Reply #15: What strikes me about this article is the extreme cautiousness with... [View All]

[Peace Patriot]

...which it is written. The writer seems to be tiptoeing through a minefield, e-e-e-ever so careful not to make one misstep. This may possibly be because Fitzgerald has been so tight-lipped, giving reporters almost nothing to go on. They are reduced to reading entrails--('Ah! the GJ "could convene" TUESDAY, what does THAT mean?'). Except for Rove's lawyer, who discloses absolutely nothing, the sources are never described beyond "lawyers involved in (the) case," who, of course, have an interest in shaping the story, may not be all that reliable, and certainly don't want to say anything earthshaking, or be identified as saying anything at all.

The meat of the article starts way at the bottom of page one and includes the subtitle, "Investigation expanded." Notice the "hot" paragraph at the end.

------------------------

The article continues (from the post above)...

------------------------

"Another possibility was for Fitzgerald to bring a broad conspiracy charge, the lawyers said.

"INVESTIGATION EXPANDED

"Lawyers said Fitzgerald has sent several signals in recent days that he is likely to bring indictments in the case. For the first time, Fitzgerald has set up an official Web site, http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/ which included a February 6, 2004, requested by Fitzgerald that gave him Justice Department authorization for expansion of the probe.

"The letter from then-Deputy Attorney General James Comey gave Fitzgerald added authority to investigate and prosecute 'federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, your investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses.'

"This comes on top of Fitzgerald's authority to investigate and prosecute officials for the 'unauthorized disclosure' of Plame's identity.

"Former independent counsel Robert Ray said on Fox News Sunday that Fitzgerald appeared to be 'shoring up his mandate,' and to focus on whether or not there were attempts to obstruct the investigation.

"'People better be ready for charges,' said Abbe Lowell, a prominent criminal defense lawyer.

"Indictments would be stinging blow to an administration already at a low point in public opinion, and would put a spotlight on aggressive tactics used by the White House to counter critics of its Iraq policy."

Page one:
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2005-10-23T161616Z_01_MOR119416_RTRUKOC_0_US-BUSH-LEAK.xml

Page two:
http://today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=uri:2005-10-23T161616Z_01_MOR119416_RTRUKOC_0_US-BUSH-LEAK.xml&pageNumber=1&summit=


---------------------------------------


(Caution: I wouldn't read this article either way, as to how much the investigation has been expanded, or who may be charged with what. I think the reporter genuinely doesn't know. Nobody's talking. And he has to go to outside lawyers to get a decent quote. He goes over the case against Rove and Libby--but doesn't go near the 10 to 20 other indictments we know are possible. The article does have a feel--as I said--of a minefield. It also sizzles, in a way--as if a great big cauldron were boiling beneath it all, heated by the fires of hell. But maybe that's just me.)