[promoted by BooMan because we can’t get a straight answer from the lazy press]
They say the law is a jealous mistress. And I understand the feeling that begat the phrase. I most recently felt it when I was called away from this afternoons vapid speculation about what the heck is going on in the future case of The United States of America v. Karl Rove, A.K.A. Turdblossom, in order to satisfy my own legal curiosity about the subtleties of federal criminal practice.
I’m not sure I have definitive answers. But I feel like I could safely charge someone about $1,500 dollars to advise them that they are in a world of shit, and that they need a really super federal criminal defense attorney. Join me after the flip, if you want to be bored, perhaps informed, and quite likely, no wiser than you are now about above mentioned case.
You all will have to help me with the facts of this ongoing inquiry. I’ve been away from all media for a couple of hours. But I will give you the law I know. And combine it with the paltry facts I know. Resulting in my speculative analysis.
I first found a good overview of the procedure and practice at issue. Skip it if you’re bored. What does it really matter. But I’m writing it all down, because I took notes, man. The old fashioned way.
In the Federal System, the terms “subject” and “target” assume significance because of the Justice Department’s internal regulations governing the treatment that is to be accorded to persons falling within those categories.
-snip-
[The U.S.] Attorney’s Manual defines a “subject” of a grand jury investigation as “a person whose conduct is within the scope of the grand jury’s investigation.” A “target” is defined as “a person as to whom the prosecutor or the grand jury has substantial evidence linking him/her to the commission of a crime and who, in the judgment of the prosecutor, is a putative defendant.”
-snip-
The United States Attorney’s Manual directs that because a subpoena to the target of a grand jury investigation “may carry the appearance of unfairness” in a particular case, the prosecutor should attempt to secure the target’s voluntary appearance before the grand jury before resorting to a subpoena to compel the target to appear. If voluntary appearance cannot be obtained, the Manual provides, a subpoena will be issued only if it is approved by the grand jury and the United States Attorney or the responsible Assistant Attorney General.
-snip-
The most significant legal problem arising from the practice of subpoenaing targets and subjects to testify before the grand jury relates to the question whether such witnesses must be appraised of in advance of their status in the investigation, and whether they must be advised of their right to remain silent, their right to consult with counsel, and the risks that they run by appearing before the grand jury.
-snip-
The Justice Department guidelines for its attorneys require that modified Miranda warnings be given to targets and subjects of the grand jury investigation.
-snip-
The Justice Department Advice of Rights Form, which is attached to subpoenas served on targets or subjects of grand jury investigations reads as follows:
[Advises of crime being investigated, advises of right to take 5th on incriminating questions, advises that testimony may be used against witness, and advises of the right to consult with an attorney outside of the grand jury proceeding.]
-snip-
A second form warning that has become the subject of litigation is the so-called “target warning” — a warning to any target who is subpoenaed to testify before the grand jury that he is, in fact, a target of the grand jury’s investigation. The Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that “target warnings” be given, even if the witness is not aware that the grand jury investigation has focused on him, and even if the witness is subsequently indicted for the offense under investigation.
Grand Jury Law and Practice, 2nd ed., Elston, et. al., (2004), Vol 1., Part III, Sections 6.23 – 6.24, pp 6-199 – 6-207, citations omitted.
A good overview. But I wanted a bit more, and found this:
An individual can be subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury even though he is a target or a subject of its investigation. But because bringing a target before a grand jury may “carry the appearance of unfairness,” the Department of Justice has adopted an internal policy which requires prosecutors to seek a “voluntary appearance” before using a subpoena to this end. If a target will not appear voluntarily, making it necessary to issue a subpoena, the subpoena must be approved by “the grand jury and the U.S. Attorney or the responsible Assistant Attorney General.”
-snip-
Although prosecutors are not obliged to present exculpatory evidence to a grand jury, the Department of Justice’s policy is to let a target or subject go before a grand jury if she asks to do so.
-snip-
Indeed, prosecutors are encouraged to invite targets to appear, at least “in appropriate cases.”
-snip-
The prosecutor should extend the invitation to appear in a letter which advises the target that she can appear on a specified date and that she should consult an attorney about the appearance. The letter should also inform the target that if she appears, she will have to waive her privilege against self-incrimination, she will be put under oath and fully examined by the prosecutor and the grand jury, and anything she says can be used against her.
