home

No Fitzmas?

By Jeralyn, Section Valerie Plame Leak Case
Posted on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 06:00:38 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Jim Vanderhei in the Washington Post reports:

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove will not be indicted in the CIA leak investigation, his attorney announced yesterday, a decision that signals that a special prosecutor's probe is unlikely to threaten any other Bush administration officials.

With Rove's situation resolved, the broader leak investigation is probably over, according to a source briefed on the status of the case.

David Johnston in the New York Times reports:

The decision to decline to prosecute Mr. Rove effectively ends the active investigative phase of Mr. Fitzgerald's inquiry; Mr. Rove was the only person known to remain under scrutiny.

Fitzgerald still hasn't released the names of officials he made deals with for immunity, or to plead to lesser charges. Among those not accounted for:

Stephen Hadley
John Hannah
David Wurmser
Mark Grossman
Ari Fleischer
Fred Fleitz

Did Fitz give them all immunity in exchange for cooperation? Or have some agreed to plead guilty to lesser charges when Fitz believes the time is appropriate?

Richard Armitage was on Charlie Rose last night saying he has no worries. He probably came clean early with Fitz. Grossman and Fleischer will be witnesses against Libby. What were the terms of their cooperation?

There are always deals in an investigation like this one. It's how they get people to talk. So while Fitz may be winding down his investigation and have no new targets in sight, I'm not sure Libby is going to remain the only one charged.

But if these articles are accurate, then Cheney is in the clear as well, and no one will be held criminally accountable for leaking or orchestrating the leak of Valerie Plame Wilson's identity.

< Duke Lacrosse Open Thread | Lingering Questions in PlameGate >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • No Fitzmas? | 9 comments (9 topical)
    Re: No Fitzmas? (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 06:22:49 AM EST
    Well, that's kind of silly, seeing as VandeHei said this a month ago:
    Neither Libby nor Fitzgerald has asserted that Cheney directed Libby to leak Plame's name to the news media, and the details of what Cheney told the prosecutor's office in a June 2004 interview have not been disclosed. But Fitzgerald went out of his way to say in an April filing that Bush played no role in the leak of Plame's name. He did not similarly exonerate Cheney.
    Johnston does not draw the same conclusion in his articles on Cheney (though to his credit, he at least reported the Cheney op-ed notes within a day or so of that document's release). And neither seems to get the underlying tension in hearings--that Libby said he was ordered to leak the NIE just before his July Judy conversation, but that he had already leaked that, and therefore his claim that he was ordered to leak the NIE--and not Plame's identity--is growing increasingly questionable. If Libby's claim that Dick ordered him to leak the NIE falls apart, Dick is right in the crosshairs.

    Re: No Fitzmas? (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 06:34:25 AM EST
    Oops. The quote in that got mangled--it continues until after "exonerate Cheney."

    Re: No Fitzmas? (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 07:13:27 AM EST
    Jeralyn- I respect your comprehensive knowledge of this investigation, but you seem awfully ready to close out this case and move on. Too ready, IMO. I'm a big proponent of reality too, but ask yourself-- if you were Cheney's defense lawyer today, would you be so quick to tell him to relax? I'm w/emptywheel on this. I think Fitz has a deep bench of witnesses, and he will "charge no crime before it's time." I think the Rove announcement is just a message to Libby to get on the bus before it leaves without him.

