Lawyers in CIA-leak case say charges possible this week

?

The GJ usually meets on M, W, F.

If he's asking the GJ to come in on a Tues, there must be a good reason.

All grown up now.

"making false statements, obstruction of justice and disclosing classified information."

If that's all Fitzmas will indict them on,the whole country is SCREWED. The more SERIOUS crime these thugs have committed is LYING to everybody about the reasons for taking us into WAR and then COVERING IT UP. I will be totally sick to my stomach if they get by with killing all these innocent Iraqi people and almost 2000 of our troops and God knows how many more and they are not going to have to pay for it. I don't feel so good about these "indictments" after hearing and reading about them being indicted on all these lesser charges.

How can we accept anything less than PRISON for these murderers? I'll bet they all get off with just a slap on the wrist. Look at what they have done already and they are STILL in office running rampant. Grrrrr.... :argh: :grr: :puke:

of justice and disclosing classified information -- which suggests there could be other charges as well. These are all extremely serious offenses, which DO involve lying to everybody about the reasons for the war and covering it up. Disclosing classified information in particular carries a prison sentence. Without looking at the federal sentencing guidelines I couldn't say how long a sentence, but if these pricks are convicted, they definitely could be looking at significant jail time.

Than the other way around.

I am trying to lower the expectations for what I think will happen this week.

That way, I won't be disappointed. And I will be extremely overjoyed if he comes back with charges of treason, violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, etc.

and then being excited when it's bigger then we thought and he throws in some surprise we didn't see coming.

and he did hard time in Alcatraz.

You are speaking of a law with teeth, lying to the FBI is a felony. Each lie is a separate count.

I thought it was Atlanta.

He may have been in Atlanta at one time, but he was most definitely one of the most notorious residents of Alcatraz.

He started in Atlanta, but was moved to The Rock.

A bit about his time in Atlanta:

"Before arriving at Alcatraz, Capone had been a master at manipulating his environment at the Federal Penitentiary in Atlanta. Despite strict convictions from the courts, Capone was always able to persuade his keepers into procuring his every whim, and often dictated his own privileges. It was said that he had convinced many guards to work for him, and his cell boasted expensive furnishings which included personal bedding along with many other amenities not extended to other inmates serving lesser crimes. His cell was carpeted, and also had a radio around which many of the guards would sit with Al conversing and listening to their favorite radio serials. His friends and family maintained residence in a nearby hotel, and each day he was flooded with visitors."

http://www.alcatrazhistory.com/cap1.htm

Perjury and obstruction are "spinnable" charges.

I'm very worried that true justice won't be served.

But don't throw in the towel just yet. Think about the damage Fitzgerald has already done to this administration. As Washington bites its nails, the stress level must be in the stratosphere.

They're probably fighting amongst themselves, pointing fingers and accusing each other. Meanwhile, nothing gets done at the White House. They're all preparing their RIP's on their political gravestone. The world watches and holds its breath.

The facade has been stripped away. We all see them for who they are: plunderers and thieves.

"Passing classified information" is the charge prosecutors often fall back on when they do not want to risk a not-guilty verdict because the standard of proof of treason cannot be met. A good example of this is Hansen, obviously guilty of treason, but presented with facing the charge of passing classified information, which was, if you pardon the expression, a "slam dunk" for the slammer. His attorney, Plato Cacharis (not sure of that spelling) negotiated a deal for him which left his family in a much better position than if Hansen had merely been convicted.

If Fitzgerald pursues this charge, I believe a lot of the indicted parties will start negotiating (if they haven't already) fast and furiously. Thus, we might see a quicker resolution and a faster exit of some of the neocons.

Also stated in the Reuters article:
<snip>
Another possibility was for Fitzgerald to bring a broad conspiracy charge, the lawyers said.

?

any info beyond what the article said. I just found it significant that such a major msm news source was talking about conspiracy charges. Something we surely were not hearing just a short time ago.

I did read somewhere, someone speculating about RICO being applied, but that was purely speculative and I have no source for that. EVERYTHING is really speculative right now.

The Bush Crime Family deserves no less.

But, let's not get ahead of ourselves. We need to find out what Fitgerald's GOT first!

The suspense is driving me nuts! LOL

get their Mug shots taken at???

...which it is written. The writer seems to be tiptoeing through a minefield, e-e-e-ever so careful not to make one misstep. This may possibly be because Fitzgerald has been so tight-lipped, giving reporters almost nothing to go on. They are reduced to reading entrails--('Ah! the GJ "could convene" TUESDAY, what does THAT mean?'). Except for Rove's lawyer, who discloses absolutely nothing, the sources are never described beyond "lawyers involved in (the) case," who, of course, have an interest in shaping the story, may not be all that reliable, and certainly don't want to say anything earthshaking, or be identified as saying anything at all.

The meat of the article starts way at the bottom of page one and includes the subtitle, "Investigation expanded." Notice the "hot" paragraph at the end.

------------------------

The article continues (from the post above)...

