Sponsors

Murray Waas: Fitz Holding Out For Libby's Testimony Email Print

In his lastest article for The National Journal, Murray Waas states that Fitz might be waiting for Libby's testimony before indicting Karl Rove in the Plame/CIA Leak case, and gave some interesting insight as to why Fitz decided not to indict Rove in October.

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald delayed a decision on whether to seek criminal charges against Karl Rove in large part because he wants to determine whether Lewis (Scooter) Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Cheney, can provide information on Rove's role in the CIA leak case, according to attorneys involved in the investigation.

--snip--

On the last day of its two-year term, the federal grand jury in the leak case indicted Libby on five counts of making false statements, perjury, and obstruction of justice as part of an alleged effort to conceal his own role, and perhaps that of other Bush administration officials, in publicly disclosing the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame.

Fitzgerald did not seek an indictment of Rove, opting to present any potential new evidence on the White House deputy chief of staff to a new grand jury. In recent days, Fitzgerald has reinterviewed several witnesses with knowledge of Rove's role in the Plame leak and talked with attorneys of other potential witnesses.

Waas also implies that the wait might stretch to as long as two years.

The ongoing investigation means that Rove's legal status is likely to remain up in the air until the final disposition of Libby's case. That could be two years from now, or even longer. Rove's predicament contradicts recent news accounts indicating that Fitzgerald will conclude his probe of Rove in the near future.

Interviews with legal experts who are familiar with criminal prosecutions reveal that Fitzgerald's tactics, which would leave Karl Rove's status as a target in limbo, are not uncommon.

Stan Brand, a Washington defense lawyer who has specialized in representing clients in high-profile political cases and before special prosecutors, says that "while it is not a good thing for anyone to be hung out to dry during a criminal investigation," Fitzgerald has shown himself to be a prosecutor who "has come to the case with no predisposition and no political bent."

Regarding Rove, Brand said: "He is not being treated differently than anyone else. If you don't like the way the system works in this instance, you don't like it, period."

Without a plea deal with Scooter Libby, the investigation of Rove's role in the leak will last well into next year's election cycle and beyond.

Waas has supplied some answers to some nagging questions I've had about Fit'z tactics and behavior.


KEYWORDS: , , ,

Sign up for a Complimentary Member Account... Join the community! It's fast. And it'll allow you to take advantage of all this site's great features!

< Tax Plan Creates Whole New Freeloader Class | Welcome to the Cheney-Bush Dictatorship! >
 Display:
During Fitzgerald's press conference, I was struck by his analogy of the umpire getting sand in his eyes. Yeah, I got it that it was Libby and his lying that was "blocking his view" of the case.

But I couldn't quite make out if Fitzgerald was saying that his view of the action (Rove, perhaps Cheney leaking) was irretrievably blocked by Libby's obstruction and thus we would never be able to get at the whole truth and Libby was getting severely punished for this infraction ... OR ... whether charging Libby was more a move of wiping the sand out of the umpire's eyes and exerting enough pressure to get an instant replay.

If that makes sense.

Waas article seems to be leaning slightly toward the instant replay scenario, that we may indeed ultimately get at the truth, but that it may take a long while.

Strategically for Dems, if this drags into 2006 or beyond, I think it's a good thing, but frustrating to those of us who want justice done NOW.

by SusanG on 11/11/2005 11:37:57 PM EST

I had, I think, pessimistically assumed that it meant that it was irretrievably lost, but Waas, at least is building the case that it may be otherwise.

Fascinating stuff, really, in comibination with his interviewing Rove people.  According to Raw Story yesterday -- to be taken with the usual grain of salt -- Fitz is re-interviewing Susan Ralston in the very near future.

Of course Raw Story, unlike Waas, seems to think that this is the "wrap up" phase of the investigation of Rove, but they don't seem to have too much to base it on.

Again, we'll have to wait and see, but if he really is about to start re-interviewing people before a different grand jury -- well, that's big news and could just possibly shut up all the David Brookses crowing about how Rove got off the hook.  (Okay, we all know it won't, it'll just be that that particular spin will be "rendered inoperative," and they'll move on to the next obfuscation, yet to be determined.)

-- Stu

by sdf on 11/12/2005 01:08:16 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Jane at FireDogLake had some info that basically said the Raw Story piece was BS.  

Her article along with Murray Wass's gives a pretty good picture of where things might be headed.

The Albany Project. The best damned blog about New York State politics.

by NYBri on 11/12/2005 05:10:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Jane and Murray certainly seem more reliable on such matters.

It will nevertheless continue to be interesting to see if/when Fitz calls more folks to testify.

-- Stu

by sdf on 11/12/2005 05:39:55 PM EST

[ Parent ]
[They're connected at the roots, ya know.]

I'd love to see Libby box Rove in. He's been untouchable for so many decades that you have to wonder how much further he'll go.

If Libby figures he can deal with a short sentence, take the rap, and be the fall guy (making millions on the book, TV deal, and lecture circuit), then he'll be able to salvage his coveted place among the GOP Circle of Hell. He'll never give up Cheney (IMO).

If, on the other hand, he can't turn this into a winning combination, he might just cooperate and give Rove up.

Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle. FDR

by btyarbro on 11/12/2005 10:20:00 AM EST

 Display: