Fitzgerald Investigation Will Continue...

...with a new Grand Jury

Quote:

---

...Fitzgerald's spokesman, Randall Samborn, said the investigation will continue but with a new grand jury. The term of the current grand jury cannot be extended beyond today...."

---

WTKR

EVERYONE who is trumpeting the five indictments handed down by Special Counsel Fitzgerald against Libby and hounding the American Public about how this whole matter was started as a result of a false claim of espionage against the Wilson's, be aware that you are ill advised to challenge the legitimacy of those espionage charges.

The lack of such charges at this time does not and can not be construed to be exoneration for high level Bush Administration officials from such charges.

Instead, you are advised that such charges are not YET forthcoming as a result of an incomplete investigation and as the result of clear and charged false statements, perjury, and obstruction of justice as this investigation has been ongoing and prior to the expiration of this FIRST Grand Jury.

Lastly, contained in the Libby indictments are clear examples of statements of fact by the Special Counsel that underscore the potential for many more indictments to be issued based on even more serious charges up to and including espionage.

Whatever, man. You were expecting a markedly different outcome today. Keep on :spin ing.

Rove is 1-0 versus Fitzgerald

fitz.. is schooling reporters... sheesh you would think they wouldn't be so dumb... lol...

I would have preferred if Rove was indicted immediately, but the thought that by keeping Rove talking he may eventually take Darth Cheney with him is very intriguing to say the least, especially in light of new evidence which keeps appearing...


Cheney, Libby Blocked Papers To Senate Intelligence Panel
By Murray Waas, special to National Journal
© National Journal Group Inc.
Thursday, Oct. 27, 2005

Quote:

---

Vice President Cheney and his chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, overruling advice from some White House political staffers and lawyers, decided to withhold crucial documents from the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2004 when the panel was investigating the use of pre-war intelligence that erroneously concluded Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, according to Bush administration and congressional sources.

Among the White House materials withheld from the committee were Libby-authored passages in drafts of a speech that then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell delivered to the United Nations in February 2003 to argue the Bush administration's case for war with Iraq, according to congressional and administration sources. The withheld documents also included intelligence data that Cheney's office -- and Libby in particular -- pushed to be included in Powell's speech, the sources said.

The new information that Cheney and Libby blocked information to the Senate Intelligence Committee further underscores the central role played by the vice president's office in trying to blunt criticism that the Bush administration exaggerated intelligence data to make the case to go to war.

The disclosures also come as Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald wraps up the nearly two-year-old CIA leak investigation that has focused heavily on Libby's role in discussing covert intelligence operative Valerie Plame with reporters. Fitzgerald could announce as soon as tomorrow whether a federal grand jury is handing up indictments in the case.

Central to Fitzgerald's investigation is whether administration officials disclosed Plame's identity and CIA status in an effort to discredit her husband, former ambassador and vocal Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson, who wrote newspaper op-ed columns and made other public charges beginning in 2003 that the administration misused intelligence on Iraq that he gathered on a CIA-sponsored trip to Africa.

---

National Journal

So much for the wing-nut argument that everyone had the same pre-war intelligence on Iraq and Saddam.

And how much is thiiiisssss costing taxpayers?? :spin :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpursWoman

And how much is thiiiisssss costing taxpayers?? :spin :lol

---

The question is: How much is it costing America? Where is the crime?

Shit, this is jest 'bout politiks, dats all.

Fitzgerald was planning to indict Rove, but Luskin provided some new information at the last minute...

So Fitzgerald has to investigate this new morsel before making the final decision on what to do with Rove.

What was this new information? Did Rove flip? nobody knows.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpursWoman

And how much is thiiiisssss costing taxpayers?? :spin :lol

---

Nothing. Fitzgerald is not a special prosecutor. It's not like Starr, who stopped getting paid once the investigation is over. Fitzgerald already is on the federal payroll.

The other federal prosecutors in Chicago have to handle the caseload Fitzgerald would have been taking on. And since he's the best prosecutor in the United States, those are big shoes to fill. It's not costing us anything extra, but those guys are very busy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xrayzebra

The question is: How much is it costing America? Where is the crime?

---

If perjury and obstruction of justice in a case concerning a blowjob are impeachable offenses, then perjury and obstruction of justice concerning espionage certainly are serious crimes.

I get the feeling the next few weeks my fellow conservatives are going to be parroting a lot of really dumb talking points.

The case against Libby is very strong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Extra Stout

If perjury and obstruction of justice in a case concerning a blowjob are impeachable offenses, then perjury and obstruction of justice concerning espionage certainly are serious crimes.

I get the feeling the next few weeks my fellow conservatives are going to be parroting a lot of really dumb talking points.

The case against Libby is very strong.

---

I agree. He was stupid for lying if, in fact, the indictments are as presented. They're pretty strong.

But, to the dismay of the Left, the indictments indicate something else. That this administration did what it promised, unprecedented cooperation with the special prosecutor. It's the anti-watergate if you ask me. These indictments read like Fitzgerald had the cooperation of everyone from the President on down.

I'm willing to hear Libby's side before I pass judgement but these aren't any Ronnie Earle indictments.

I do wish you would admit one thing ES. The Clinton impeachment was about perjurty and obstruction designed to deny an American due process. He lied NOT to save himself embarrassment but to thwart the Paula Jones lawsuit.

That is and impeachable offense.

hahah CNN was so blood lust Libby was not good enough

"Investigation will continue..."

Rove is clean... get over it.. hahah..

You looze again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Extra Stout

If perjury and obstruction of justice in a case concerning a blowjob are impeachable offenses, then perjury and obstruction of justice concerning espionage certainly are serious crimes.

I get the feeling the next few weeks my fellow conservatives are going to be parroting a lot of really dumb talking points.

The case against Libby is very strong.

---

Sure, they are serious charges...against a staffer, not against the POTUS.

Quote:

---

I'm willing to hear Libby's side before I pass judgement but these aren't any Ronnie Earle indictments.

---

True. The difference between Earle and Fitzgerald could not be more complete. Fitzgerald has been meticulous and has erred on the side of caution the whole way. If an indictment would be questionable, then he hasn't sent down that indictment.

Earle on the other hand finagled the system to get an indictment any way he could, no matter how shaky the allegations, and no matter how many grand juries he had to shop. His case against DeLay is going nowhere, and frankly I think all he cared about was getting the indictment so DeLay had to step down, rather than actually getting a conviction.

Quote:

---

I do wish you would admit one thing ES. The Clinton impeachment was about perjurty and obstruction designed to deny an American due process. He lied NOT to save himself embarrassment but to thwart the Paula Jones lawsuit.

---

OK, fine. I'll grant that. I still think this is much more serious, and I fear we're going to hear a lot of spin and downplaying of these charges, and characterization of Fitzgerald as a political hack.

Believe me, if Fitzgerald were a political hack, he would have rushed to get indictments out 12 months ago in order to affect the elections. He didn't do that because he's more concerned about uncovering the truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Extra Stout

Nothing. Fitzgerald is not a special prosecutor. It's not like Starr, who stopped getting paid once the investigation is over. Fitzgerald already is on the federal payroll.

---

Sorry, I was being facetious ... just one of those days. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

Sure, they are serious charges...against a staffer, not against the POTUS.

---

I don't think that Bush at any time has been implicated in the leaking of a CIA agent's identity, or the subsequent cover-up.

He had to testify about what he knew. That's all.

http://www.bartcop.com/bushbast.gif

I would think that perjury in a sexual harassment suit would be of a sufficient concern in this day and age. Lest we forget that episode arose because VJ had found a way to get Webb Hubbell and Whatshername paid.

This stinks more than Monica Lewinsky's blue dress.

One thing I absolutely can't stand is how when confronted with issues on the Bush presidency, people respond with "But Clinton".

Clinton is out of office and he had his day in court and is completely irrelevent when it comes to the current situation. What difference does it make what happend to him and whether or not there was illegal activity involving white house staffers and the administration in general? None.

I strongly support Mr. Fitzgerald's professionalism and "stick-to-it" attitude no matter what the consequences.

So the standards to which an administration will be held vary by the administration?

Understood.

I don't think you ever heard me say the Clinton indictment was incorrect, or that this one was correct and vice versa. I'm just sick of people bringing irrelevent information into a debate. When you stop into a courtroom, you are not allowed to present information about an entirely unrelated case.

This isn't about politics. It is about the law being broken.

Well, that was the prior administration and the head of it had impeachment proceedings brought of it due to a perjury charge.