re: But a new theory about Fitzgerald's aim has emerged in recent weeks from two lawyers who have had extensive conversations with the prosecutor while representing witnesses in the case. They surmise that Fitzgerald is considering whether he can bring charges of a criminal conspiracy perpetrated by a group of senior Bush administration officials. Under this legal tactic, Fitzgerald would attempt to establish that at least two or more officials agreed to take affirmative steps to discredit and retaliate against Wilson and leak sensitive government information about his wife. To prove a criminal conspiracy, the actions need not have been criminal, but conspirators must have had a criminal purpose.
You've got Cheney's Chief of Staff, and Bush's <then> "top political adviser" (now Chief of Staff), simultaneously outing a CIA agent to discredit her husband (same method, not using the name, which indicates forethought that this was illegal). It's certainly not a stretch of imagination to guess that Bush and Cheney were aware of the "conspiracy" to commit the outing, which is a crime.
That possibility... and what else did Fitzgerald come across with all these folks under oath? Coupled with Miller finally agreeing to testify after assurances that the testimony would be limited to her communication with Libby, not her communications with, say, Cheney, makes you wonder what's under the hat.
What happens with this? Could be everything and could be nothing, or anything in between. Watergate redux? Maybe. Nothing, maybe.
Stay tuned...
John |