------------------------

"Another possibility was for Fitzgerald to bring a broad conspiracy charge, the lawyers said.

"INVESTIGATION EXPANDED

"Lawyers said Fitzgerald has sent several signals in recent days that he is likely to bring indictments in the case. For the first time, Fitzgerald has set up an official Web site, http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/ which included a February 6, 2004, requested by Fitzgerald that gave him Justice Department authorization for expansion of the probe.

"The letter from then-Deputy Attorney General James Comey gave Fitzgerald added authority to investigate and prosecute 'federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, your investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses.'

"This comes on top of Fitzgerald's authority to investigate and prosecute officials for the 'unauthorized disclosure' of Plame's identity.

"Former independent counsel Robert Ray said on Fox News Sunday that Fitzgerald appeared to be 'shoring up his mandate,' and to focus on whether or not there were attempts to obstruct the investigation.

"'People better be ready for charges,' said Abbe Lowell, a prominent criminal defense lawyer.

"Indictments would be stinging blow to an administration already at a low point in public opinion, and would put a spotlight on aggressive tactics used by the White House to counter critics of its Iraq policy."

Page one:
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2005-10-23T161616Z_01_MOR119416_RTRUKOC_0_US-BUSH-LEAK.xml

Page two:
http://today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=uri:2005-10-23T161616Z_01_MOR119416_RTRUKOC_0_US-BUSH-LEAK.xml&pageNumber=1&summit=


---------------------------------------


(Caution: I wouldn't read this article either way, as to how much the investigation has been expanded, or who may be charged with what. I think the reporter genuinely doesn't know. Nobody's talking. And he has to go to outside lawyers to get a decent quote. He goes over the case against Rove and Libby--but doesn't go near the 10 to 20 other indictments we know are possible. The article does have a feel--as I said--of a minefield. It also sizzles, in a way--as if a great big cauldron were boiling beneath it all, heated by the fires of hell. But maybe that's just me.)

about "a broad conspiracy charge," and that that may be a late arrival into the newsstream, and the potential bombshell. I think the organization of this article is very interesting--for instance, putting that potential charge so low on page one--and not saying how damaging this coud be to the regime until the very end.

the way that the country as a whole is looking at this thing, no?

the reason for Fitzs to remain silent lays in the size of his investigation- but a reporter couldn't report without stalwart hints...

are paying attention, or even care!

conference, they will ALL sit up and take notice. This is going to be a bombshell.

They didn't know anything. Of course they don't pay attention to politics anyway but when Clinton was battling with the repukes.... they knew about that. I wonder why? Is it because it was about sex?

or even charged with CRIMES and RESIGNING because of it, well, now, that's pretty damn straightforward.

most people tend to believe that if you've been convicted, you're guilty. so.

on edit: and of course, as long as we're counting chickens, (or chickenhawks...) ideally what would happen next is that the media/public conversation, hopefully led by the now talktative-again Dems, turns to the underlying issues driving this, namely, THEY LIED AND FUCKED PEOPLE OVER TO START WAR IN IRAQ. which means, painful as it is to admit, not only is it going really badly, we are there for NO GOOD REASON IN THE DAMN FIRST PLACE, NONE WHATSOEVER. YOUR KIDS DIED FOR NOTHING. And these guys sent them there, knowing full well what they were doing, and not caring.

now that's simple enough to understand. it's just hard because people don't *want* to. but conceptually? lying to you so that you'd send your kids to die in a foreign country for nothing? hard to get much balder than that.

Put criminals in jail. In order to do that, sometimes they must go for the crime, often out of a menu of choices, that will actually end in conviction. There's a lot a prosecutor has to consider (besides, of course, guilt or innocence):

- Do I have enough to present to the Grand Jury?
- Will any indictments result in a trial?
- If so, how strong a case can be presented to a jury, and what is the liklihood of conviction?
- How far am I willing to go to give "deals" in exchange for testimony?

The system is far from perfect, but an honest prosecutor won't waste his time and the public's money with something that just won't fly. As someone said, Treason is extremely difficult to prove....intent has to be there, for one thing.

I just want these thugs in jail, and however Fitz can eventually bring that about, I'm all for. Lying to a Grand Jury, obstruction of justice are very serious charges. And despite what the chattering class are saying, these folks know it.

criminal defense lawyer."
I 'been ready for 5 years, now, Abbe.

More cowbell!!!

WASHINGTON, Oct. 23 - After a 22-month inquiry, the special counsel in the C.I.A. leak case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, is expected to announce this week whether he will seek indictments against White House officials, a decision that is likely to be a defining moment of President Bush's second term.

Karl Rove, the senior White House adviser, and I. Lewis Libby Jr., who is Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, have been advised that they are in serious legal jeopardy in a case that began as a minor irritant for the president's aides but has grown into a raging conflagration for the White House.

