Fitzgerald expands probe, believes he can get Rove on more serious charges

[Taco John]

Fitzgerald expands probe, believes he can get Rove on more serious charges, lawyers say
Jason Leopold


Print This | Email This


In one of the boldest moves yet in the 22-month investigation into the outing of a covert CIA agent to a handful of top reporters covering the White House, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is extending his probe and pursuing much more serious charges against senior White House officials, specifically President Bush’s Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, lawyers directly involved in the case told RAW STORY Friday.

While many people were left confused by news reports that said Rove wouldn't be indicted Friday, the lawyers said that Rove remains under intense scrutiny and added that Fitzgerald is betting on the fact that he can secure an indictment against Rove on charges of perjury, obstruction of justice, the misuse of classified information, and possibly other charges, as early as next week.

“This investigation is not yet over,” one of the lawyers in the case said. “You must keep in mind that people like Mr. Rove are still under investigation. Rather than securing an indictment on perjury charges against Mr. Rove Mr. Fitzgerald strongly believes he can convince the grand jury that he broke other laws.”

The lawyers said that in the past month Fitzgerald has obtained explosive information in the case that has enabled him to pursue broader charges such as conspiracy, and civil rights violations against targets like Rove. Specifically, the lawyers said Fitzgerald is focusing on phony intelligence documents that led to the outing of Valerie Plame Wilson’s identity: the documents that claimed Iraq was attempting to purchase yellow-cake uranium from Niger.

A court filing posted on Fitzgerald’s website last week was the first such confirmation that the prosecutor has in fact decided to pursue the broader claims that intelligence the Bush administration used to build support for the Iraq war was flawed and, as a result, the reason many officials inside and outside of the White House went out of their way to out Plame, whose husband was a vocal critic of the Iraq war who was sent on a mission to Niger to investigate allegations that Iraq had attempted to buy Niger from the African country.

"On August 12 and August 20, 2004, grand jury subpoenas were issued to reporter Judith Miller and her employer, the New York Times, seeking documents and testimony related to “conversations between Miller and a specified government official occurring between on or about July 6, 2003 and on or about July 13, 2003, concerning Valerie Plame Wilson (whether referred to by name or by description) or concerning Iraqi efforts to obtain uranium.” the filing made by Fitzgerald last year states.

NATO sources told United Press International Monday that Fitzgerald's team of investigators has sought and obtained documentation on the forgeries from the Italian government.

This claim, which made its way into President Bush's State of the Union address in January, 2003, was based on falsified documents from Niger and was later withdrawn by the White House."

Fitzgerald will draw on another grand jury that is already empaneled. Federal law says that a grand jury’s term cannot be extended more than once, which is the case with the grand jury that has been hearing testimony in the case.

MORE INFORMATION FORTHCOMING THIS EVENING...


http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Fitzgerald_expands_probe_believes_he_can_1028.html

[Pitt Gorilla]

Shazam!

[Taco John]

ROFL

[dirk digler]

TJ did you watch the press conference? I am highly skeptical at this point of this story after watching Fitzgerald.

[Taco John]

TJ did you watch the press conference? I am highly skeptical at this point of this story after watching Fitzgerald.



I didn't see it. What I do know is that I've been following the story at RawStory every day since it started heating up, and they haven't missed a beat yet, especially with regards to their exclusive reporting. Jason Leopold has proven time and time again that he has sources and that they are accurate ones.

[dirk digler]

I didn't see it. What I do know is that I've been following the story at RawStory every day since it started heating up, and they haven't missed a beat yet, especially with regards to their exclusive reporting. Jason Leopold has proven time and time again that he has sources and that they are accurate ones.

Thanks. I have never heard of RawStory until just now.

[Taco John]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1259935


Leak probe not over: prosecutor


Oct 28, 2005 — WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The investigation into who leaked the name of a covert CIA agent is not over, even after Friday's indictment of White House official Lewis Libby, special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said.

