Fitzgerald needs to ask for an extension to this investigation...

With yesterday's story about Libby getting his information from Cheney, it is now obvious that this story is bigger than just Rove and Libby. It needs to be investigated further. Although many here would like to see the indictments today, I think it would serve justice if Fitzgerald called for an extension.
==============================================================

By the way, Katrina thinks similarly:
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?pid=30583

knew this a long time ago and it's been factored into his decisions.

IMO he will extend his investigation if he feels it is warranted.

But, frankly, I think the opening of a website is sort of indicative of wanting to share basic information with the public. That seems to me to indicate the approaching end to the Plame investigation.

he didn't know about this a year ago?

Just because this info is being leaked now (by defense attorneys) doesn't mean it is just now known to Fitzgerald.

But if not, I would approve his call for an extension. Although it would be tough to see this investigation going on right up to next year's election...

since your post is the rare voice of reason on this subject:

What do you think will happen to the DU site if no indictments are returned by the grand jury?

(I'm amusing myself this morning ...........)

an implosion of epic proportions, no doubt. :nuke:

P.S. It's good to amuse ourselves. :toast:

I'm thinking we might start setting up those First Aid Stations, just in case.

<rummaging through trunks for Florence Nightingale thong and pasties>

:applause:

you in a Florence Nightingale thong. ;-)

edited for capitalization...yes I AM that OC-AR.

In LeftieWorld, it's called "attention to detail," and - you'll like this - my first novel was published without one change in punctuation.

I know you'll appreciate that.

Now, I'm thinking Florence Nightingale muu-muu......................

being a former editor myself. :hi:

get over it. :shrug:

I know there were a lot of folks here who dropped into seriously deep depressions and anxiety states for more than a few months after Kerry got the 2004 election stolen from him. I found that more than a little troubling.

But, if no indictments, what would be the next rallying point, I wonder.......?

health.

I've been thinking about it for awhile now. I've tried to support causes that seemed worthy, but it seems the more I find out, the more depressed I get. I'm trying not to get too excited about "Fitzmas" but I really want a glimmer of hope. :shrug:

After November, 2004, I cancelled the newspapers and quit watching TV news of all kinds. A couple of months later, I restarted the papers, but I still don't watch the news or search the Internet for political news. I get good leads here on DU.

But, yeah, I know exactly what you mean about losing heart. It's just about impossible to keep going when you seem to be taking one step up and two steps down. Plus, things are never as they seem.

It would be good if wrongdoing took place (see, I'm not convinced it did) that those people would be brought to justice, but the truth is that I have a deep and gnawing feeling that nothing will come of this.

If that's the case, I'm out of it all for good.

I can't wait on Fitzmas any more.

Just in case.

There could be no indictments.

Keep that in mind.

Fitzgerald has shut down investigations in short order, in the past, when it became clear there was no serious violations, or that the trail was too cold to pursue. He's done it more than a few times here in Illinois.

This seems like an awfully long investigation, given his history, for nothing to result.

Not saying you're wrong. It's certainly possible that no indictments will be issued by the GJ, but the very length and width of the work, to date, would indicate he's found something.

The Professor

But, for now, given that no two investigations - in fact, no two cases - are ever the same, and Washington is different from any other place on earth, I'd still say the odds of indictments coming out of this grand jury - right now - are exactly even with no indictments coming out of this grand jury.

It's not all, you see, about Fitzgerald.

It's about the grand jury.

And, as I said, Washington is like no other place on earth where legal matters are concerned.

So, be prepared for anything.

I just know what i've seen of Fitzgerald's work in the past. But, your caution is wise and warranted.
The Professor

already, I strongly suspect he does and that is why the leak has appeared at this time. He has been investigating this for almost two years and his questioning of Miller included questions of Cheney's part in the leak.

Uh.

That's what you do with taxes.

Fitzgerald does not hand down indictments.

This might be a really good time for Americans to educate themselves on how the grand jury works.

Grand juries, not prosecutors, "hand down" indictments. However, my understanding is that they only do so if the prosecutor suggests. In other words, both the jury and the prosecutor must agree. I suppose a grand jury could make indictments that the prosecutor doesn't like, but it would be pointless, since the prosecutor can move to dismiss charges.