Federal Grand Jury: A Guide to Law and Practice, Bremer, et. al., section 13.4, pp 360-62 (1996). Citations omitted, emphasis added
So what does all this mean?
First, the fact that Rove’s lawyer is quoted today as saying he did not get a “target letter” no longer seems that important, in my analysis. Under Justice Department rules, a target letter would seemingly be required, from Fitzgerald to Rove, if Fitzgerald was issuing a subpoena to Rove, and had substantial evidence Rove committed a crime. But, it seems to me now, that Fitzgerald followed Department guidelines and invited Rove to testify first. Rove accepted, alleviating the need for a subpoena, and also the need for a target letter.
Also, Bremer, supra at p. 362, says that Justice Department policies do not create rights which targets can later use in court to defeat charges, and that Courts would be unlikely to view any lack of a target letter as any barrier to successful prosecution. So even if Fitzgerald should have given a letter and didn’t, it will probably end up being no harm, no foul.
Second, it seems to me that Fitzgerald has been treating Rove like a “target” (a term used by Bremer, supra to identify a person who will almost certainly be indicted) for quite a while. He is doing it by the book.
Fitz invited Rove to talk before the Grand Jury without issuing a subpoena, as is required by DOJ procedures. Rove accepted the invitation, alleviating the need for a subpoena. And with his latest return to the grand jury, Fitz has issued Rove a letter advising him of his rights (as best I can tell from media reports). This would be by the book, assuming he now has substantial evidence Rove committed a crime.
It could also be, that this latest round of testimony is something being pressed for by Rove, in an effort to get his side of the story on the record, and perhaps persuade the grand jury not to indict. In which case, Fitz would be following procedure by allowing the testimony, so long as he did not think it would jeopardize his case. The policy makes the DOJ look fair by giving targets/defendants every chance to present their side of things. And it allows Fitz to pile up more perjury counts and eliminate factual loopholes that might exist.
Getting a sense for the process, I cannot help but conclude that Karl Rove will be frog-marched in some manner or form. Soon. I think turdblossom is fucked.
It is still only my two-cents. Lots of wheeling and dealing could be going on behind the scenes, about which I know nothing, and couldn’t begin to guess. But I am willing to bet real money that Fitz is, at this moment, holding almost all the cards. Rove’s ass is flapping in the wind. And he ain’t going to talk his way out of it, despite what a wizard he thinks he is. A witness stand is not a good place for a political debate. I think this may be the end. And I am a happy camper again.
I think Fitz dictates testimony day, too. If he’s playing hardball, I’d slap Rover in the chair tomorrow at 8:30 a.m. sharp, and have the indictments ready for release on Monday morning. No rush, I guess.
And let the political machinations begin.
Outstanding BJ! I am in agreement with your assessment that Karl is in some very serious shit and Fitzgerald is shoveling more in his direction. I’m almost afraid to say it, because I’ll probably get hammered for it, but my “gut” tells me Fitz is the real deal…I think he really badly wants to take these mofo’s down. Hope like hell I’m right, as this is one crow I really don’t want to eat. <fingers crossed>
Thank you sir for trekking down to the library and doing this, much appreciated and recommended.
Peace
I haven’t really spent a lot of time thinking about Fitz before this week. But reading the law this evening, in its most generic form, it seems like everything is right by the book. All the Elliot Ness talked seemed very appropriate.
And the way he is fucking with the big dogs. He must have a set of steel balls. Must be squeaky clean, too. Can you imagine the money and power they could focus on any individual. This guy just may be an American hero.
And then again, I doubt you’ll catch me saying that next week, if he holds the dreaded press conference saying “I found no crimes… blah…”
“I he holds the dreaded press conference…” let’s not go there until we have to. At this point I have to have faith in the man…he’s all we got, they’ve skated on everything else to date.
Peace
Boston Joe, what does it do to Fitz’s career if he indicts, Rove and many others even Cheney?
Consider that this certainly has occurred to him He would certainly become a hero to the left and a pariah to the right. His friends, like James Comey who works for the ultra conservative Lockheed Martin would no longer have the same relationship with him. His poliical and presumably personal friendships are from the right.
You mentioned he must have balls of steel to withstand the pressure from the Big Dogs. How , using your experience as a prosecutor, is pressure brought to bear on a person in this situation.
Peter Fitzgerald, a former senator of Illinois who appointed Fitzgerald to be the States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois has publicly expressed concern that Partick Fitagerald is being pressured by the Administration. He didn’t say how.