    Re: No Fitzmas? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 08:27:59 AM EST
    Sheldon Drobny, Air America founder, October 2005 ... Those of us locally in the know here do not agree that Mr. Fitzgerald is as independent as the press has made him out to be. Let me explain. Fitzgerald had to indict Libby. Libby's lies were so blatant that Fitzgerald had no choice. But Fitzgerald had a golden opportunity to do enough work to prove the underlying crimes that he was originally investigating. Those crimes involve two offenses in the U.S. Criminal Code; Conspiracy and Outing a CIA agent. Essentially Fitzgerald indicted Libby for preventing his prosecutors from proving the underlying crimes he was investigating by using a baseball metaphor in that Libby "threw sand in the umpires eyes." That part is patently absurd. In most conspiracy cases, one or more of the co-conspirators invariably lie to the FBI or the Grand Jury. That is something that prosecutors face all the time. The idea that Libby alone prevented Fitzgerald from proving the underlying crime is absurd. If Cheney told Libby about Valerie Plame, there was obviously a reason. The idea that Cheney, Libby, Rove and Bush did not talk to each other about the purpose of passing on this information to the press is simply not believable. And there were many ways that Fitzgerald could have proven the conspiracy in spite of Libby's lies. The fact that Libby lied would normally embolden a prosecutor to prove the underlying crime. This was not the case for Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald stated in his press conference that most of his work has been completed. While there is always a Grand Jury available to indict others in the event of an unlikely plea bargain for Libby, the investigative phase is really over for this prosecutor. His office will now focus on the trial of Libby. Those of us who know about prosecutors and Grand Jury investigations would tell you that Fitzgerald, using a baseball metaphor, threw the Bush cabal a softball. And using a football metaphor, he just plain fumbled. Note: it is my understanding that Drobny is not an attorney, but is an accountant. He will be on Air America Phoenix in um, 5 minutes, at 8:30 Silly Arizona Time (which is currently PDT). You can stream it from aaphx.com

    Re: No Fitzmas? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 08:53:58 AM EST
    Reading all of you fabulists' hallucinations about "deals" and "cooperation" is music to my gloating, partisan ears.
    This is why there's no hope for this country. There are still hordes of people who'll start a shooting war if they don't get everything they want. And what they want they've been getting, with the result that America's turning into a pathetic half-assed country. I'm 40 years old, PBRMan. When I came into the world the U.S. was an industrialized giant getting ready to put a man on the moon. We were the world's greatest creditor country. We were laying the foundation for the computer age. We're a joke now. Internet service? Behind the curve. Cell phones? Behnd the curve. Rocket tech? Behind the curve. PhD's in science and engineering? Behind the curve. Social mobility? Just about the bottom of the barrel among the mature powers. Thanks for that. Your boys committed treason, PBRMan. But we're used to that from you right wingers. And just like I have no idea how you got away with Iran/Contra, I'm mystified with how you all have managed to get away with this.

    Re: No Fitzmas? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 09:01:50 AM EST
    I apologize, while their talk was entertaining, earlier on they had said they would be talking about Fitzgerald and Plame as well as the other issues. If you were listening, the host was Dr. Mike Newcomb, a physician in his early 40s, and previously a gubernatorial candidate. He makes a pretty entertaining and informative radio host. He previously had the early morning slot on the prior verson of Air America Phoenix, and when that station was sold, he was THE driving power behind finding the new home.

    Re: No Fitzmas? (none / 0) (#7)
    by fireback on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 10:38:53 AM EST
    It sure seems like the administration is really trying to spin that this thing is over. Yet it appears there is still alot of questions and information out there to the contrary. As emptywheel has theorized and I agree, all they care about is pushing this past the next election. I hope I am wrong, but I am increasingly concerned they might just be successful at it.

    Re: No Fitzmas? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 03:46:36 PM EST
    As to the HP piece, a bit more on the author: "Mr. Drobny specializes in business and tax matters and is admitted to practice before the U.S. Tax Court as a non-attorney. Less than 200 non-attorneys have been admitted to practice before the U.S. Tax Court since its inception in 1942." Also: "I have helped prosecute and defend white collar crime offenses for 38 years including experience with Mr. Fitzgerald's office in my home town Chicago on current political prosecutions." So, "accountant" is a bit misleading though the fact he is not a lawyer is important.

    Re: No Fitzmas? (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 12:00:34 AM EST
    there was no leak she was not a covert agent, bush was only trying to say that SHE sent her husband on that trip

    No Fitzmas? | 9 comments (9 topical)