Libby indicted on Perjury, mking a false statement and Obstruction of justice.

[Smash255]

Its not over.  It is possiblle nmore indictments could come, their are still questions involving what Cheney's involvment was (if any) While the bulk of the work is done in the investigation & basically seems like loose ends need to be tied up, sometimes big things can come from those loose ends.  Also it is possible that this could held to a jury and if that happens everything will come out again, and more information will come out.  It is a good day as far as Rove is concerned, but it certaintly is not over.

[Smash255]

Just heard on CNN according to a Wash Post article that Fitzgerald was about to bring charges on Rove untill Rove came up with documents at the last minute.  As a result Fitzgerald put the indicment to Rove on pause, in order to review those documents.

[Smash255]

Just heard on CNN according to a Wash Post article that Fitzgerald was about to bring charges on Rove untill Rove came up with documents at the last minute.  As a result Fitzgerald put the indicment to Rove on pause, in order to review those documents.

Yes, even Rove's lawyer admits that Rove is still under investigation.

Yup, what we should do is wait for the investigation to be finished and wait for any possible trial (Libby will more than likley try tp plead out, but I'm not so sure Fitzgerald will accept a plea to a lesser charge espeecially if his evidence is quote strong)

[Smash255]

Just heard on CNN according to a Wash Post article that Fitzgerald was about to bring charges on Rove untill Rove came up with documents at the last minute.  As a result Fitzgerald put the indicment to Rove on pause, in order to review those documents.

Yes, even Rove's lawyer admits that Rove is still under investigation.

Yup, what we should do is wait for the investigation to be finished and wait for any possible trial (Libby will more than likley try tp plead out, but I'm not so sure Fitzgerald will accept a plea to a lesser charge espeecially if his evidence is quote strong)

Getting another indictment will not be as easy.  Fitzgerald will have to empanel a new grand jury and present them the full evidence relying on either recalling Rove and other witnesses or reading the transcripts from the first trial into the record.

This is definitely possible.  However, this, combined with some of his statements, I think any further indictments are likely to follow information coming out in a trial than with further investigation.

I agree that it will be more likely to see addiotional indictments through a trial then during the next few weeks, howeevr it does remain possible that we could see more in the next few weeks.  Basically atr this point he has to tie uyp a few loose ends and the bulk of the investigation is over.  The loose ends could turn up a key piece of evidence.  Also it is possible that the  grand jury has already voted on other indictments, but they are not released yet for one to finish up the paper work involved in the indictment or to go over any last minute documents that he may have received.  Now neither of the last two are all that likely, but we simply don't know until Fitzgerald says the investigation is over.  And then as you said its not really over depending on what comes out of a trial if it indeed goes that far.

At this point I think its not going to be what most Democrats want to see in it relating directly to the release of a CIA agent (although passing on classified information is still a possibility), but its not going to be what the Republicans want either (with this being it).  I feel more charges are going to come that will be related to the coverup of the leak.  Just my opinon, but I feel this isn;t over.

[Smash255]

There are real problems with further indictments.  All of the ones today related to Libby's testimony and interviews with investigators, not the actions Libby took as Chief of Staff. 

So far, none of the governmental actions have been found to be illegal and Rove's comments to reporters came after Libby had talked to them.  It's a tough case to make. 

More could come out in a trial.  One reason why their might not have been the evidence at this point to charge Libby in regards to the actual leak could be ibecause of the fact Libby lied about the whole situation, more evidence probably comes out in the trial (if it goes that far) and due to completley differnet charges double jeopardy I believe doesn't apply.  It also leaves the Novak situation in the air.  Unless I am mistaken I believe Rove was the initial source for Novak and Libby was the confirmation source

[Smash255]

There are real problems with further indictments.  All of the ones today related to Libby's testimony and interviews with investigators, not the actions Libby took as Chief of Staff. 

So far, none of the governmental actions have been found to be illegal and Rove's comments to reporters came after Libby had talked to them.  It's a tough case to make. 

More could come out in a trial.  One reason why their might not have been the evidence at this point to charge Libby in regards to the actual leak could be ibecause of the fact Libby lied about the whole situation, more evidence probably comes out in the trial (if it goes that far) and due to completley differnet charges double jeopardy I believe doesn't apply.  It also leaves the Novak situation in the air.  Unless I am mistaken I believe Rove was the initial source for Novak and Libby was the confirmation source

You are not mistaken, but Rove's answer to Novak was, "I heard that (according to Rove)."  There was another official who confirmed it (according to Novak).  The problem is, when Rove said it, Libby was already talking to Miller, possibly other reporters as well, and had been for one to weeks.

One sticking point could be  if Novak's versoin of the conversation with Rove differs from the "I heard that" recollection from Rove.  Their could be, but I don't recall any leaked information regarding Novak's recollection of his conversation with Rove.  So one thing that could be a sticking point is  what the actual conversation between Rove & Novak was (if it differs from what Rove has stated).  If the actual conversation was a bit more detailed than Rove's version he could be in hot water to that, also even confirming what could be classified information could bring up legal issues even when someone else has leaked it already as in this case (in part because it wasn't exposed at this time).  Their is just so many in's & out's in this case & while you can say some can breathe a bit easier no one is safe until not only when the investigation is over, but when any possible trial is over.

[Smash255]

There has to be more to it than that, Smash.  There needs to be proof that Rove is the one who is wrong, and he is willfully lying, and not Novak.

If you just know one of them is wrong, but not which, it is an unprovable case.  Rove can get up there and say he is right and Novak is the one who is wrong and why isn't Novak on trial?

Libby's testimony is, apparently, contradicted by his own notes.  A much stronger case than anything against Rove at the moment.

If the documents Rove's attorney reportedly turn over on Wednesday back up his testimony, it is that much harder to prove a case against Rove.

I know that.  I'm just saying at this point their is quite a bit of stuff that is still secret that went on during the investigation.  Their is alot of stuff we still don't know, and for that case probably will never know.  While it does look better for Rove now, we simply don't know nearly enough to call him safe.  their is still more that can come out regarding the evidence (it is possible Fitzgerald is still reviewing evidence in regards to Rove) and if this thing ever goes to trial more can come out then involving Rove.  It's just too early to simply think Rove is out of the woods.