I was trying to search for synonyms that might apply for "hand down" (though that one escaped me) that would be more varied than the usual "bring" or "make". I think I've heard "lay indictments on" somebody used.

Well, actually, I'm just plain correct. Using the word "technically" in this context puts you squarely in the Kay Bailey Hutchinson School Of Wrong Language, and I'm sure you don't want to be there.

Actually, indictments are issued. They are at the discretion of the grand jury. The grand jury works independently.

I would urge people to learn about the grand jury system. It's quite Draconian. People would be surprised at what's legal in our legal system.

"... lay indictments on ..."? That's a new one. If Ernest Angley were a grand jury, I suppose, that would work.

First you say "handed down" and then you say "issued". Which is it? Make up your mind, please.

I am not in the "Kay Bailey Hutchinson School Of Wrong Language". We can use the word technically, because that means "in fact". To say you are technically right doesn't mean that you aren't right in other ways as well. Get off your high horse. If you are going to fuss about use of language, then you should do your research and spell the Senator's name correctly, or else you are the pot calling the kettle black.

Instead of saying I am wrong and people need to be educated (of course we do), why don't you do some educating. You could start by addressing my supposition that in practice, both the prosecutor and the grand jury must agree to the charges.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You are all over the page.

I would like to know how you think. It's kind of interesting, since it's not behavior with which I'm familiar.

What would cause you to think that you could make such a demand of anyone, instead of doing the research yourself?

Why would you not go and find out about the subject, and then, if you had questions, direct them to someone who might know about the subject?

What an interesting thing you did. I've never seen anyone do anything like that. Remarkable.

Don't worry we can have our Fitzmas now and the gifts can keep coming.

Only the grand jury can hand down indictments.

And, you might keep in mind that no one knows anything. There is no information coming out of the Fitzgerald office.

you are correct. But am I right that indictments can be issued AND the investigation/grand jury can be extended? I read it somewhere in my obsession but I don't know where. We've all benefited from your insight OLL so if this is true please confirm.

:hi:

Sure, it's a procedure that's available, but why it would be invoked here, I have no idea.

Just keep repeating: no one knows anything, no one knows anything, no one knows anything.

No one knows anything.

This was painful too painful to read. :rofl:

These folks are loaded for bear...anything less than Rove & Libby indicted and Chenney either indicted or as a co-conspirator and this place will turn into November 3, 2004 all over again. LOL.

If Fitzgerald were to ask for a delay I would submit that means there's another obstruction taking place that prevents him from allowing the jury to rule on possible indictments. However, all indications are this isn't the case and some kind of indictment will be passed out of the jury.

Now our fun...and I'm sure you're as in the dark as I am...and anyone who says they know are inbibing early, is what the charges will be and if this is the stepping stone to open doors on even more investigations...a question no one seems to have discussed either.

Cheers...

In all this "excitement," what people are missing is that our country's in shambles, 2,000 soldiers have been killed for no good reason at all, terrible things have happened, and, frankly, indictments or not, the work to repair all of this looms ahead.

Having lived through Watergate, I'm not too thrilled to contemplate the notion of any of this. Of course the bloodlust is irresistible - I understand and concur.

But, there is a tempering, there must be a tempering of the exuberance when you realize what has happened to bring us to this point. And there must be a resolution not to let it happen again.

That's what concerns me, not idle speculation about things that may not happen.

Stay with reality, folks. No one knows anything.

control any longer than necessary. They need to be removed from their positions of power immediately and let the investigation continue for as long as needed (after we stop the hemorrhaging, so to speak).....IMHO

his investigation. He may have known about this for some time and he may even have taken it as far as the Niger forgeries. If this was just recently discovered information then, yes, I would agree the investigation needs to be continued.

It seems we are getting little bits and pieces leaked out of the investigation, but there is undoubtedly a lot of information that has not been publicized.

If you look closely, you're getting spin from various lawyers representing various witnesses.

It's spin.

No one knows anything.

Relax.

And it appears that the leaking lawyers consider the timing of the leaks to be important as well, no?

The large leak of last night appeared to be from Libby's attorney, but we can only guess. Thanks for drawing us back to some sanity, LL.

is that some times, as in the NYT article, it's hard to say who leaked it!

