Porter.Goss.Nomination.As.Dcia-702153.shtml

or a CIA that was clearly leaking?
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/11/15/1100384499094.html?from=storylhs

excerpt below-

“The Republican senator John McCain has slammed the CIA as “dysfunctional” and a “rogue” organisation after moves to reform the agency have been met with resignations and threats to quit.

“This kind of shake-up is absolutely necessary,” Senator McCain said in an interview with This Week on the American Broadcasting Corporation .

He said the CIA provided President George Bush with poor intelligence on Iraq, and that it had also been responsible for some of the most damaging “leaks” to the media during the election campaign.”

(Much credit, if not all to Mac’s Mind-
http://macsmind.blogspot.com/ )

I think it very likely that Fitzgerald does see the role of Plame in a much larger context. IT was clearly the Whitehouse v. CIA, and not Whitehouse v. Wilson/(Plame).

To bring an indictment against the WH is too much vindication for the rogue faction within the CIA, and would be doing the work of the leakers.

Requests for the Special Prosecutor to investigate do not have to be made publicly, once convened.
It is possible for any member of the Senate Intelligence Committee to request of the Prosecutor to examine these other ‘leaks’.

Tenet could have requested that it be done, when he initated the Special Prosecutor. At the time of his request-he was defending the use of the 16 words-and clearly had mixed reports. If there were some discrepancies, it would have been his job to point them out-rather than having it leaked for him. Clearly the media does not have the template of the requested investigation-the Plame issue is, imho, just one aspect.

(To some extent-Gergen and Buchanan agree-to paraphrase Gergen-’there is some hidden aspect of this, that will become clear, but is not presently seen…’)

As a further aside-compare this case to Martha Stewart’s-

Clearly she had done insider trading-and then lied to the prosecutors. The best they could get was obstruction, but they also knew that she had committed the larger crime of insider trading. She was guilty in the eyes of the prosecution, and they took a simple path to conviction.

I have seen no proof that Rove could be found guilty, even in the eyes of the Prosecutor, of outing a CIA agent, that may have been complicit in her own outing (or had it done by her husband). The smoking gun would have to be Rove (and/or Libby) saying that she was an undercover operative-which would undercut their belief that she was an analyst who was in a position to get her husband the job, and whose husband later leaked, to discredit an investigation.

If Fitzgerald believed there is a larger crime-he would be more inclined to pursue the obstruction charges…but he really doesn’t know. He doesn’t find a compelling victim, unless Plame was an undercover agent, whose exposure would jeopardize others…

Larry Johnson doesn’t strike me as being even close to credible. Disgruntled? yep. Fitzgerald is asking himself-”Who wanted this and why?” “Who caused this and why?”

“Can I honestly get a solid conviction?” Nope.
(Sorry dems-an indictment may be a good thing in you eyes, but given the fiasco that is becoming Ronnie Earle-Fitzgerald doesn’t want to stake his reputation to it. A trial would allow for the cross examination of Plame and Wilson, and unless they appear to have been publicly truthful, along with not lying to the investigators(that would cause the defense to question why his clients were being pursued for obstruction of justice, but not the states witnesses…)

It is a loser case, fitzgerald knows it, and he wants out. No report, no indictments.

Rice for Cheney and Mehlman for Rove?

Very interesting speculation. I agree with Mark per Mehlman, and I like Rice too, in spite of her Arabist pronouncements of late.

But although I still have the greatest respect for GWB, I’ve pretty much always wished that it had been Cheney/Bush instead of the other way around.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-salah18.html

Seems to me I know less today than I did yesterday, and today is only 25 minutes old.

A report would be a source of speculation, and disagreement about why Fitgerald did not pursue would be in constant discussion. It would seem that fitzgerald has found crimes, but is weighing whether they justify action/and have the evidence to support.

Cooper said Rove never gave him Plame’s name. Novak said Rove only confirmed, but did not provide the name. Miller remembers discussing it with Libby, but can’t remember if he told her. Apparently the aspens are rooted together. So…after the three witnesses for the press cleared Rove, and to some extent Libby, the questions remains that they(R&L) did not tell the full truth, initally. However, the perjury charge requires that the effort to mislead is on-going, and if witnesses later ‘remember’, it is an extremely hard case to make. Which leads to obstruction-which is the third rock away from the inital investigation.

And to prove that third element-you only have to rely upon the three reporters, who can’t recall or have denied Rove and Libby as sources. Who esle is left that can name somebody? Probably the reason the dems are circulating Hannah, right now-without a solid witness-lord knows Cooper/Novak/Miller didn’t help them.

Rove returned to perform damage control, and undercut Fitzgerald’s chance of getting perjury. Given the weakness of the case and the witnesses, the thought of bringing an indictment against the advisor’s to the President or Veep is a tough slog-it may gratify the dems on the short term, but the likelihood of getting a successful conviction has to weigh in Fitzgerald’s mind.

I think AJ, is right about the hidden investigation. MSNBC ran the subtitle ” CIA LEAK PROBE”-seems to be self explanatory to me-but not to them.

But all the above is based upon this NYT report… so take it with a mole of salt.

This is just maddening. My tea leaves are all worn out.