"Is the investigation finished? It's not over," Fitzgerald said at a news conference. "But … very rarely do you bring a charge in a case that's going to be tried in which you ever end a grand jury investigation. I can tell you that the substantial bulk of the work of this investigation is concluded."

[Bootlegged]

You Keith Olberman and HAADBALL are the only ones that believe this.

[Boozer]

If I were Rove, I'd be feeling a lot better today than I was on Tuesday. He's not out of the woods, but things are looking up for him.

[Taco John]

You Keith Olberman and HAADBALL are the only ones that believe this.


Keep telling yourself that.

[Taco John]

BrietBart.com:

Rove's lawyer said he was told by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's office that investigators would continue their probe into the aide's conduct. Fitzgerald's office said Rove would not be indicted Friday, said people close to the Republican strategist, speaking only on condition of anonymity because of grand jury secrecy.


http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/28/D8DH4F1G4.html

[Taco John]

Financial Times:

‘Indispensible’ Rove not yet off the hook
By Caroline Daniel in Washington
Published: October 28 2005 18:54 | Last updated: October 28 2005 18:54

Ever since the name of his wife, a covert CIA agent, was made public two years ago, Joseph Wilson has sought political revenge. He openly fantasised that Karl Rove would be “frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs”.


He may have to wait a little longer. Patrick Fitzgerald, special prosecutor, on Friday did not indict Mr Rove, chief political strategist to President George W. Bush who has testified before the grand jury four times during the investigation.

But he is not yet off the hook. Mr Rove’s lawyers were told that Mr Fitzgerald “had made no decision about whether or not to bring charges”.

Mr Rove’s lawyer said his client would continue to co-operate with the inquiry.

For White House officials who had hoped the indictments would end the distractions and tensions that have dogged the administration in recent weeks, the move to extend the grand jury is hardly an ideal outcome.

In the past few weeks Mr Rove has become less high profile. In spite of his role in co-ordinating domestic policy, he was not involved in the selection this week of Ben Bernanke to succeed Alan Greenspan as chairman of the Federal Reserve.

Although Mr Rove is technically just deputy chief of staff, that obscures his real status. If not as omniscient as some of the apo- cryphal tales suggest, he is certainly ubiquitous. He once joked that the only domestic issue he was not involved in was baseball.

“He is a truly indispensable man,” said David Frum, a former speechwriter for Mr Bush and fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. “The distraction over the past weeks with Hurricane Katrina and Harriet Miers shows White House decision-making without him. There would be a real talent gap in the administration. He is one of the few who had ‘the clearest vision of what he is trying to accomplish and was always focused on something bigger than managing his inbox’.”

Although friends deny he has been distracted, the bungled handling of the Harriet Miers nomination – which was withdrawn on Thursday amid fierce criticism from conservatives and doubts from senators about her qualifications – suggests that there could be more fallout if the investigation continues to hamper Mr Rove.

Any indictment would be a devastating personal blow for Mr Bush, who has worked with Mr Rove for 30 years, and Mr Rove, for whom politics is a lifelong obsession. As Mark McKinnon, a former campaign adviser to Mr Bush obser-ved, “when Karl was growing up he wanted to be senior adviser to the president”.

He will remain that for some time. But for how long, remains in the hands of Mr Fitzgerald.

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/54197c68-47da-11da-a949-00000e2511c8.html

[Taco John]

Lattimer, you're such an ignorant slut.

[Taco John]

Coulter: Ongoing Rove Investigation Would Be “Worst Possible Scenario” For White House

The White House is trying its best to appear positive today. President Bush appeared smiling and laughing before reporters this morning, while Karl Rove said he was in a “very good mood today. I’m going to have a very good day.”

The truth is that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald’s expected announcement — that at least one White House official will be indicted, while Rove remains under investigation — is extremely bad news. This morning, even Bush loyalist Ann Coulter admitted that this is the “worst possible scenario” for the administration:

Watch in Quicktime (http://streaming.americanprogress.org/ThinkProgress/2005/coulter_indictments.320.240.mov.html)

Transcript below:

O’BRIEN: So there you have it, Karl Rove apparently escaping indictment, but that’s the good news. The bad news is, on goes the investigation. What are your thoughts on that one?