I don't think Cheney's or Libby's lawyers had anything to dow ith it because I don't see it helping them, so I cannot even offer up a speculation as to who it could have been with one caveat.

I'm pretty damn sure it did not come from Fitzgerald's office.

turmoil, especially the NYT. The other media seem to be reacting to that.

and the NYT story is a good example.

Seems to me that somebody in the Rove faction probably leaked that because I don't see it doing anybody in the Cheney/Libby faction any good, but I could be wrong.

You don't even know what Fitzgerald has been doing, what he knows, what the testimony has been, or what is fact and what is fiction.

Why not try the sensible, realistic route of waiting?

No one knows anything. No one knows anything. No one knows anything.

All in good time.

Well said, OldLeftieLawyer, well said.

Patience is a virtue.

MojoXN

Fitzgerald is an effective prosecutor and if he has uncovered compelling evidence of crimes, he will seek the indictment(s) applicable.

and only now is it leaking out.

that rather than asking for an extension, he asks to have a new GJ impaneled. I don't know if he would be able to stay involved in a second GJ investigation. The reason for impaneling a fresh group would be to claim that they are dealing with such serious issues that it would be better to have fresh minds to hear what's coming.

Sorry to yell, but everything in that story is old hat to Fitzgerald by now.

The story is based on leaks from Libby's and/or Rove's lawyers. Fitz knows what Libby;s testimony is, what was in his notes, and what Cheney and Tenent told him.

Fitz is way ahead of the New York Times

no one knows anything.

And, it's painfully obvious that most people don't even know how the grand jury system works. That's kind of shocking.

that thinks enlightening the public on things like GJ proceedings is as important as reporting on Natalee in Aruba.

I assume each state or even county is different. So how the heck is the average American supposed to figure out how GJs work? By reading boilerplate in stte legal codes???? And doing this for every state or county?

We're not all attorneys, you know.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

what is your take on the "Grand jury as 4th branch of government" idea?
see my post here, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5165125 , I'd love your read on this.

The grand jury is a rather draconian body, and the whole idea is quite scary, but as to the "power" it has, that is only delivered to it by what is presented to it, and, as a fourth branch of government, it fails. It's just more hyperbole by people who fear it.

And well they should. It's a powerful tool of justice.

That tired old line about a prosecutor getting a ham sandwich indicted if he wants to is so off the mark, it's hard to believe that it still gets bandied about, even by civilians.

What most people don't know is that a grand jury is hardly necessary for a prosecutor to bring a defendant to trial. He can file what is known as an "information," which is a detailing of the charges (and laws alleged to have been broken) against the defendant. That brings forth an indictment.

So, while the grand jury system is quite dramatic and mysterious, it's just one way of getting the job done.

Neither the grand jury nor the information is a fourth branch of government. That's just silly talk.

If that is the case, Fitzgerald may not have known about them either?

about it.

Maybe you are thinking of Judy's "found" notes (which basically covered a meeting w libby she "forgot" until Fitz "reminded" her)

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/24/politics/24cnd-leak.html?ei=5094&en=db7d02c93e5913ef&hp=&ex=1130212800&adxnnl=1&partner=homepage&adxnnlx=1130252620-q8QvoOavfIldzMYuuFSLeg

<snip>
Notes of the previously undisclosed conversation between Mr. Libby and Mr. Cheney on June 12, 2003, appear to differ from Mr. Libby's testimony to a federal grand jury that he initially learned about the C.I.A. officer, Valerie Wilson, from journalists, the lawyers said.

The notes, taken by Mr. Libby during the conversation, for the first time place Mr. Cheney in the middle of an effort by the White House to learn about Ms. Wilson's husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, who was questioning the administration's handling of intelligence about Iraq's nuclear program to justify the war.
<snip>

So we don't know that no one else has access to these notes? They just had not been disclosed up to now. This could be one of Libby's lawyers making this information public, because he knows the Prosecutor already has it, or he is trying to influence the prosecutor in some way?

I'm just a nitwit on the internet w too much time on my hands:

1. Leaked by libby lawyer because White House Spin Machine (see Friday's la times article on Libby's obsession w Wilson) is hanging libby out to dry; letting it be known that Libby wasn't obsessed w Joe Wilson on his own.

2. Leaked by rove lawyer -- Poor Karl and Bush, Cheney and Libby are the bad ones, Rove just got caught up in thier nefarious plot.