It is not publicly known when Mr. Fitzgerald will take action, if any, but whatever he decides, the prosecutor is expected to make an announcement before Friday, the final day of the term of his grand jury. In the past, the grand jury has met on Wednesdays and Fridays



http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/23/national/23cnd-leak.html?hp&ex=1130126400&en=40286f32cef50c43&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Woo Hoooo!!!!!

Make this country proud!

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald appears to be laying the groundwork for indictments this week over the outing of a covert CIA operative, including possible charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, lawyers and other sources involved in case said on Sunday.

In a preview of how Republicans would counter charges against top administration officials by Fitzgerald, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas brushed aside an indictment for perjury -- rather than for the underlying crime of outing a covert operative -- as a "technicality."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/23/AR2005102300441.html

I think they are preparing for perjury ("perjury technicality").

Why should it be now? Oh...shit...I forgot...this is a REPUBLICAN adminsitrstion. Hpw can I be so stoopid?

Fitz had the evidence to bring up charges on actually leaking instead of just lying and covering up about leaking. Knowingly outing a CIA agent in a time of war could be called treason I would think.

Well, we shall see.

Mz Pip
:dem:

Really? Somebody expects him to decide whether to seek indictments? Wow! That's something I hadn't thought of...that he would decide whether or not to seek indictments! Hoooboy...

CYOA, I suppose... :)

loose ends. Go, Fitz!

... they act as though Fitz is still "deciding". What are the chances of that? It didn't take 22 months to see if there was something there. It took that long to fit ALL the pieces together.

There's a reason that these honchos in the WH are shaking in their boots, they KNOW the indictments are coming.

They got the inside scoop that Fitzgerald will announce this week, the last week of the grand jury. Shocking. It looks like they might be having some trouble covering this story without Judith Miller's secret sources.

WHAT LAWYERS???? WHOSE LAWYERS????

Not Fitz and his asst. prosecutors,...I'm pretty sure.

This kind of shit makes my toes draw up.

You just gotta' know that EVERY SINGLE INDIVIDUAL (30+) who has been questioned or testified has a lawyer.

UGH!!! :rofl:

On the other hand, when I imagine how many pro-lyin'-pukes are involved in this conspiracy,...I LMAO at the fact they are each and every one prolly feeling something close to the "guilt" they should have held when they fucked over the American people. Of course, they feel no "guilt". They are only afraid of their own asses being chewed up and spit out by a justice system even they cannot control.

Gawd. I do NOT hate people,...but I do feel passionate about crushing those who, carelessly and without conscience, deceive and betray and take advantage of others. Their game is,...exploitation.

I hope they are CRUSHED,...those grossly amoral human predators!!!!

rant OFF

With a decision expected this week on possible indictments in the C.I.A. leak case, allies of the White House suggested Sunday that they intended to pursue a strategy of attacking any criminal charges as a disagreement over legal technicalities or the product of an overzealous prosecutor.

Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special counsel in the case, is expected to announce by the end of the week whether he will seek indictments against White House officials in a decision that is likely to be a defining moment of President Bush's second term. The case has put many in the White House on edge.

(snip)

President Bush said several weeks ago that Mr. Fitzgerald had handled the case in "a very dignified way," making it more difficult for Republicans to portray him negatively.

But allies of the White House have quietly been circulating talking points in recent days among Republicans sympathetic to the administration, seeking to help them make the case that bringing charges like perjury mean the prosecutor does not have a strong case, one Republican with close ties to the White House said Sunday. Other people sympathetic to Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby have said that indicting them would amount to criminalizing politics and that Mr. Fitzgerald did not understand how Washington works.

Some Republicans have also been reprising a theme that was often sounded by Democrats during the investigations into President Bill Clinton, that special prosecutors and independent counsels lack accountability and too often pursue cases until they find someone to charge.

more…
http://nytimes.com/2005/10/24/politics/24leak.html?hp&ex=1130126400&en=5b13878cbd9535b7&ei=5094&partner=homepage

isn't it a good thing to pursue it until you find the right people to charge?

ken starr, who thought he was a star..but turns out he was just a hack.

WASHINGTON, Oct. 23 - With a decision expected this week on possible indictments in the C.I.A. leak case, allies of the White House suggested Sunday that they intended to pursue a strategy of attacking any criminal charges as a disagreement over legal technicalities or the product of an overzealous prosecutor.

Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special counsel in the case, is expected to announce by the end of the week whether he will seek indictments against White House officials in a decision that is likely to be a defining moment of President Bush's second term. The case has put many in the White House on edge.

Karl Rove, the senior White House adviser, and I. Lewis Libby Jr., who is Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, have been advised that they are in serious legal jeopardy. Other officials could also face charges in connection with the disclosure of the identity of an undercover C.I.A. officer in 2003.

more..

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/24/politics/24leak.html?hp&ex=1130126400&en=5b13878cbd9535b7&ei=5094&partner=homepage

This ALMOST makes up for the Election Fraud in '04, and all that Innaugural "polital capital"nonsense.

Now Dems can actually start watching cable news again...with popcorn in hand, and smile, smile, smile.

:kick: