NYT: No Fitzgerald Indictments Wednesday (probably)

catnip

19 years ago

Wednesday’s New York Times reveals that associates of Fitzgerald’s have said he will not issue a final report about his investigation, perhaps indicting that indictments are likely.

Fitzgerald is under no obligation to issue a report, as some Democrats had urged him to do.

Such a report could not only show where evidence failed to result in criminal charges, but also make recommendations for changes in law, disciplinary actions or criticize the conduct of public officials whose actions did not rise to the level of criminal behavior.

This leak that no final report is forthcoming means one of two things, according to the NYT article: either he will have indictments or he won’t.

Apparently, “government officials” have also said Fitzgerald “is not expected to take any action in the case this week”. Time is running out though, as this grand jury is set to expire on October 28.

more…

Some of the lawyers in the case say Mr. Fitzgerald seems to be wrestling with decisions about how to proceed, leaning toward indictments but continuing to weigh thousands of pages of documents and testimony he has compiled during the nearly two-year inquiry.

In recent days, Mr. Fitzgerald has repeatedly told lawyers in the case that he has not made up his mind about criminal charges.

At least we have some leaks coming out of the Fitzgerald camp.

On a side note, the NYT ends their article with this:

Officials who testified or were questioned by investigators also included John Hannah, Mr. Cheney’s principal deputy national security adviser.

If you read the article, you’ll see that that sentence has absolutely no relevance to the rest of the content.

Odd – and ironic, considering I just posted a diary about Hannah. Why would they throw that in there?

UPDATE: (Changed the diary title to attract more attention)

0 0 votes

Article Rating