VERY STRANGE comment by Fitzgerald's spokesperson, re: GUILTY PLEAS(?!)

This from back on 10/29/05, right after the Libby indictment.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/theplank?pid=3183



Keep in mind that this was from "Non-Speaking Spokesman" Randall Samborn. In fact, he won't even confirm if the investigation is even still ongoing as of 6/13:



Why would Mr. No Comment himself give such a weaselly answer about guilty pleas? "There was no public record" of guilty pleas? Come on. If any such preposterous question deserved a "no comment" it's "have there been any guilty pleas in this case?"

I came upon this via CitizenSpook.

Let it die.

If someone beats a dead horse, why stop them? The horse can't feel it, and they're only wasting their own efforts, not yours.
:)

;-)

isn't it?

If the topic doesn't interest you, then you could just ignore it. I certainly don't bother to read every thread posted.

I too want to hold onto a grain of hope that someone in this admin will be held accountable for something. I said when this started I highly doubted anyone in this admin will get the smackdown. Like you, a seed inside still hopes, but for me, I fully expect everyone in the Admin to get away with all of it.

This part I knew:

Also, plea agreements could have already been reached but not formally entered in court.


This part I didn't:

Guilty pleas can be taken under seal--and often are--when the person entering the plea is cooperating with the government and they do not want to tip off the other targets or there is a safety concern.


Thanks.

It's normally "no comment" period.

about his current "no comment" statement when asked if the investigation is still ongoing.

Back after the Libby indictment he had no qualms about saying so:

http://www.politicalforecast.net/2005/10/28/rove-still-under-investigation-by-fitzgerald


compared to

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/13/ap/politics/mainD8I7C7N00.shtml


:scared:

There are at least two inferences I can draw, and no obvious way to disambiguate them. There are probably more; more context and knowing Samborn's intonation contour and facial expression at the time would help.

those that were calling the Leopold joke a story were crying about beating a dead horse when the Naysayers brought it up, now it's the ones that think it's over since the 'no indictment' media call :)

We're really getting a lot of use out of that dead horse, should be nice and tenderized now :)

Personally, tho I think that Leopold is an idiot egotist (and TO needs to take the bull by the horns as well), I still am not ruling out some surprises in the future - there may well have been or are deals and pleas going on that we don't know about..

But that doesn't make any of the malarky coming from the Leopold ball of snakes rationale (his personally, not talking about DU'rs here) mind, credible to me at all - he's hosed and screaming in the wilderness now as far as I'm concerned, actually just getting more bizzarre..

Remember if you will as you watch this pan out that it IS ALL ABOUT LEOPOLD.. and any acts of desperation associated with it are getting more pathetic daily.

Fitzgerald mentions one in the May 12(?) hearing. He refers to it 2 or 3 times at least.

edit: to add reference

TNR references it here:

In other Libby news, Patrick Fitzgerald has asked to file a sealed affidavit in response to Libby lawyer Ted Well's sealed affidavit of April 12, referenced in Libby's April 12 Reply (pdf) regarding his Third Motion to Compel (Discussed at length here.) As I noted here in discussing Ari Fleischer, according to Footnote 4 on page 14, Well's affidavit discusses why the material Libby is requesting about Ari Fleischer is material to the defense.

The affidavits were filed under seal pursuant to the Court's Nov. 23 protective order. The court issued two protective orders that day, one applicable to classified information and one applicable to grand jury testimony and discovery documents with personal privacy information.

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014620.html