I certainly think he is a brave man if he goes ahead with major indictments. I hope he is a brave man. But I can see no reason if he is politically ambitous that he would want to indict these guys who he more easily relates to than someone from the Clinton administration.
I remain skeptical because with my admitedly limited and outside view I can’t see why he would indict them unless he has as you say balls of steel and is an American hero.
I have seen him speak on TV. He seems quite anal. But that doesn’t tell me enought. THat actually could be good.
OH well, too bad we have to wait at least another week.
Sometimes people just do the right thing.
It is a scary thought. Indicting top officials. Perhaps naming the President and Vice-President as un-indicted co-conspirators. (I discount naming Bush and Cheney after yesterday’s reading. I think I read DOJ policy is not to name un-indicted co-conspirators unless there is specific reason to do so, and I can’t think of that specific legal reason in this case.)
I think these are the most powerful, dangerous men on the planet. I believe they can ruin individual lives.
First, I think Fitz would have to be absolutely clean. Any dirt is certain to get amplified in the MSM echo chamber. If he is dirty, he can’t do this job.
Second, even if he is clean, their PR machine will manufacture things to make him look less that clean. This becomes a political battle while the legal battle plays on. Like Clinton v. Starr in the Court of public opinion.
Third, the practical things you speak of. What happens to his career. I think, if he does this, he is either a) an idealist doing the right thing, or b) pretty certain that he will be successful and that his success will make him for the rest of his life. This could end up being bigger than Watergate. So, it puts Fitz in the history books. Could make him a national political force in his own right. So there is upside for him.
It is really fascinating. And unpredictable to me. It is truly like a great drama, as I read from someone. Just as a fan of mysteries, I am enjoying the story. But I wouldn’t really want to be a character.
I am about the least “tin-foil hat” type of person you will find. But, I do worry for this guy. There are a bunch of ruthless bastards in the White House and I wouldn’t put much beyond their capability. They are backed up into a corner and Fitz better have every friggin’ avenue covered or he could be in for a world of hurt.
The most important question of all you didn’t answer Boston Joe.
That is:
How does someone, anyone pressure a prosecutor politically to modify the course of an investigation. ?
If you have any experience of how politics gets involved, could you share it. I would like to know how the administration might be able to pressure Fitzgerald.
Pure speculation on Fitz, but it makes me wonder what evidence those judges saw that convinced them that serious crimes had been committed which led them to agree that Miller needed to go to jail. It sends me to thinking about the damage report people said the CIA would develop after the outing of an agent. This could have also been serious enough that it got Fitz’ juices going as well.
That’s why I said sometimes people just do the right thing. That’s the most logical explanation to me. Yeah, folks like Tucker Carlson can get on television and laugh (yes, he literally laughed hysterically last night when his guest said that if the evidence bears out that Rove outed an undercover CIA operative for political gain that is treason), but they have no idea what the evidence is against Rove.
I hope my gut instinct is right, because my gut instinct tells me that the indictments will meet all of our greatest expectations.
The problem is this. How does a good guy (who travels in republican circles) become a high profile states attorney at this level without being political. If he is political he cannot be virtuous. He cannot be a hero. Because a hero is someone who does not think of themselves during the time they are being heroic.
I cannot imagine why a man in his poisition would be a hero. I cannot comment on the legal manueverings and their meaning. But I can comment on Fitzgerald by observing where he came from.
Now, you will have to understand that he will lose all his friendships if he indicts these people. There will be many who will be happy to take their place…but they will not like him in the same way. They will not share his values, unless he has changed during the course of this investigation.
It has been two years. There have been no indictments. His other trials of George Ryan and Mayor Daley”s administration have yeileded many indictments while the grand jury was in process.
One way he could limit the damage to this case is by not letting it expand. Just keep the focus soley on Plame. You cannot tell me that you could not come up with more wrong doing with all the lies of the Bush administration that wheher these people knowingly outed a CIA agent.
Here’s something that James Comey (his best friend and the man who appointed him Prosecutor said about him. Again James Comey now works for Lockheed Martin as chief counsel. Lockheed Martin is about as conservative a company you can get and is in court all the time for fraud. That is why Comey was selected to fix the cases with his contacts in Washington. The Cheney family is heavily connected to Lockheed Martin. This tells us that James Comey is ultra conservative in all probablilty. He was selected after all by John Ashcroft. These are the circles in which Patrick Fitzgerald presumably operates.
