Help - per recent developments about the Plame case

[salin]

Have followed this closely for a long time. But life caught up with me and I have barely been able to catch news (let alone dig for it and analyze it) for about three weeks. Have only a short time today.

I see there have been multiple threads - which suggests to me that some major thing/s has/have happened or are about to happen. But I have no clue as to what.

Can anyone give a quick summary as to why this is back on the DU discussion (even if it isn't making the mainstream headlines - which I have been able to glance over ever so very, very quickly in the past week or so.)

Thanks in advance.

[Warpy]

1. Indictments were supposed to be handed down last week.

Since they were not, and since the GOP is sending up all sorts of trial baloons regarding the abandonment of Cheney as half the ticket in 2004, I think we're all left making educated guesses about who is about to be indicted.

My guess is that the indictments were postponed as a courtesy to the corrupt sacks of crap currently inhabiting the White House, in order to give them time to scramble and do a whole lot of damage control.

But then, I'm a cynical old bat.

[salin]

2. Thanks for giving me the framework

for the discussions. I will take time late tonight to read through the threads - I always find our collective speculations quite interesting.

Didn't realize that the indictments were supposed to come out (timeline), and thus that they had been delayed. Does put an interesting spin on some of the headlines I have read (in my very brief scanning.)

I so hate being completely in the dark about big developments... thanks for pandering for me need to get a quick grounding on what is going on (per the multiple discussions). :thumbsup:

[Stephanie]

3. We've learned that lawyers argued before the judge last week

I think it was Wednesday. (This was covered by PBS Newshour - you can probably find a transcript). Fitzgerald wants to compel several journalists to talk to him. The judge will probably take a few weeks to rule. So the grand jury, which was supposed to end last week, has been extended.

Also, a poster named H20Man, who for some mysterious reason seems to know what he's talking about, keeps telling us there will be big news on July 14. Possibly JMM's tectonic plates. We shall see.

[Stephanie]

4. Newshour transcript:

<excerpt>

RAY SUAREZ: It's been widely published that the source that let Glenn Kessler off the hook is a pretty important person in the White House.

ADAM LIPTAK: It's said to be Lewis Libby on the vice president's staff. His name has come up over and over again. It's not clear, though, and in The Washington Post reporting, there was a suggestion that what they had to tell prosecutors was tended to exonerate rather than incriminate Mr. Libby, which might be a reason that Mr. Libby indeed, not only through this form but perhaps in another way, allowed or encouraged the reporter to testify.

RAY SUAREZ: How long until we know whether this attempt to quash the subpoenas is successful and whether this is all that the U.S. Attorney Fitzgerald is going to get on this matter?

ADAM LIPTAK: Well, there are a couple of questions. One is, how long does it take to judge to decide and hear arguments from very sophisticated lawyers today. And that typically takes weeks for a judge to digest the argument and the briefs and to write a written decision. It's also not clear that that decision will be made public, again because it's a grand jury proceeding; and not clear what happens next. It may be that if the news organizations lose, they'll appeal. It may be that they'll appear before the grand jury, but decline to testify there. There are lots of steps, legal steps, procedural steps, between here and there.

<snip>

RAY SUAREZ: And does the fact that the president was interviewed signal that Mr. Fitzgerald's case is almost done, his part of it?

ADAM LIPTAK: It almost certainly means that. You're not going to take up the president's time until you're finishing up the case.

It's interesting, though: 70 minutes is a long time. The president hiring a private lawyer is an unusual move. It does seem -- while no one thinks the president himself picked up the phone to Mr. Novak -- that the president may well have information interesting to prosecutors. That's not to say that it's information that points towards anyone's guilt, but certainly 70 minutes is a lot of questions.

<more>

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/july-dec04/plame_07-08.html