"From para 6 of Ash's statement:
If our sources maintain that a grand jury has returned an indictment - and we have pointed to a criminal case number that we are told corresponds to it...
I missed this before. In context, it seems like a definite statement that TO's sources are telling them that "06cr128" is the Rove indictment.
Dissecting it, it says "a grand jury has returned an indictment" ('an', non-specific) and "we are told" that case number 06cr00128, Sealed v. Sealed, "corresponds to it."
From Para 5:
Our sources continue to maintain that a grand jury has in fact returned an indictment... that parts of the indictment were read to Karl Rove and his attorney... we pointed to... case number "06 cr 128," which is still sealed and we are still pointing to it.
Again, nothing that specifically says that 06cr00128 is the Rove indictment. Nowhere in the entire statement does he say he stands by the original assertion that Rove was indicted. Nor did he in his "Stand Down" on the 16th. Ash and TruthOut stand by Leopold, they stand by their 'good-faith' sources ("career federal law enforcement and federal government officials speaking on condition of anonymity"), they stand by their journalism, but not their specific reporting in that instance. Why?
In a sense, this brings me back to an earlier discussion we had on gagged individuals slipping hints in hypothetical cases. As an editor, Ash almost certainly chose his wording very deliberately.
There are two possibilities:
1. They're parsing and spinning. Easy call, but ignores the sources, never mind Larry Johnson's statement (and I'd love right now to know what Joe Wilson's exact wording to Larry was).
2. He's very carefully choosing which aspects of Leopold's report to stand by.
Most of us are asking what happened? Few are asking why "Sealed v. Sealed"? Why not "U.S. v. Sealed"? If 06cr00128 is an indictment, and TO's sources seem to say it is, and Rove is not to be charged, who's been indicted?
Let's pick a few pieces out of his statement, all emphases mine.
Para 3:
The Rove indictment story is way beyond - in terms of complexity - any other story we have ever covered. In essence, we found out something we were not supposed to find out, and things exploded from there. We were not prepared for the backlash.
From Para 7:
Fitzgerald appears to have used the indictment... to extract information about the Plame outing case from Rove.
Para 10 & 11:
Our sources provided us with additional detail, saying that Fitzgerald is apparently examining closely Dick Cheney's role in the Valerie Plame matter, and apparently sought information and evidence from Karl Rove that would provide documentation of Cheney's involvement. Rove apparently was reluctant to cooperate and Fitzgerald, it appears, was pressuring him to do so, our sources told us.
Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation is a unique chapter in American history. The probe has managed to shed light into the inner recesses of perhaps the most secretive presidential administration in US history. His mission is not political, and he will not allow it to be.
Libby's being charged with perjury and obstruction and Luskin releases to Time:
"Absent any unexpected developments, he does not anticipate seeking any criminal charges against Rove."
And the smear machine is working overtime to discredit Leopold, Ash and TruthOut.
I think Fitz got himself a big one."
before i was a big-time blogger, i used to do this sort of parsing for my bread and butter (for which i received neither - and in case you were wondering, no, i won't be taking paid advertisements from the anti-net-neutrality brigade) - now i can just open a thread and set you lot to work - opensourcejournalism and whatnot ;-)
i also had a lot of questions about the verbiage in this article - but figured i'd
don makes a lot of good points. i dont know marc ash's work so i can't comment about how carefully he chooses his words, and what to benchmark it against. let's presume that he does choose his words carefully.
i, too, was interested in this:
"Our sources provided us with additional detail, saying that Fitzgerald is apparently examining closely Dick Cheney's role in the Valerie Plame matter, and apparently sought information and evidence from Karl Rove that would provide documentation of Cheney's involvement""the Valerie Plame matter"? that's a curious turn of phrase (for phrase-parsers, at least - are you there, ew?). maybe it's nothing - but he didnt call it the 'plame outing' - 'matter' is more generic - and given that the distinction conforms to many of my expectations, i'll happily turn that molehill into a mountain :-)
i'll also note his para:
"The Rove indictment story is way beyond - in terms of complexity - any other story we have ever covered. In essence, we found out something we were not supposed to find out, and things exploded from there. We were not prepared for the backlash."this para is full of parse-ability opportunities. if we take Ash at face value - this story is 'way beyond' not political import, but complexity. that's facially odd. by most acounts, the story is quite simple: Rove was indicted, or he wasnt.
also: "In essence, we found out something we were not supposed to" - there isn't much equivocation there in terms of backing down from the story.
further, he follows that with: "We were not prepared for the backlash." - i wonder when he learnt that he had learnt something he wasn't supposed to, and when that coincided with "We were not prepared for the backlash." note that he doesn't repeat 'we thought everyone would follow'
re S vs S 128, I've noted :
interestingly, in the 'sealed v sealed' article, TO didnt mention that any sources pointed to 128 - and i thought (that TO) were just clutching at straws - but in the latest piece, they specifically say that sources are pointing to it.as don notes above:
""we are told" that case number 06cr00128, Sealed v. Sealed, "corresponds to it.""'corresponds to it' is also a curious choice of phrase.
more:
"What appears to have happened is that - and this is where Truthout blundered - in our haste to report the indictment we never considered the possibility that Patrick Fitzgerald would not make an announcement. We simply assumed - and we should not have done so - that he would tell the press. He did not."unequivocal again. their biggest 'blunder' is to assume that fitz would make an announcement. if nothing else, they certainly believe their story.
more Ash:
"Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation is a unique chapter in American history. The probe has managed to shed light into the inner recesses of perhaps the most secretive presidential administration in US history. His mission is not political, and he will not allow it to be."this is also interesting. how many drafts do you think this piece went through? 20? 100? they had a bunch of people working on this release for days. if I was editor, I'd keep pressing to take this paragraph out. it doesn't appear to add anything to the story - and appears to me nothing more than boilerplate. denial? or is it in there for a reason? How do they know that his mission isn't political, and that "he will not allow it to be"? I can imagine there are some places where this statement might be appropriate - but here? they must think they have a very good reason for including it (or they are a bunch of complete dunces).
in the matter of 06cr00128, what say you?
29 comments:
Sometime later today (Atlantic Daylight Time), I'll be going back through the statement history on this, from Leopold's initial report to Ash's statement, to try and pin down when the tone changed.
I did quickly scan Leopold's 'Sealed v. Sealed' and Ash's '06 cr 128' companion piece and, on initial examination, both echoed this release and the 'Stand Down' announcement:
- carefully worded statements that indicated a Plame-related indictment
- nothing saying definitely it was Rove's
- emphasis on sources
- very strong emphasis on 06cr00128 as a Plame-related indictment
TO seems to be sitting on something while trying to focus attention on that case. The Rove machine is fighting hard to keep the focus on them.
What is that case?
More analysis later
Don
I don't see the "Rove machine" doing much of anything-- not because its above doing so but because it is so utterly unnecessary. TO has lied and dissembled and backpedaled (stood down) then lurched forward (no, we're not standing down he was to indicted we swear) that All Rove could do by entering the fray is give TO a handhold it needs but doesn't have to crawl out of this sewer hole into which it did a gainer.
If Rove is doing anything he is simply sitting back on his fat backside laughing that at least some of his enmeies are so utterly inept his best friends couldn't possibly help him more. The foolhardy gloryhounds at TO have succeeded in making their dishonesty and lack of ethics the focus of all attention when it should be on the Administration and Rove didn't have to do a thing.
Well, I say "Sealed' means exactly that, "Sealed" and no doubt for a damned good reason.
Fitz obviously has evidence that he does not want people who are going to have to testify under oath to know about.
Also, during the investigation, Fitz no doubt uncovered other crimes connected with the Plame leak, which I think is just a small part of the larger crime and this is what the sealed indictment addresses. I think Fitz wants to get members of the WHIG to testify on the Leak itself, so he can catch them at conspiracy.
I think Fitz had to give Rove immunity to get his testimony in the Libby case rather than a series of 5th ammendment dodges.
I believe I said in an earlier comment that I thought Fitz was using the sealed indictment to keep Rove's buns in a vice. I also thought perhaps a sealed vs sealed indictment could be against Luskin himself, as an Officer of the Court to prevent them from further collusion. They damned well better keep their traps shut or else. No more Viveka Novak crap and 'remembering' stuff just in time to evade consequences.
There was reporting on two indictments, one was US vs. Sealed and one was Sealed vs Sealed, so there's more than one vice at work here. I would rather not force Fitz's hand before he catches the bastards once and for all. We'll know the ugly truth soon enough.