James Comey
“What’s been interesting is seeing the media accounts and the columnists portray him as some sort of runaway prosecutor. That makes me smile,” says Comey, who is largely responsible for Fitzgerald getting the Plame assignment. “Because there is no prosecutor who is less of a runaway than this guy.”
One could interpret this to mean that Patrick Fitzgerald is very careful, methodical and conservative and hardly a person who would try to do anything that would upset any apples in the apple cart.
James Comey works for Lockheed Martin.
I dunno. You know far more about Fitz the man than I. I have really avoided reading about this much at all, until just lately. My thinking — when there are indictments, then there will be news.
But, on the whole — he can’t be a hero because of where he is. I don’t know. I think he can. I won’t say he will. But, I think human beings, flawed as we are, can be heroes as the situation demands. I grew up poor. Tons of flaws. Got great breaks in life. Found myself in positions like this, on far, far lesser scale. But, positions where my decisions impacted human lives. Financially. Freedom-wise. Personally. And, if you asked people I worked with who I was, I don’t think you would know much about me. Who you are, as a person, is something a lot of people keep inside their heads. I suppose that applies more to prosecutors than most. But, who you are still effects your decisions. You choose your spots. When the system allows it, even if you want to stay vested in the system, sometimes you pull the trigger on decisions that are completely virtuous. There is an old saying, that the King who grants attonement knows the greatest joy. Something with that sentiment. And, I felt that to be true. But, I think it is completely possible that Fitz is faced with a situation here that will call on him to make a very human decision. Do I do the right thing, and indict the most powerful people in the world, at risk to my own personal well-being, because the law demands it? (And I’m not saying the law demands it — I don’t know what the evidence before the GJ has been). Or, do I buckle and find a technical reason to let things pass? And, I wouldn’t discount the idea, that as a human being, he may step up and do the right thing. Not everyone looks at the world like Karl Rove. You know. Not everything is ultimately ruled by political calculus. Sometimes. Idealism.
As always. We’ll just have to wait.
(Wish we didn’t have to wait. I so miss being an insider sometimes — even on smaller issues. Hate being out of the loop).
I like what you wrote. I like the part about pulling the trigger and waiting for the right moment. I believe that is possible.
It isn’t happening much in these times because the “times” we live in promote and idealize security through conformity, so he would have to push through that cultural barrier in addition to any personal barriers, should he have the “evidence”. I just can’t imagine that he couldn’t find plenty of evidence of lots of wrong doing centrally and peripherally realted to what is very apparent. These guys are crooks and liars. But they are crooks and liars on a level that allows them to imagine themselves as just doing good business.
A neighbor of mine told me he offered a 300.000 bribe to an attendant at a nursing home to keep a certain person from coming in to get signatures regarding a zoning. I told him that it wasn’t such a good idea and he really shouldn’t be telling anyone about that. He said “Whaddya mean? It’s good Business!
That was a 3 hundred dollar bribe, looks like 3 hundred thousand.
This whole thing has been like reading a really great mystery novel. A few chapters here and there interrupted by periods of silence. Now as it builds towards the ending crescendo – I am just totally hooked on all the speculating. And I too am so hoping that it doesn’t end in disappointment.
If the Fitz is NOT the real deal, the way he has gone about the investigation seems to be a grand illusion.
Good work.
I have seen nothing that indicates this testimony is being pushed by Rove. Rather, Fitz has taken him up on his offer after his last testimony in July to come back at any time. Cooper and Miller have probably said things that will make Rove squirm, and Fitz has a free pass at him without a lawyer present.
Fun times.
Can assert the 5th on a question by question basis, checking with his lawyer in the hall, one question at a time, subject to the ruling that the question may force him to incriminate himself by the presiding judge/magistrate.
Can you imagine how guilty he is going to look to that jury, slinking in and out. Mr. Powerful. Fucking fantastic.
Fitz is going for the home run, the big enchilada, the 20 years to life.
That’s the only conclusion I can draw at this point. He wants the picture that you paint, either through squirmy answers by Rove that have “perjury” and “treason” written all over them, or he wants the grand jurors to see Karl invoking the 5th.
a witness into taking the 5th. And it is fun. Not supposed to do that before a jury, if you can avoid it. Mine was kind of an accident. But it is truly fun.
