Prosecutor Raises Questions That Demand Answers (he has not disclosed)

[DeepModem Mom]

Ronald Brownstein:
Washington Outlook
Leak Case Prosecutor Raises Questions That Demand Answers
Who knew what when in the Bush administration's effort to disclose the identity of a CIA official whose husband had become a principal critic of the Iraq war?


....On both these issues — the conversation on Air Force Two and the discussion between Libby and Official A — the indictment strongly hints at a broader effort within the administration to disclose Plame's identity, but does not level charges (such as conspiracy) to that effect. "You could not put in and not charge, or put it in and charge, but the puzzling thing is to put it in and not charge," David Boies, one of the nation's leading trial lawyers, said after reading the indictment....

***

Fitzgerald might still be investigating. Others speculate that he included the information about the discussion on Air Force Two and the conversation with Official A as a warning to the White House and other Republicans that he could punch back with much more explosive charges if they attack him too harshly.

Fitzgerald may be correct that criminal prosecution isn't the right venue to explain exactly what happened. And he has indicated that, so far, he does not believe further criminal charges are justified; more disclosure wouldn't by itself change that. But even so, the information in his indictment demands further answers.

Those answers might come if Joseph Wilson files a civil suit against administration officials, as he has suggested he might, but private action isn't the most appropriate way to satisfy the public interest in a full accounting.

That responsibility belongs to Congress. It may need to wait until after criminal proceedings are concluded. But with its power to subpoena documents and compel testimony, Congress owes America answers to the questions Fitzgerald has left hanging so suggestively.


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-outlook31oct31,0,1877882.column?coll=la-home-nation

[dennis4868]

1. Is this right?

Fitzgerald may be correct that criminal prosecution isn't the right venue to explain exactly what happened. And he has indicated that, so far, he does not believe further criminal charges are justified;

When did Fitz say that he does not believe further criminal charges are justified?

[DeepModem Mom]

2. Good question. nt

[Halliburton]

3. he never said that

that's what people like Brownstien and Ishikoff have been saying for the past few days by interpreting his "body language."

[Kagemusha]

6. He said that all he alleges is in the indictment. And that's it.

And that a press conference was not the venue in which to impugn anyone who was not charged because that would be prosecutorial misconduct.

Which means that if and when he does go after other people's rear ends, he will do it the legitimate way and they will be up a creek just as bad as Libby, and they won't be able to credibly argue misconduct at trial.

The point is that he has Libby nailed *now*. If and when he has other people nailed just as tight, and has determined a criminal state of mind that should satisfy a jury, he may be ready to go public with an indictment. Telegraphing such a case before an indictment would be a) misconduct, b) bad prosecuting.

Fitz has a record of *good* prosecuting and of conservative, step-by-step unraveling of vast conspiracies. We must not take absence of prematurely unveiled evidence as evidence of absence (of evidence).

[PRETZEL]

8. that was the impression I got from what I saw also

that it was "I know I have this much for sure" and to press for more from this GJ would have been risky from a prosecutorial standpoint. Personally if Fitzgerald didn't have the comfort of having another GJ sitting behind this one there would have been many more indictments issued. I think he's taking what he has for sure from this GJ and will finish his investigation with another.

[mmonk]

4. I think what he was saying

it would be inappropriate to bring further charges against Libby until it is determined through a court of law his guilt in lying to the FBI and the grand jury and obstruction of justice.

[KoKo]

5. Dammit! The "wheels of justice are grinding too damned slowly!

Why are things always left hanging? Why is everything so muddied that one has to parse through article after article trying to find some truth or at least some direction as to whether we will ever get any honest investigations of the Bush Crime Family.

:banghead:

[Kagemusha]

7. Grand jury secrecy.

Congress is the only body that's supposed to do justice that's out in the open like a 2x4 between the eyes. And if Congress tried, we'd get an executive privilege fight. And it's not going to try.

[Jim__]

9. The republican congress will not investigate this.

They may have a pro-forma hearing to whitewash it - but there will be no Congressional effort to learn the truth.