Okay, let's get this straight: after a year of grand jury testimony - sometimes calling the same withnesses over and over and over again, Fitzgerald STILL hasn't decided that there's proof that a crime was committed. And let me remind all of you that the threshhold for an indictment is really rather low - grand jurors, (I was on on a special narcotics grand jury for a month - so I know), are asked to vote for an indictment if they feel that it is reasonable to think that a crime might have been commited; there is NO need for that feeling to be "beyond a reasonable doubt;" you may have some doubts, and still vote for an indictment.
SO... if Fitzgerald still has HIS doubts, then I doubt that a grand jury will indict. Of course, grand jurors only hear one side of the case - the prosecutors, so anything is possible. But still I doubt there will be any indictments. Fitzgerald doesn't strike me as a Ronmnie Earle type of prosecutor. (Then again, if he does indict, his "personal stock" goes way WAY up, and he has nothing to lose - except a case!)
SO... if Fitzgerald still has HIS doubts, then I doubt that a grand jury will indict. Of course, grand jurors only hear one side of the case - the prosecutors, so anything is possible. But still I doubt there will be any indictments. Fitzgerald doesn't strike me as a Ronmnie Earle type of prosecutor. (Then again, if he does indict, his "personal stock" goes way WAY up, and he has nothing to lose - except a case!)
2 comments:
The Times headline does not match their story. They do not in fact have any information on whether Fitzgerald has "decided." They did not get an interview from him.
All they really know is when the GJ runs out. All else is guesses.
I think you are taking it even a step further than their poor headline though when you pronounce that Fitzgerald has "doubts."
link please? solid data?
http://news.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=us/13-0&fp=435cb1b73302f73c&ei=kexcQ8aQIsHmFfWsvM4M&url=http%3A//today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx%3Ftype%3DpoliticsNews%26storyID%3D2005-10-23T201348Z_01_MOR119416_RTRUKOC_0_US-BUSH-LEAK.xml%26archived%3DFalse&cid=0
"Fitzgerald is expected to give final notice to officials facing charges as early as Monday and may convene the grand jury on Tuesday, a day earlier than usual, to deliver a summary of the case and ask for approval of the possible indictments, legal sources said. The grand jury is to expire on Friday unless Fitzgerald extends it.
Fitzgerald could still determine that there was insufficient evidence to bring charges, but the lawyers said that appeared increasingly unlikely."
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/10/23/lawyers_in_cia_leak_case_say_charges_possible_this_week/
their sources indicate that no decision has been made. as i wrote.
Post a Comment