Now imagine doing it to the one of the most despicable political operatives of all-time.
I’m a civil litigator myself but always felt my heart would have been better served in criminal law.
The material you cited in your diary says, “The letter should also inform the target that if she appears, she will have to waive her privilege against self-incrimination.” That doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me, and apparently, from what you’ve just written, you would also expect the Fifth to still apply. Can you elaborate?
Back to the library, BostonJoe!
For Domestic tranquility, I may need to take a break soon from my 48 hour indictment blogathon.
Hard to leave this story though.
Just heard in the background on CNN — Lawrence O’Donnell, who confirms my thoughts that this is Rove opting to come back and try to persuade the jury not to indict.
Good luck. Fucking cooked I say. Cooked. And he’s gonna earn a bonus charge, I bet. The height of arrogance. Hubris. Pride goeth before and all that.
I have heard conflicting things about taking the 5th before the grand jury. Here, I believe, the target of a grand jury, who is uninvited, can be granted an audience, but waives their rights in doing so.
Does that make sense?
it doesn’t matter whether they are invited or not, only whether they are a target or not?
I think your legal skills have proved pretty admirable today. You were on it long before my trip to the library, and with the links and all.
Hey Boo,
L’il off topic (or is it?), but I was wondering when you intend on frontpaging some thoughts on why and wtf is Israel doing spying on us?
…and on the media whitewash thereof?
…and the potential linkages between the Franklin & Traitorgate scandals
…and on the 300 nukes Israel currently holds and is inflaming the Arab world with, not to mention spurring a regional WMD race?
Franklin plead guilty today and it doesn’t appear to be news here.
Thanks.
isn’t spying on us, they are too infiltrated for that. We are spying for Israel. But I don’t really want to get into it.
I’ll just say it amused me for them to arrest Franklin for doing what the highest reaches of the government do every day.
Can we get into it? Purty please?
Read this. It’s a libertarian perspective. There are more balanced ones.
Brilliant. A must read. Thank you. I didn’t find it imbalanced at all, but considering your DKos roots I understand the qualifier. You don’t want to have to put up with Armando’s and the Next Hurrah cabal’s crocodile tear ridden e-mail melodramas.
Flash forward to the present. We now find the so-called left-liberal media is enthralled with the neoconservative agenda. The lines have been blurred. The “crazies” (per Scowcroft) have prosecuted their long struggled coup d’etat and have assumed power. The then called left-liberal NYT is now serving as a megaphone for the Bushco/Zionist platform, as evidenced most blatantly by Judy Miller’s warmongering in some 8 above the fold articles during the run-up to Shock & Awe. What point in time marked the neoconservative ascension? When did the Realists lose their grip? When exactly did the slobbering neoconservative bigots, derided by even Bush 1/Scowcroft/and Powell as “the crazies,” vault over those guys? It was long before 9-11, for one must remember that Bush II had already hired every PNAC groupie well before that. When do you peg it, Boo? Was there a singular event? Maybe it was Bobbie Ray’s crucifixation?
pointed out it was libertarian to help people understand the context. They are coming from a straight anti-Israel perspective.
In any case, I believe the turning point for the GOP was Clinton’s election. Bush’s loss took the power away from the realists and they sought to appeal to the growing Christian eschatological movement. It’s an odd alliance for Israel to make, since Falwell and his ilk have a low regard for Jews. But it works for them. It gives Israel a foothold in each party and paralyzes any attempt at a balanced approach to the region.
Poppy Bush was actually pro-Arab. That is no longer a viable position for a majority party to have.
But I am not anti-Israel, I am anti-paralysis. Clinton tried hard, but his failure placed us in the present vice.
The thing I would ask you to remember is that the real power brokers are not really insane. They are not really rabid born-again Christian Zionists. They just use those people to gain their governing majorities and loot the treasury. At least, that is how I see the Bushes.
However, they are filling the government with crazies with predictable results.
“NYT is now serving as a megaphone for the Bushco/Zionist platform”
Yes, I realise that it makes a certain amaount of sense to interpret NYT as beating the drums to defeat Israel’s enemies, what with the NYT organisation being controlled by a Jewish family, the Sulzbergers. But the Publisher, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger presents a problem for that analysis. Both the Ochs and Suzberger families are descended from Rabbi Weiss who founded Reform Judaism, which has not been zionist. And indeed the Ochs and Sulzberger families have been solidly, some have said vitriolically, anti-Zionist for generations and the NYT has followed this lead. So, exactly why the NYT made an exception this time and did what it did is pretty perplexing.