The "cr" in the case number implies that this is a criminal proceeding, which presumably means that this is US vs Sealed. I don't know why the "Sealed vs Sealed" terminology, except that PJF is operating out of an abundance of caution?
Also, I would point out that if this has a docket number, that the indictment is no longer "sealed" in the sense that the defendant has been made aware of the indictment and has been booked and released. Someone, either PJF or the defendant's counsel or possibly the DoJ itself (I'm betting PJF) must have made a motion to seal the case to the presiding judge which was granted.
Either this is due to the fact that there are details in the allegations made in the indictment that PJF would rather not have other players in the continuing investigation know, or that there are classified issues that have not been declassified yet, or that the DoJ has intervened here and is asserting some sort of privelege over PJF's head, and the case has been sealed pending litigation to work it out (though I kind of doubt that, since Comey's appt of Fitzgerald has specifically said he has all the powers of the Atty Gen in the investigation, and Abu has recused himself of oversight of PJF. So for all practical purposes, PJF *is* the DoJ for this case.)
An alternative possibility is that Rove refused to plea out, so PJF decided to ratchet up the heat a notch by seeking an indictment on the QT, letting Rove know, and working out some sort of informal cooperation deal. In other words, you continue to cooperate, I won't press the ongoing sealed prosecution. But if you don't cooperate, I'll see you for your arraignment. This way, there is no formal plea deal that could be used to impeach any testimony that Rove gives. But Rove still has the sword of Damocles hanging over his head if he stops cooperating.
I don't know if any of this is SOP for DoJ high-level prosecutions (like mob cases or other gov't corruption cases), or if PJF has come up with a brilliant way to protect the integrity of his investigation within the guidelines of the Fed. R. of Criminal procedure that has never been utilized before, but I think that he's definitely going after Cheney, and I really hope we see indictments before long.
I find it hard to accep the fact that the man who helped bring down Ryan, the Gambino crime family, and the 1993 World Trade center "bombers" would give up so easily. Clearly, he knows how to prosecute these complex cases, and he has the drive and passion to always go after the top dog (Mayor Daley probably wishes he'd make the Plame affair his full time gig!). I just don't think that Libby's the end of the road.
One other thing, to Kathleen--
You've commented twice that there are TWO potential indictments, the infamous Sealed vs. sealed and US vs. Sealed. What is your source on this? TO has not commented on this aspect.
And, if true, shouldn't there also be 2 separate docket numbers for these "indictments" as well?
There is no particular reason to think 1:06-cr-00128, Sealed v. Sealed has any relation to Rove or even the the Fitzgerald investigation generally. that claim simply was simply made without any rationale being given reason and has taken on a life of its own. "Sealed v. Sealed" is very common on the United States District Court for the District of Columbia docket. (Approximately 20% of all criminal cases in the D.C. district are filed under seal and styled "Sealed v. Sealed."
128 could relate to an entirely different matter heard by any of the grand juries in session.
It should also be noted that 1:06-mj-00128, has added to the confusion. That is a different case that was brought in the magistrate court and involves reporters seeking to quash subpoenas issed by Fitzgerald in the Libby case. By pure happenstance it has "128" in the case number, but that case is not sealed and has nothing to do with Rove.
Everyone just wants to ignore what is by far the most likely scenario:
Fitzgerald decided not to indict Rove simply because the risks of prosecution outweighed the potential benefits of having Rove available to testify in the Libby prosecution. A decision not to indict is not an exoneration or a "clean bill of health" --it's simply an exercise of prosecutorial discretion. That's why Luskin was careful to say nothing more than he was notified fittzgerald won't seek an indictment and why Luskin won't release Fitzgerald's letter. the text of the letter is undoubtedly very carefully worded to avoid giving any indication that Fitzgerald believes Rove is not guilty or that he lacks evidence and is not as helpful to Rove as the characterization (which Luskin and rove have avoided making but allow others to do) that Fitzgerald's decision absolves Rove of culpability.
"Fitzgerald decided not to indict Rove simply because the risks of prosecution outweighed the potential benefits of having Rove available to testify in the Libby prosecution."
I reluctantly have to agree with Wake Up on this. The TO explanation rings hollow.
I hope to be proven wrong Kathleen, Viget, Don and all. But I think we have to be, as I've heard Tariq Ali say on the radio before, "hard headed" on these things. I think we're all safer assuming a fully loaded Karl Rove is going to be ready to pull his usual stunts in the upcoming election. And for right now, anything coming out of TO is highly suspect to me at this point.