Per David Schuster report on MSNBC this morning.

So, if true, that would mean he has had them for a little while now -- as one more piece in the puzzle.

Italy and he might need more time to investigate and talk to people dealing with the forgeries. Not sure how much he has already done.

Any of you legal scholars know anything about how a grand jury is extended?

What are the rules of procedure that apply?

logical. :) :)

(Thanks for keeping the collective DU feet on the collective DU ground)

Heading to the shop now to continue building a Shaker sideboard and relax... yes, that's it...relax...

But not too much - I'm working with power tools. :)

Even if we hate being logical.
My logic is expressed as pessimism. And just being able to witness her in action is a real treat.

You're just hot for my spaghetti sauce............

We've got to stop meeting like this.

Well, as a matter of fact, I made a new batch two days ago. And it's even better than ever.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It's that the MSM just picked up on it recently. I am of the opinion that Fitzgerald has had much of the information we are talikng about today for more than a year. He needed Miller"s and Cooper's testimonies to tighten the vise. I don't think he will need to extend, but needs to decide on some final indictments.

gation papers from Italy. He JUST GOT those docs about who forged them. That is what I am saying. He could have already known and gotten all of the evidence, just not that last piece, I don't know, but if he hasn't, he could use that as reason for an extention.

This <AP article> says that Cheney apparently got his information from former CIA director George Tenet. So why the hell isn't Fitzgerald dragging Cheney and Tenet before the grand jury? They say that the outing of a covert CIA operative is a federal offense only if the person who outed the agent knew that the agent was undercover. But don't you think that is something that the VP should have looked into before he started chatting it up with Libby? And don't you think that a CIA director should have informed Cheney that Plame was undercover when he gave the VP her name? And why in the heck was Cheney and Libby so interested in Plame if Cheney didn't know who Wilson was and knew nothing of his mission to Niger? Am I the only one that thinks this whole thing stinks?

While I am just as eager to see some indictments come out this week as the next guy, the realist in me is not getting my hopes up that this will do much damage to the Bush admin. If anything Rove will take the brunt of the force and Bush and his puppet master will walk away relatively unscathed. I hope to God that I'm wrong...but something in my gut tells me I won't be. I dunno, maybe it's just because these thugs have been able to wiggle out of every disaster that's hit over the course of the last 5 years and the American public still doesn't seem to eager to hold these guys accountable for their crimes.

Fitzgerald could close the investigation with or without indictments and the Democrats, after winning next year's election, could re-open an investigation... :)

Just because Libby or Rove;s lawyer is leaking this now does not mean it it news to Fitz.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

got what he has. The Cheney story that's news to us did not come from Fitzgerald's office. His office absolutely, positively, undeniably does not leak.

It's easy to get nervous and feed into rumors. But the "reports" we're getting are not from his office. These are from lawyers and others involved with the investigation who are speculating themselves. True, the 'speculation' may come from years of past legal experience...however, it is at best an educated guess, but still speculation.

When or if indictments come down, we will probably know about an hour or two before a press conference. Till then, we need to hang on and let him do his job.

Anything we ae reading in the papers today has been known to Fitzgerald for some time. Unless he uncovered something new, he won't ask for an extension.

We're down to the wirer and quite honestly, nobody has a real clue what will happen aside from Fitzgerald, and even he will be dependent upon the decisions of the GJ. Grand Juries have surprised prosecutors in the past you know.

I have been saying that for a week now.

Don

and disputing amongst the Repugs about "who said what...and when did they say it" seems to me that Fitz might have been "playing them" enough to get a "groundswell" for an EXTENSION.

I'm thinking that...but we've been led down a "road of lies" so long...that I wonder if it will ever happen.

He might just have to "fold up his tent" after a few Indictments and "carry on" with his "Chicago Indictments" and other corruption cases he is involved in.

:shrug: Anything goes...we've learned that Kentuck...so many times of "High Hopes/Crashing to the Ground...all these years...and why should we hope? Why should we. :-)'s Because we DO!

documents, which an italian paper is saying involved Hadley. http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=10506

The web extends wide and deep, and at this time of no Congressional oversight, Fitz is pretty much our one shot at getting at the truth.

:kick: :-)'s