.
Israel and AIPAC Accused in Spy Case of Franklin, Pentagon Analyst
Lawrence Franklin, 58, a policy analyst whose expertise included Iran and Iraq, pleaded guilty to three felony counts as part of a plea bargain. In exchange, federal prosecutors dropped three other felony charges. It is agreed he will also preserve his pension rights. He faces up to 25 years of prison when he is sentenced Jan. 20, though he would likely serve less time if U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III follows sentencing guidelines.
Anyone willing to guess why MSM is running the Philippine Spy Case today, with old video clips from September 12th?
I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff --“It isn’t about Karl Rove, as I said months ago; it isn’t about a possible violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, as I maintained from the beginning. It’s about how a small group of government officials, in tandem with their overseas allies, engaged in a criminal conspiracy to falsify ‘intelligence’ – and, in the process, lie the nation into war.”
▼ ▼ ▼
I am not positive what this means. I think of two possible explanations. This section is referring to a witness who has asked to testify in an exculpatory fashion, so it puts the ball in the prosecutor’s court on whether to accept and allow the testimony. And the DOJ policy is that it should generally be allowed in fairness. The passage could mean, that procedurally, when a witness is voluntarily appearing in an exculpatory fashion he or she has to waive the right unconditionally before testifying. Kind of like, if you want to have your say, fine, but you can’t just say part and then take the 5th. That is similar to the state rules I am familiar with once a defendant takes the stand at trial. He can’t deny the crime with whatever story, and then clam up under tough cross-examination. That would be my guess.
The second thought. It could just mean that you have to waive the right to testify, but you could still claim the 5th when the going gets tough. I tend to think the first explanation is the better. Or, could be something I am just not familiar with.
If it is the first scenario, which does seem the most likely, he must be really desperate to do something that incredibly risky. I can’t even imagine….
If things are as I am thinking, and Rover is screwed, I can’t imagine his attorney not stomping up and down on his fat head, demanding him to shut his mouth.
Unless — he is already fucked. So it is the hail Mary. The old Big Ben play at the end of the game. Tell them the real whopper, and hope they buy it. Because another count of perjury ain’t gonna hurt your guidelines.
Or, on the far more pessimistic side of things — Rover and attorney know something none of us know. And they are about to play the trump card that leaves Fitz high and dry, or severely limits his indictment net.
I’m betting on Fitz. I am making him a 7-2 favorite in the morning line.
NYTimes has something up about Fitzie meeting again with Judy in regards to Libby early next week. I need to reset my indictment alarm on my indictment clock.
“turdblossom” is taken away from him. Rove has been a wall for Bush to hide behind or lean on throughout his political career. We all believe that without Rove’s shenanigans, Bush would be still in Crawford razing brush. So what will become of our hero left bereft?
who whispered sweeting into Bush’s black box on his back?
Screw it. No testimony until tomorrow. It’s been a long day. Good night. And good news. (Was that fucking Ted Baxter. Fuck, what was it that Walter used to say. That is so me. Fucking Mary Tyler Moore reruns echoing in my head instead of the guy with the intergrity. Oh yeah. And that’s the way it is. Or was. Anyway. Muttering off to bed now.)
Yup. That was Ted Baxter. You old fogey you. 🙂
Have a great sleep!
NY Times says Rove will testify next week. The wheels of justice grind slowly.
I saw a story that said Rove would testify Monday.
I hope West Wing clears this up on Sunday when we find out if CJ is the target of the leak investigation.
🙂
Many thanks to you BostonJoe for your energy and diligence in researching the law on this matter and sharing it all with us.
The power of the blog community at work. There’s nothing else like it.
Isn’t it incredible how much we learn through these collaborative efforts? I’m constantly amazed…
If we had had this internet thing going back in the mid-sixties, Johnson might never have pulled off the fraudulent “Tonkin Gulf Resolution”, and the Vietnam tragedy might have been avoided. Nixon probably wouldn’t have won his election in ’68 either, and the world would likely be a better place.
I’m not one for “what if’s” generally, but I was an avid Sci-Fi devotee and I always liked alternative reality based stories.
.
Al Gore has not profited as one suspects.