I hope for TO's sake, that future events play out in their favor. But I wouldn't bet the farm on it.
Let's THINK. Luskin is not merely being categorical in his denials he is using very "non-judicious" language in disparaging Leopold and Truthout.
He states without ambiguiity there IS NO INDICTMENT and there is no deal or agreement. On everything else, he is purposefully ambiguous.
As he knows the truth, he knows how far he can go without having it come back and bite him AND HIS CLIENT on the butt. He would not LIE if there was any chance he would be caught. If there is or was an indictment then obviously he could and would eventually get caught in that lie.
Even without the million and one reasons not to be stupid enough to believe a word Leopold or Ash say, that alone should give you a clue.
Rove was not indicted. 01:06-cr-000128 does not contain an indictment of Karl Rove. Fitzgerald did send Luskin a letter saying he does not anticipate indicting Rove.
Is ANYONE really deluded enough to think that Fitzgerald with a pending case against Libby at the least would willingly become a co-conspirator with Karl Rove to aid in lies about the status of the investigation? That is so nonsensical it defies belief.
What is believable is that Fitzgerald gave long and hard consideration to indicting Rove and decided against it. It also makes sense that since Rove and Fitzgerald's intersts align in on key aspect that they "agreed not to agree." that means that Rove doesn't want to be portyrayed ac having cut a deal to cooperate to escape prosecution and that fitzgeral doesn't want himportrayed that way either because it would seriously undermine his usefulness as a witness and make him a much easier target for impeachment.
Fitzgerald woulf be breaking the rules if he had an agreement with rove and did not disclose it to any defendant in whose case Rove was a witness. Even if a Rove case was sealed, fitzgerald could not under Brady/Giglio fail to disclose any information relating to charges, agreements and ther like that existed between his office and Rove.
Fitzgerald knows this and so does Luskin. the whole idea of a secret indictment to coerce Rove to testify against others is LUDICROUS preciisely because it could not be kept secret from the people to whom it matters most.
Such a deal between Rove and Fitzgerald and disclosure of a secret indictment that was then nolle prossed under seal would blow the libby case out of the water for Fitzgerald and destroy what has until now been an exemplary career. It would also destroy Rove's reputation fort all time.
As there is NO EARTHLY REASON why they would do such a thing even if the consequences were not so OBVIOUSLY disastrous for both of them, clearly they wouldn't do it when they know what the consequences would be.
fitzgerald did no indict Rove and he doesn't need an immunity agreement to get rove to testify because it is in Rove's best interest to do so without immunity so long as he has tacit assurance he will not be indicted as long as he tells the truth.
Why people ignore the simple and obvious explanation that requires no straining at all to accept simply because it does not jibe witht he reporting of a thooroughly dishonest mentally ill reporter with delusions of grandeur is beyond me.
"that means that Rove doesn't want to be portyrayed ac having cut a deal to cooperate to escape prosecution and that fitzgeral doesn't want himportrayed that way either because it would seriously undermine his usefulness as a witness and make him a much easier target for impeachment."
I agree with everything you wrote Wake Up, except perhaps this statement. Don't people cut deals all the time with prosecutors in order to get their testimony? I have never before heard of a "tacit" agreement in order to testify. Wouldn't a potential target want a rock-solid 'deal' to insure he would not be indicted.
I am inclined to believe your scenario, but this is the one point I do not understand well.
Sure people cut such deals all the time, but they aren't presidential advisors mindful of drastic political consequences.
"Tacit" agreements are actually quite commonplace. Where the interests of otherwise adverse parties overlap (i.e., both recognize their best possible outcomes will follow from a certain course of action it is not at all unusual for the parties to proceed without an agreement.
The most common example is where a person who is facing or might face charges is wanted to testify against someone else. Obviously the lawyer for that someone else wants to do everything possible to discredit the testimony. Being able to show an agreement favorable to the witness was made to procure his testimony is quite helpful in that regard. It establishes clear motive to say what the prosecution wants said regardless of truth. Very often both the witness and the prosecutor will find it advantageous to hold off on making a deal until after the testimony is given. That way when the witness is asked, "isn't it true you were promised ________ in exchange for your testimony today, the witness can truthfully answer no, even if he hopes and has good reason to believ he will get _____ at a later date.