COULTER: That is like the worse possible outcome.

O’BRIEN: Oh, an indictment would be better?

COULTER: I think so. I mean, I don’t think indictments are particularly big deal politically. They’re a big deal for whoever gets indicted, but I don’t think it really matters to the White House. I’ve just been thinking, this is going to be lancing the boil. Let’s just get it done one way or the other this Friday. Either they get indicted and they leave, or they’re not indicted and it’s over. To stay under investigation — that is not the best possible outcome.

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/10/28/coulter-leak/

[patteeu]

I didn't see it. What I do know is that I've been following the story at RawStory every day since it started heating up, and they haven't missed a beat yet, especially with regards to their exclusive reporting. Jason Leopold has proven time and time again that he has sources and that they are accurate ones.

Maybe you could give us some examples of how accurate Leopold has been?

I looked at a couple of your threads based on RawStory stuff and I didn't see much that has been confirmed so far although I saw some speculations that remain up in the air. Here is an example from one of those stories that might be true but that certainly hasn't been verified by today's activities:

Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has asked the grand jury investigating the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson to indict Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby and Bush’s Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, lawyers close to the investigation tell RAW STORY.

Fitzgerald has also asked the jury to indict Libby on a second charge: knowingly outing a covert operative, the lawyers said. They said the prosecutor believes that Libby violated a 1982 law that made it illegal to unmask an undercover CIA agent.

If Fitzgerald asked for these indictments (Rove on perjury and obstruction and Libby on knowingly outing a covert operative), was he rejected by the grand jury? That would be extraordinary and I find it hard to believe. But I'll grant you that it remains unproven one way or the other.

[Mr. Kotter]

Thanks. I have never heard of RawStory until just now.

It's interesting in the same way that that the Drudgereport and profootballtalk.com are interesting. The ideology and spin are, of course, different.

[Taco John]

WHy in the world would Rove continue to be under investigation if the prosecutor didn't think that he could get him on more serious charges?

[Mr. Kotter]

WHy in the world would Rove continue to be under investigation if the prosecutor didn't think that he could get him on more serious charges?

For the same reasons those on the left speculated Ken Starr kept his investigations going? :shrug:

[Mr. Kotter]

If I were Rove, I'd be feeling a lot better today than I was on Tuesday. He's not out of the woods, but things are looking up for him.

Boozer, you are gonna ruin the Dance Party; knock it off!

;)

[Taco John]

For the same reasons those on the left speculated Ken Starr kept his investigations going? :shrug:


Which are...

[Area 51]

WHy in the world would Rove continue to be under investigation if the prosecutor didn't think that he could get him on more serious charges?

Because the desire to charge anyone and everyone they feel might have been involved. The continuation is nothing more than an extension to give them more time to search for what may not be there. Just the same as Ken Star was accused of with the Clinton debaucle.

[Bootlegged]

what kind of loser sits pulling links from obscure websites all day to debunk an "ignorant slut" poster on a football bb? Well Paco WHan, that's who!

A few guesses...

1.) You take your PC to the pool with you to steal others wireless...while you wear your white T to cover your man boobs.

2.) You wake every morning to beat off to imagined brainsnaps of jIZ and memycunt

3.) You don't leave the house, have no friends and no life outside of cyberspace.

4.) During high school, you didn't play football, rather were on the yearbook staff tucked away in a room thinking about your chances with the fat cheerleader or the 40 year old male guidance counselor.

[Boozer]

Boozer, you are gonna ruin the Dance Party; knock it off!

;)

http://snl.jt.org/arc/epskit/01-01-20-5.jpg

[vailpass]

what kind of loser sits pulling links from obscure websites all day to debunk an "ignorant slut" poster on a football bb? Well Paco WHan, that's who!

A few guesses...

1.) You take your PC to the pool with you to steal others wireless...while you wear your white T to cover your man boobs.