Election 2000
▼ ▼ ▼
Thanks, BJ, for a cogent, understandable overview of the current situation in re rove for us non-legal eagles.
As one who was once the target of (and subsequently indicted by) a federal grand jury, I can only hope that the Rovester has to go through at least half of what I did.
I also hope the outcome for him is different from mine.
I was acquitted of charges.
reports of the demise of the vast right-wing conspiracy have been greatly exaggerated.
If he’s really going after Rove, he may be threatening serious jail time but I’m sure he’s aiming to settle on some charge that would give at most 3-5 years’ time to people at that level.
.
~ Cross-posted from diary More Rove Speculation ~
Thu Oct 6th, 2005 at 03:05:58 PM PSTWeighing words, it’s semantics, but I believe the take of Lawrence O’Donnell and Judd’s post ::
This is significant because, while U.S. Attorneys normally informs someone of their status as a target with a letter, they are not required to do so. Rove could have been warned he is a target with a phone call or an in-person warning. Here’s the relevant section of the USDOJ Guidelines (Ch. 7, Section 1, Part 1):
As the grand jury investigation concludes, Antitrust Division attorneys will usually inform counsel for potential defendants of the status of the investigation. In most instances, potential individual defendants will be sent a letter identifying the individual as a target of that investigation, i.e., one who may be considered for indictment.
The fact that Luskin has changed his talking point suggests that Rove is now a target and has recieved a target warning by some means other than a letter. Indeed, the AP reports prosecutors “have warned they cannot guarantee [Rove] won’t be indicted.”
The real question Luskin needs to be asked: Has Rove received a target warning of any kind?
When a target is not called to testify pursuant to USAM 9-11.150, and does not request to testify on his or her own motion (USAM 9-11.152see), the prosecutor, in appropriate cases, is encouraged to notify such person a reasonable time before seeking an indictment in order to afford him or her an opportunity to testify before the grand jury, subject to the conditions set forth in USAM 9-11.152. Notification would not be appropriate in routine clear cases or when such action might jeopardize the investigation or prosecution because of the likelihood of flight, destruction or fabrication of evidence, endangerment of other witnesses, undue delay or otherwise would be inconsistent with the ends of justice.
IMO :: It’s highly unusual to volunteer a fourth testimony, therefore Rove must have received a warning of imminent indictment and decided to go ahead with another hearing before the GJ, last ditch effort and more likely will meet with Fitzgerald to bargain a deal.
▼ ▼ ▼
Luskin says:
It is not clear if there is any connection between Miller’s testimony and Fitzgerald calling upon Rove again. There is nothing to indicate Rove was also Miller’s source. If he had been, it would beg the question of why he offered Cooper but not Miller the confidentiality waiver the day the Times scribe went to jail.
Rove’s attorney, Robert Luskin, told FOX News on Thursday that he was “not aware of any tangent points whatsoever” between the two events.
…
Luskin stressed that there was no connection between Miller’s testimony and Rove returning to the grand jury, saying that Fitzgerald accepted Rove’s offer to testify again as part of a winding down of the investigation.
…
Rove’s offer to testify again last July could also indicate he has some new information for prosecutors.
“There is very little other justification for him to go before the grand jury now, unless he feels the need to re-explain something to them so they don’t do something that puts him in legal jeopardy,” said FOX News’ senior judicial analysts Judge Andrew Napolitano.
But Luskin told FOX News that Rove’s testimony was “not to recant or revise any prior testimony in any way.”
Not that I believe a word that Luskin says…
Love that last bit of spin: “so they don’t do something that puts him in legal jeopardy”. Riight.
Bill Kristol, just on the Today Show to disucss Rove and Meirs, said that the preznit made a “mistake” in picking Meirs because Rove has not been around due to the fact that he’s been distracted with preparing his grand jury testimony and all of these legal issues.
Oh what fun to watch them self-destruct!
otherwise known as Rumor Hath It.
What we are hearing is that a 20 count indictment is being prepared for Rove and Fitzgerald is proceeding slowly, carefully, and systematically in building the case. There may be more people brought back in front of the Grand Jury before any indictments are actually handed down.
Our sources are saying Fitzgerald is more interested in establishing a case than getting his face on television.
My opinion: Fitzgerald is the most dangerous prosector Bush, Rove, & Co. can face and unless they do the Cox-sacking thing the Republican Corruption Machine is entering its last days.