To a lawyer "agreement" means something very specific. Unless there is an offer and acceptance of a mutual exchange of promises (consideration), there is no "agreement" in the strict legal sense of the word even if the prosecutor has said, " I can't promise anything (wink, wink) but we will certainly do the right thing if your client does the right thing."
Hallehlulia, if you read comments on the TO site for this story by Molly Shaw, you will see that Imposed Immunity is indeed something that can and probably did happen with Rove. US Code Title 18 part V, chapter 601 sec 6002,6003. A Court,Grand Jury, Agency, Congressional committee, subcommittee, joint committee and US Attorney can impose immunity on a witness that has or is expected to take the 5th and they cannot refuse to comply.
Yesssss, yesss, yesss , a pig in a box, indeed. ITYS!!!
good input by all. thnx.
kathleen - i thought that molly might be you!
WakeUp - thnx. you argument seems to make a lot of sense. i will quibble with a couple of things a) it's not just leopold, the whole team have been working the sources and getting the same story. b) there is *some* reason to believe that cr128 is related to the case. TO (now) says that their sources are telling them that cr128 is related to the case (altho they don't say exactly how)
atm, i'm not sure about anything
TO saying it has sources is NOT a reason to believe anything. TO lied about having multiple independent sources with direct knowledge of the fact Fitzgerald handed rove's lawyers a rrur bill (returned indictment) on or before May 12. I don't believe they had any such sources then as it is impossible to have direct knowledge of something that did not happen and i don't believe they have any sources now who have any idea what 1:06-cr-00128 involves. The existence of sources is one of the many things that have been fabricated.
As for "imposed immunity," the fact a procedure exists is no evidence that it is being used in this matter. The fact Luskin categorically denies it when he KNOWS such an agreement would have to be disclosed under Brady/Giglio if Rove testifies in the Libby trial is strong evidence that no such agreement exists. Smart and sane people don't tell lies that they KNOW will be revealed as lies particularly when the revelation of the lie would be disastrous for all concerned. the people at TO clearly are not smart, at least some appear something other than sane and they foolishly thought their lies would escape revelation. Luskin is not the type to delude himself into ignoring the fact that any agreements between prosecutors and witnesses MUST be disclosed to the defendant --even if the agreements were reached in a sealed matter or a matter for which no formnal record exists because no case was initiated.
It makes far more sense to believe there is no "agreement" because lack of such an agreement serves the purposes of both Rove and Fitzgerald.
ANOTHER clarification on immunity.
It's not really crucial to this discussion, but I hate inaccuracy because even a small one often becomes the foundation for a flawed line of reasoning. ONLY A COURT (judge) CAN "IMPOSE" immunity-- not a prosecutor and not a grand jury. The prosecutor must REQUEST an order from the court imposing immunity on a witness, he or she cannot do it alone. It is true that the court must grant a prosecutor's request for an immunity order where the proper procedure is followed but it always requires a court order unless there is consent from the witness via an immunity agreement (or as is very often the case a use immunity provision in a plea agreement).
Section 6002. Immunity generally
Whenever a witness refuses, on the basis of his privilege against
self-incrimination, to testify or provide other information in a
proceeding before or ancillary to -
(1) a court or grand jury of the United States,
(2) an agency of the United States, or
(3) either House of Congress, a joint committee of the two
Houses, or a committee or a subcommittee of either House,
and the person presiding over the proceeding communicates to the witness an order issued under this title, the witness may not refuse to comply with the order on the basis of his privilege against self-incrimination; but no testimony or other information compelled under the order (or any information directly or indirectly derived from such testimony or other information) may be used against the witness in any criminal case, except a prosecution for perjury, giving a false statement, or otherwise failing to comply with the order.
Section 6003. Court and grand jury proceedings
1.
(a) In the case of any individual who has been or may be called
to testify or provide other information at any proceeding before or
ancillary to a court of the United States or a grand jury of the
United States, the United States district court for the judicial
district in which the proceeding is or may be held shall issue, in
accordance with subsection (b) of this section, upon the request of
the United States attorney for such district, an order requiring
such individual to give testimony or provide other information
which he refuses to give or provide on the basis of his privilege
against self-incrimination, such order to become effective as
provided in section 6002 of this title.
