Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: longnshort who wrote (47863)	11/18/2005 7:34:28 PM
From: bentway	Respond to of 93284

Prosecutor in Leak Case Wants to Convene New Grand Jury By DAVID STOUT nytimes.com WASHINGTON, Nov. 18 - The special prosecutor in the C.I.A. leak case announced today that he wants to convene a new federal grand jury, a clear signal that the indictment of I. Lewis Libby Jr. may not be the last episode in the affair. "The investigation is continuing," the prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, said in a court filing here. He said the investigation would now involve a grand jury different from the one that indicted Mr. Libby, a top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, three weeks ago. Mr. Libby has been charged with obstruction of justice, perjury and making false statements in connection with an investigation into who leaked the name of Valerie Wilson, a covert operative for the Central Intelligence Agency whose husband, the former diplomat Joseph C. Wilson IV, was highly critical in 2002 of the Bush administration's rationale for war against Iraq. Mr. Libby was not accused of leaking Ms. Wilson's name to journalists but, rather, of trying to impede efforts to find out who did. He has resigned from Mr. Cheney's staff and has pleaded not guilty. Well before his indictment, Mr. Libby was known to be a focus of Mr. Fitzgerald's inquiry. Lawyers who are familiar with the affair have said that President Bush's key aide Karl Rove also remains under investigation. The identity of Mrs. Wilson was disclosed by the columnist Robert D. Novak in July 2003. But it came to light this week that Bob Woodward, the Washington Post journalist of Watergate fame, testified recently that he was told about Ms. Wilson in June 2003, weeks before Mr. Novak's column appeared. Some defenders of Mr. Libby have argued that the revelation that Mr. Woodward had early knowledge of Mrs. Wilson's identity casts doubt on the case against Mr. Libby. Mr. Woodward has written several books about the inner workings of Washington. His known access to people at the highest levels of power has stirred speculation on who told him about Mrs. Wilson. * Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

To: longnshort who wrote (47863)	11/18/2005 7:38:36 PM
From: bentway	Respond to of 93284

"The investigation has taken nearly two years and cost over $700,000 so far." foxnews.com Lying as usual bongsnort... ----------------------------------------------------------- How Much Does It Cost? Fitzgerald v. Starr by Armando Mon Oct 24, 2005 at 09:47:17 AM PDT A comparison worth considering. To date Fitzgerald has spent: In its first 15 months, the investigation cost $723,000, according to the Government Accountability Office. In his "investigation," Ken Starr spent: The figures show that Starr's office, through the end of November 1998, had spent $40,835,000. That includes $27,749,000 in direct expenses from independent counsel appropriations and $13,086,000 in unreimbursed expenses incurred by other government agencies. Those figures do not include costs incurred by Starr's predecessor, Robert Fiske, whose office spent about $6 million before Starr was appointed to lead the investigation. The GAO's most recent report issued last September showed Starr had spent $33.5 million through March 31st, 1998, after taking over for Fiske in 1994. So, to be charitable to Starr, he spent about $10 million a year while, again to be charitable to Starr (counting 15 months as a year), Fitzgerald spent $700,000 a year.