If Fitzgerald is going after any bigger fish than the one he’s already landed, or the others still wriggling on his hook, it almost certainly is Cheney. What other game is worth the candle? But I still think the odds are against it.
—
II. What If
—
I. Hung Jury
Back to Main
October 29, 2005
WB: Hung Jury ++
Comments
The indictment will not seek to prove that the war was justified or unjustified. This is stripped of that debate, and this is focused on a narrow transaction.
any new information that would ever come to light while the investigation is open would be handled by our investigative team concerning these facts.
So if there’s there’s anything that we haven’t learned yet that we learn that should be addressed, we will address it.
Posted by: annie | Oct 29 2005 10:15 utc | 1
I’m with Annie. I think that Fitzgerald was very good at limiting the interpretation beyond what is specifically stated in the indictment. He keeps saying “the indictment” in this context.
I can also read two ways his statements about the investigation being largely complete.
First, as everyone else has. We got our fish, and our fish is Scooter. We may get Rove later, but this is pretty much what we got. Sorry.
Second, the investigation is largely done for this and many more indictments. Indictments that will discuss the war and the heated debate that surrounded it. This is the first and does not discuss that.
Posted by: kevin. | Oct 29 2005 14:14 utc | 2
…and if the neocons should have taught us anything, it’s to be inordinately suspicious of your fondest dreams.
Now that is a thought at the common source of the liberal (as an informed view of the world) and the conservative (as an informed view of the world) and the Confucian (Faults without efforts to amend them? Faults indeed! False indeed!)and perhaps even the Jesuian (ye without sin)and is worth sleeping on for those who would understand why this nation and this world are at the juncture they are at and what may be.
Posted by: razor | Oct 29 2005 17:36 utc | 3
If you give classified information to somebody else, it is a crime. There may be an Official Secrets Act in England. There are some narrow statutes [here], and there is this one statute that has some flexibility in it. So there are people who should argue that you should never use that statute because it would become like the Official Secrets Act.
I don’t buy that theory ,but I do know you should be very careful in applying that law because there are a lot of interests that could be implicated in making sure that you picked the right case to charge that statute.
does anyone know what that statute might be?
instead of focusing on fitz’s continued emphasis on sticking within the boundaries of the 4 corners of libby’s indictments i think it’s prudent to focus on the things he said about the entire case. he gives us this right off the bat.
That’s the way this investigation was conducted. It was known that a CIA officer’s identity was blown, it was known that there was a leak. We needed to figure out how that happened, who did it, why, whether a crime was committed, whether we could prove it, whether we should prove it.
he he states his investigation is for the most part complete i imagine a jigsaw puzzle with only a few pieces missing. doesn’t mean he can’t see the image. means he’s looking for that on final piece to be completely secure in his convictions. so, is the piece thats missing part of the who the why, whether a crime was committed etc? he will be looking extensively at all the above. does libby’s indictment even feel thorough? of course not.
i imagine he is missing a piece of the why and/or the ‘whether we can prove it’. to prove the why takes us off in a whole new can of worms. and he knows why, he just needs a little more information to complete the puzzle. i have faith.
Posted by: annie | Oct 29 2005 19:09 utc | 4
i am wondering tho when he states ‘this one statue with some flexibility’ what that flexibility is. and he doesn’t specifically state he is referring to 793. he saysThere are some narrow statutes [here], and there is this one statute that has some flexibility in it. maybe i’m splitting hairs here. i am just curious. i’ve read it over and over. also note, he initiated this part of the dialogue and he is speaking outside the 4 corners. he doesn’t have to do that. so while billmon considers this disingenuous and unusually verbose, while i was listening to him, before reading the transcript, this stood out. he squirmed around the issue a bit and found away to inject into the dialogue.
another clue, when someone starts out a sentence w/”“All I’ll say” you can better believe that’s not all they’re saying. he made a leap.
Posted by: annie | Oct 29 2005 19:49 utc | 7
Alternatively, in my capacity as the prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner in the Whiskey Bar criminal justice system, I could declare the contest over and pick a winner based on today’s news. Or, I could declare a mistrial.
I think what I’m going to do is extend the contest by one week, until next Friday.
are you nuts??? how can you declare a contest w/this question Will the Plame investigation result in any indictments of Cheney administration officials (current or former)? over when the plame investigation is not over? hmph!!
Posted by: annie | Oct 29 2005 20:08 utc | 8
are you nuts??? how can you declare a contest w/this question Will the Plame investigation result in any indictments of Cheney administration officials (current or former)? over when the plame investigation is not over? hmph!!
The contest rules clearly stated that I would determine the winner(s) “once the grand jury results are in.” They’re in. Strictly speaking, I shouldn’t even have put it off for another week, but I didn’t feel like wading through all the entries yesterday.
And remember: Judges’ decisions ARE final.
Posted by: Billmon | Oct 30 2005 1:00 utc | 9