2.) You wake every morning to beat off to imagined brainsnaps of jIZ and memycunt

3.) You don't leave the house, have no friends and no life outside of cyberspace.

4.) During high school, you didn't play football, rather were on the yearbook staff tucked away in a room thinking about your chances with the fat cheerleader or the 40 year old male guidance counselor.


ROFL ROFL ROFL
Thats some laugh-out-loud funny stuff....although I do feel as though you are repressing taco by abridging his right to flip-flop without accountability.

[penchief]

Because the desire to charge anyone and everyone they feel might have been involved. The continuation is nothing more than an extension to give them more time to search for what may not be there. Just the same as Ken Star was accused of with the Clinton debaucle.

The difference is that Fitzgerald is focused on this specific incident. Star bounced from Whitewater to filegate to Monica, etc.

Hell, Kenneth Star even offered to represent Paula Jones for free. That, my friend, is partisan behavior. Fitzgerald had been purely professional.

What this White House did leading up to the war is very questionable and deserves to be scrutinized by us citizens, including you.

[patteeu]

What was it that made you say the RawStory was accurate again, Taco John?

[dirk digler]

Fitzgerald is 1,000,000 times a better prosector than Ken Starr and he is not partisan.

[Boozer]

Fitzgerald is 1,000,000 times a better prosector than Ken Starr and he is not partisan.

I know the former to be false. Ken Starr's about as highly-qualified and skilled as you can get.

[Mr. Kotter]

Fitzgerald is 1,000,000 times a better prosector than Ken Starr and he is not partisan.

Fitzgerald seems to be quite competent, capable and fair. Starr was not nearly the incompetent monster that the entire Clinton ordeal made him out to be (rather, more accurately, what the press made him out to be.) Apparently you've bought into it though. (HINT: Research Starr's assignment, and continuation by Congress; as well as the parameters, and charge, he was given by Congress.)

You're over the top with your assessment, David--on both counts.

[Taco John]

what kind of loser sits pulling links from obscure websites all day to debunk an "ignorant slut" poster on a football bb? Well Paco WHan, that's who!

A few guesses...

1.) You take your PC to the pool with you to steal others wireless...while you wear your white T to cover your man boobs.

2.) You wake every morning to beat off to imagined brainsnaps of jIZ and memycunt

3.) You don't leave the house, have no friends and no life outside of cyberspace.

4.) During high school, you didn't play football, rather were on the yearbook staff tucked away in a room thinking about your chances with the fat cheerleader or the 40 year old male guidance counselor.



The irony of this post is priceless...

He starts out like this: "what kind of loser sits pulling links from obscure websites all day to debunk an "ignorant slut" poster on a football bb?

Then he ends it by spending time dreaming up scenarios that he wishes were true.

I don't know why I responded to you in the first place Lat. I couldn't imagine a poster who contributes less to this board if I tried.

[penchief]

I know the former to be false. Ken Starr's about as highly-qualified and skilled as you can get.

yet he had to entrap Clinton on something that had absolutely nothing to do with six years of investigation.

[Taco John]

What was it that made you say the RawStory was accurate again, Taco John?


Stick around and find out for yourself.

www.rawstory.com


They've been the best thing going for the last month on indctment coverage.

[Laz]

any results that end up without Rove getting the boot will be considered a partial victory by the white house.

they will do everything they can to protect Rove


he is the golden egg ... priority #1


at this point, i bet Bush would throw Chaney under the bus if it meant protecting Rove.

[patteeu]

Stick around and find out for yourself.

www.rawstory.com


They've been the best thing going for the last month on indctment coverage.

But you said you've been following them and they've already been very accurate. Since I didn't see any evidence of that in the last several threads you've based on their reports, I was curious about some examples that you might have in mind. But if you're having trouble remembering any particular "beat" that they "haven't missed" as you've monitored them "every day since [this issue] started heating up," don't sweat it. ;)

[Saggysack]

Damn activist attorneys!

