Fitzgerald "shoring up his mandate"

Okay, so it's Sunday, a slow news day on the Plame front. An interesting piece appeared on Reuters today though that comes  closer to flat out stating that indictments are coming than any other wire service story I have read to date.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald appears to be laying the groundwork for indictments this week over the outing of a covert CIA operative, including possible charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, lawyers involved in case said on Sunday.

Top administration officials are expected to learn from Fitzgerald as early as Monday whether they will face charges as the prosecutor winds up his nearly two-year investigation, the lawyers said.

More nuggets below

More Nuggets:

Asked whether he was taking part in a final round of discussions with the prosecutor's office, Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, said: "I'm just not going to comment on any possible interactions with Fitzgerald."

...

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.

I reread the story again. The most interesting thing about it is what is not there: A clear statement that there is a possibility of no indictments.

•  Was a moving episode -

  would that we had integrity in the White House like that.

  Of course it's easy to make things clean in fiction, but....

  by calebfaux on Sun Oct 23, 2005 at 06:08:23 PM PDT

  •  This is very strange -

    this comment was connected to a different diary - the one about West Wing - why did it show up here?

    by calebfaux on Sun Oct 23, 2005 at 06:10:18 PM PDT

    •  I don't know, but the

      West Wing diary appears to have been deleted.  It was surreal watching the president deal with a leak in his White House at this particular moment in time.  I kept thinking that instead of Oliver Babbit, George has Harriet Miers...no wonder it's been such a cluster-fuck.

      To the origional diarist, thanks for reminding me to pop over to the special counsel's website.  Perhaps things will appear in the wee hours tonight?  The waiting is excrutiating.

      by poe on Sun Oct 23, 2005 at 06:35:33 PM PDT

      •  I was just over there

        too, it's like peeking under the skirt of the Xmas tree!

        by starkravinglunaticradical on Sun Oct 23, 2005 at 07:46:33 PM PDT

    •  Strange but fitting,

      Funny, fitting flukes amuse me and this was one.

      We seem to have been living in a novel or movie with a twisted odd plot. The first scene would be 9/11 but the story would wind back in time and ahead. (No one would believe the story line without 9/11 to explain how our country let us get to this point today).

      I will take the fluke as a good sign. If "it's easy to make things clean in fiction" and this is all stranger then fiction perhaps integrity is about to become a part of this plot. Fitzgerald seems to be a personification of integrity.

      by joynow on Sun Oct 23, 2005 at 06:38:47 PM PDT

  •  Rove

    This is the quote that is giving me hope.

    Asked whether he was taking part in a final round of discussions with the prosecutor's office, Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, said: "I'm just not going to comment on any possible interactions with Fitzgerald."

    Luskin always has something to say.  There's some serious sh*t going down.  I just hope that Rove does not get off for turning on Libby.

    by Kitty on Sun Oct 23, 2005 at 06:54:20 PM PDT

•  It would seem in the bag...

  but I've had victory snatched from my hand by this crowd before.

  Remember when the early exit polls showed Kerry well ahead in several key battleground states last November?

  And I don't even want to think about Florida 04.

  I'll believe it when I see Brit Hume go bonkers and try to bite the "Fox All Stars."

  That's when I'll pop the cork!

  New on EWM: The Twelve Days of Miers: An inappropriately early holiday motif song parody/commentary.

  by The Eyewitness Muse on Sun Oct 23, 2005 at 06:25:25 PM PDT

  •  I dunno...

    ...I think this is it. It's just about the bleakest story (for Rove and Libby) I have seen to date and it is missing the ubiquitous statement that there is a possibility of no indictments that I have seen in every other story.

    Something is up..

    by drag0n on Sun Oct 23, 2005 at 06:33:11 PM PDT

    •  Oh I'm with you buddy...

      Just trying to keep my emotions in check.

      I've lived in worked in DC for 18 years...this has an entirely different feel to it.

      The difference with Clinton, for me anyway, is that I aways felt he'd get out from under it, but never worried that he'd take the nation entirely off the tracks in the process.

      This guy....I dunno

      by The Eyewitness Muse on Sun Oct 23, 2005 at 08:02:09 PM PDT

•  Has he got it right?

  go over everything again, Patrick.
  make sure it all holds up.
  never underestimate your adversary.

  Once again, I'd like to thank Patrick's parents, and all the priests and scholastics at Regis.

  by jackinthebox4 on Sun Oct 23, 2005 at 06:32:08 PM PDT

•  Judith Miller nailed

  Can judy miller be charged with perjury? Now that everybody knows the grand Jury mandate?

  She clearly lies about the June meeting. She also tries to give the impression that she doesn't remember Libby.

  Also, NYTimes is clearly in trouble. They are not exactly cooperating. Tehy better keep all those email intake or they gonna get nailed with destruction of evidence.

  by fugue on Sun Oct 23, 2005 at 06:40:33 PM PDT

  •  I don't think she'll be nailed

    She's flipped. She more or less told the the New York Observer that she was expecting to be called a witness.

    by drag0n on Sun Oct 23, 2005 at 06:46:06 PM PDT

  •  Judy, Judy, Judy

    She should get nailed with obstruction of justice.

    by Kitty on Sun Oct 23, 2005 at 06:55:45 PM PDT

•  Jeebus I Hope He Doesn't Inform Targets

  till 8 or 9 seconds before the public announcement.

  I'm just sayin' ....

  by Gooserock on Sun Oct 23, 2005 at 07:22:25 PM PDT

  •  Could it be that

    targets have already been informed (and this is what the stakeout at Camp David is about), as is the firing up of Rep talking points.

    I think they already know.

    Question: would the target letters identify charges or just inform targets that they will be charged with something.

    If not, and if they already know who is going to be indicted, but not what the charges are, then that would explain the trivialization of perjury, obstruction, etc.

    by starkravinglunaticradical on Sun Oct 23, 2005 at 07:43:42 PM PDT

•  We should also thank Ashcroft. (Not that I

  want to).   Just think where we'd be if he hadn't messed up and recused himself and let the chosing of the Prosecutor get into the hands of someone else.

  See,   there are good things that bad people do.

  by maybeeso in michigan on Sun Oct 23, 2005 at 10:27:21 PM PDT