Today's New York Times report, "Cover-Up Issue Is Seen as Focus in Leak Inquiry," by David Johnston, is just more of the salivating that has been taking place in liberal circles for months now.
Johnston writes:
As he weighs whether to bring criminal charges in the C.I.A. leak case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special counsel, is focusing on whether Karl Rove, the senior White House adviser, and I. Lewis Libby Jr., chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney, sought to conceal their actions and mislead prosecutors, lawyers involved in the case said Thursday.
Among the charges that Mr. Fitzgerald is considering are perjury, obstruction of justice and false statement - counts that suggest the prosecutor may believe the evidence presented in a 22-month grand jury inquiry shows that the two White House aides sought to cover up their actions, the lawyers said.
Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby have been advised that they may be in serious legal jeopardy, the lawyers said, but only this week has Mr. Fitzgerald begun to narrow the possible charges. The prosecutor has said he will not make up his mind about any charges until next week, government officials say.
With the term of the grand jury expiring in one week, though, some lawyers in the case said they were persuaded that Mr. Fitzgerald had all but made up his mind to seek indictments. None of the lawyers would speak on the record, citing the prosecutor's requests not to talk about the case.
Associates of Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby continued to express hope that the prosecutor would conclude that the evidence was too fragmentary and that it would be difficult to prove Mr. Rove or Mr. Libby had a clear-cut intention to misinform the grand jury. Lawyers for the two men declined to comment on their legal status.
The case has cast a cloud over the White House, as has the Congressional criticism over the Supreme Court nomination of Harriet E. Miers. On Thursday, responding to a reporter's question, Mr. Bush said: "There's some background noise here, a lot of chatter, a lot of speculation and opining. But the American people expect me to do my job, and I'm going to."
The possible violations under consideration by Mr. Fitzgerald are peripheral to the issue he was appointed in December 2003 to investigate: whether anyone in the administration broke a federal law that makes it a crime, under certain circumstances, to reveal the identity of a covert intelligence officer.
But Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby may not be the only people at risk. There may be others in the government who could be charged for violations of the disclosure law or of other statutes, like the espionage act, which makes it a crime to transmit classified information to people not authorized to receive it.
It is still not publicly known who first told the columnist Robert D. Novak the identity of the C.I.A. officer, Valerie Wilson. Mr. Novak identified her in a column on July 14, 2003, using her maiden name, Valerie Plame. Mr. Fitzgerald knows the identity of this source, a person who is not believed to work at the White House, the lawyers said.
A few things--
FIRST, the entire article is based on information from lawyers involved in the case, but unwilling to "speak on the record, citing the prosecutor's requests not to talk about the case."
So, what we have here are lawyers working on a case that revolves around leaking the identity of Valerie Plame Flame Wilson. Fitzgerald has asked these lawyers not to talk about the case; yet they are out there leaking all over the place, just not on the record.
Does this disturb Fitzgerald?
Does it bug him that his requests have been ignored?
There are two scenarios:
1) Fitzgerald isn't happy with how the "lawyers" are conducting themselves.
OR
2) Fitzgerald gave them his blessing to spring leaks as long as they remained anonymous.
Either way, all this speculation is really annoying me.
SECOND, the Times is reporting that indictments are likely. Remember, indictments were supposed to be handed down days ago. Why was that time frame altered?
Now, it's being reported that Fitzgerald has said he will not make up his mind about any charges until next week. Although that's the official word, some lawyers are saying that's untrue, that the prosecutor has already made up his mind.
It sounds like a lot of whispering based on conjecture. There's a tremendous amount of uncertainty and contradictory statements being bandied about.
What's the point? Why doesn't the mainstream media show a little maturity and a little patience?
They obviously can't contain themselves, so it's story after story on what might happen. That's not news. That's guessing.
THIRD, since when does the Left consider "perjury, obstruction of justice and false statement" to be significant? I thought that sort of thing didn't matter. I remember hearing that in 1998.
We know for a fact that Clinton lied under oath. I thought that was acceptable. Wasn't that a lesson that came out of the Lewinsky scandal? That, and the fact that engaging in oral sex shouldn't be considered as having sex.
I'm confused. Now that we have a Republican administration, have the standards changed?
Does that mean that little things like perjury, obstruction of justice and false statement actually DO matter?
Does that mean that oral sex actually IS sex?
FOURTH, and most troubling to me, is that the Dems and their mouthpieces in the liberal media are positively slaphappy over the thought of the Bush administration being paralyzed and distracted due to the Fitzgerald investigation.
They are literally cheering for the executive branch of the U.S. government to be unable to function fully.
That can only be seen as a good thing if you consider yourself to be a political enemy of the Bush administration before you consider yourself to be an American.
We are at war, but all the Dems/libs seem to care about is whether they can embarrass the White House.
Afghanistan, Iraq, poverty at home and abroad, health care, education, and Homeland security all have to take a back seat to political witch hunts.
And if Fitzgerald does issue indictments, how will that make the Dem agenda suddenly more palatable to Red State America?
By the way, what is the Dem agenda for America?
No comments:
Post a Comment