[dirk digler]

Fitzgerald seems to be quite competent, capable and fair. Starr was not nearly the incompetent monster that the entire Clinton ordeal made him out to be (rather, more accurately, what the press made him out to be.) Apparently you've bought into it though. (HINT: Research Starr's assignment, and continuation by Congress; as well as the parameters, and charge, he was given by Congress.)

You're over the top with your assessment, David--on both counts.

I will take Fitzgerald who has indicted and convicted mob bosses and terrorists including the 1993 WTC bombing over a career political person in Starr. Starr's claim to fame is Whitewater Fitzgerald has actually done the hard work and got the bad guys. There is no comparison IMHO.

He handled drug-trafficking cases and in 1993 helped prosecute John Gambino of the Gambino mafia family. In 1994, he became the prosecutor in the case against Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and 11 other individuals charged in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.[3]

In 1996, Fitzgerald became the National Security Coordinator for the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. There, he served on a team of prosecutors investigating Osama bin Laden.[4] He served as chief counsel in prosecutions related to the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Africa.[5]

[Mr. Kotter]

I will take Fitzgerald who has indicted and convicted mob bosses and terrorists including the 1993 WTC bombing over a career political person in Starr. Starr's claim to fame is Whitewater Fitzgerald has actually done the hard work and got the bad guys. There is no comparison IMHO.

You are entitled to your opinion, surely. What do you know about Starr's career before the Whitewater/Lewinsky investigation though? It's worth a look if you don't know.

[go bowe]

starr is da debil...

[RINGLEADER]

I didn't see it. What I do know is that I've been following the story at RawStory every day since it started heating up, and they haven't missed a beat yet, especially with regards to their exclusive reporting. Jason Leopold has proven time and time again that he has sources and that they are accurate ones.


Dude, sorry to break it to you but they missed all kinds of beats in the story you posted the other day. They claimed multiple people would be indicted, continued to insist that Rove was one of the likely recipients of an indictment, and went on about some forged documents. Turns out the only thing anyone got charged with doing wrong was an event that took place after the investigation began.

Not diminishing that charge, just the fact that some Dems predicted everything from Rove being marched out of the White House in handcuffs (Joe Wilson) to his actions being sufficient to illicit talk of execution (jAZ) and all you ended up with was Libby saying he learned about Plame's identity from a reporter when he had heard that Wilson's wife was in the CIA from Cheney via the CIA (two things that aren't necessarily mutually exclusive BTW).

No charges of outing a covert CIA agent. No charges of breaking any espionage laws. No charges of anything related to the reason Fitzgerald was put on the case to begin with. And all the hard-left can hang their hat on is the hope that something more might come later (which may very well be the case...again, not diminishing the possibility, just that Democrats can get so riled up that the best the DNC can do is put up the headline "Worse Than Watergate" on their home page).

[RINGLEADER]

I will take Fitzgerald who has indicted and convicted mob bosses and terrorists including the 1993 WTC bombing over a career political person in Starr. Starr's claim to fame is Whitewater Fitzgerald has actually done the hard work and got the bad guys. There is no comparison IMHO.

I have friends who have known Fitzgerald for some time and consider him to be a straight-shooter. He thinks he was lied to and that, rightfully, pisses him off. No problems there. But I do think he's stretching on the conspiracy charge and hoping that a trial will take him further. Maybe it will.

But you - and most on the left - are off-base about Starr. Starr didn't want to have anything to do with the Lewinsky case and if it weren't for a very, very bad decision by Janet Reno and her deputy Eric Holder he wouldn't have had anything to do with it. Starr didn't have control over whether or not his report was released and, in one of the largest political blunders ever, the Republicans released not only the report but also the Grand Jury testimony of Clinton (which, if they hadn't, they could have fostered whatever opinions of Clinton they wanted and the public would have believed the worse at the time). But, like Fitzgerald, Starr spotted a liar and pursued him as he was directed to do by the Attorney General.

[Ugly Duck]

Starr's claim to fame is Whitewater. Fitzgerald has actually done the hard work and got the bad guys.
Its really not fair to compare the two. Starr had nothing but a blank check to search and search for something till he finally caught a husband fibbing about a BJ. Fitzgerald has a real investigation with national security implications in a time of war. It ain't Starr's fault that he had nothing to work with....

[Taco John]

Dude, sorry to break it to you but they missed all kinds of beats in the story you posted the other day. They claimed multiple people would be indicted, continued to insist that Rove was one of the likely recipients of an indictment, and went on about some forged documents. Turns out the only thing anyone got charged with doing wrong was an event that took place after the investigation began.


Actually, no they didn't claim multiple indictments at all. Nor did they insist Rove would receive an indictment. They did mention that there was still interest in the forged documents. By all accounts, that's still true.

[Ugly Duck]

Maybe we'll still see Rove frogmarching.....Snippets from the CNN Wilson interview:

BLITZER: Are you, though, disappointed that he didn't charge anyone with outing your wife as an undercover CIA operative?

WILSON: Well, I think it's important to remember two things.

One, he was unable to indict on anything other than the charges because, as he said, his investigation into this was impeded by the obstruction of justice and perjury.

And two, as he said, the state's interests were vindicated by the indictments that were handed down.

And three, finally, this is not a crime against Joe Wilson or Valerie Wilson, it's a crime against the country, against the national security of the country.

So we have no vote in whether or not we're disappointed or not disappointed.

BLITZER: But you were hoping that someone would actually -- that you'd get to the bottom of this: Who decided to out your wife as a CIA operative?

WILSON: Well, I think we pretty much are at the bottom. We now know, both from Mr. [Matthew] Cooper's testimony, the Time reporter testimony, that Mr. Rove gave him Valerie's name; and we know from the indictment that Mr. Libby was going around giving ...

BLITZER: But you understand why that's not a crime -- that wasn't deemed a crime by Patrick Fitzgerald?

WILSON: Well, again, it has not been indicted as a crime yet because, as Mr. Fitzgerald said, his investigation into the bottom of this was impeded by the obstruction of justice -- and the investigation is ongoing.


http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/10/31/wilson.interview/index.html

[Area 51]

The difference is that Fitzgerald is focused on this specific incident. Star bounced from Whitewater to filegate to Monica, etc.

Hell, Kenneth Star even offered to represent Paula Jones for free. That, my friend, is partisan behavior. Fitzgerald had been purely professional.

What this White House did leading up to the war is very questionable and deserves to be scrutinized by us citizens, including you.

Partisan? I prefer to believe that Clinton was so dirty that there wasn't time to give each of the areas of concern proper time to get the indictments.

What Clinton did in office deserved more attention than what it got, it was one of the reasons the bad data was given to the current administration.

Gee, do you think that was the plan all along? Naw, Clinton isn't that smart.

[Area 51]

yet he had to entrap Clinton on something that had absolutely nothing to do with six years of investigation.

Entrap????

Clinton was probably the dirtiest president we have had since Nixon. That was bad enough, he is married to the only person in the world that is probably a bigger criminal than he is. Clinton was dirtier when he was the Gov of Arkansas, those stories came out AFTER he left office. He was caught while he was in the WH. The criminal activity from White Water is beyond description.

Was Bush wrong? Did he have bad data? Did he falsify records? You say yes, I say no.

Was Clinton wrong? Did he generate the bad data? Did he falsify records? You say no, I say yes.

That is exactly where this will always stand. You are a left winger that is wearing blinders. I'm more of the middle of the road that believes that the media and the left wing is making more of the current situation than is good for the country.

[patteeu]

Actually, no they didn't claim multiple indictments at all. Nor did they insist Rove would receive an indictment. They did mention that there was still interest in the forged documents. By all accounts, that's still true.

Technically, they don't claim much of anything. They couch all of their prognostication/analysis in terms like "there could be" or "it looks like" or "we are told by an anonymous source close to the so and so" etc. If you strip all of that hooey out of Leopold's writing you are left looking at a blank page.

[Baby Lee]

Fitzgerald expands probe, believes he can get Rove on more serious charges
lawyers say
Kotter? Is that you?

ROFL ROFL