(b) A United States attorney may, with the approval of the
Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate
Attorney General, or any designated Assistant Attorney General or
Deputy Assistant Attorney General, request an order under
subsection (a) of this section when in his judgment -
(1) the testimony or other information from such individual may
be necessary to the public interest; and
(2) such individual has refused or is likely to refuse to
testify or provide other information on the basis of his
privilege against self-incrimination
Viget:
"Wayne Madsen Report" reports two sealed indictments, one US vs. Sealed and one Sealed vs Sealed. I have to recheck it.
Also, I did not say that Fitz sealed an indictment against Rove to coerce him to testify against others. I said he did it to keep Rove's porky buns in a vice, ie. no more obstruction of justice, please or collusion with other potential witnesses. If Fitz has other evidence, he will know if Rove is lying under oath.
Also, giving Rove immunity for his testimony on who leaked Plame's name does not preclude indicting him for other things, like perjury, obstruction of justice or conspiracy to defraud Congress. Immunity is not a deal so Luskin is correct there, but until he shows the letter, I won't buy his version of where things stand.
Wake Up: Who says the defendant, Libby, doesn't know if Rove was given immunity? Just because they are being Mum, doesn't mean they haven't been informed. If immunity was imposed on Rove, what could Defendant Libby say anyway? Don't you think the culprits are hanging together, at least until forced to do otherwise?
Kathleen:
I said this in the other thread too--THINK! If the facts about Rove's status in the investigation are known to the others involved (as they undoubtedly are) there is no conceivable reason for an indictment against him to be sealed. Cases are not sealed for no good reason. the prosecutor has to make a showing that it is necessary to prevent something that will hinder the investigation and/or prosecution (people will flee, evidence will be destroyed, witnesses tampered with, threatened, harmed or killed, etc.) Here, precisely because EVERYONE possibly a subject or target of the investigation is not only fully aware of the investigation and its nature and scope, the motivations for any actions which might hinder the investigation existed from the beginning and announcement of a Rove indictment would make none of them any more likely to occur than they were already.
If you would just THINK you would realize those points actually sriously undermine the bases for any suggestion there is a sealed indictment. THINK!
Wake Up" Just because each of the culprits knows what they all did, does not mean they are all going to know exactly how every person testified under questioning or what others not involved in the leaking have told, or for that matter what other evidence Fitz has that does not come from their own testimony. At a certain point it's bound to become doggy dog. I know through discovery they have to inform each other of what they plan to do, what evidence they have, etc, but they have to answer questions associated with the dox they have surrendered, so stuff happens in cross examination. I don't know, if everybody knows everything before hand, why have such legal options except that they are sometimes needed an employed?
Also, I understand that because a procedure exists, it does not mean it was utilized, but that it is a possible explanation for a yet to be resolved question.
I think there is more than one defendant, more than one charge, but no indictment for one defendant on one charge. I think it is possible that one charge is obstruction of justice, in the event that Rove lies under oath even with the immunity as per one charge. I am aware that indictments are not sealed for no reason, but your reason for assuming there isn't reason doesn't make sense to me.
I think it is easy when reading all of the reports and comments to conflate each others agruments in our mind.
To clarify; I did not say I thought Fitz indicted Rove to force him to tesitfy in the investigastion.
1. I said I thought Fitz indicted Rove and others on various charges.
2. I said I thought that this week, when Judge Reggie Walton asked Fitz to clarify the investigation and say who he would be calling as witnesses in the Libby Case, that at this point, the Court imposed immunity on Rove with regard to one of the charges, so that he would not take the 5th in the Libby trial, for various reasons, including guaranteeing Libby a fair trial, in the event that Rove's testimony could exculpate Libby but incriminalize himself.
3. I don't claim to KNOW what the deal is, but I'm clearly roooooting for a way that comes out with Rove not all the way off the damned hook and I won't take Luskin's word for it.
4. I think the presence of a sealed indictment on some charges, will keep Rove from lying under oath in Libby's case even with the immunity.
5. I think the immunity is not for Rove's testimony in the Grand Jury, but Rove's testimony in the Libby Case, so he does not take the 5th, with or without an indictment. It would not take an indictment filed against Rove to cause Rove to take the 5th in the Libby case.
5. I know I don't know what the real deal is, just trying to think aloud with the rest of you and making no pretense that I want it to be some way that doesn't have Rove off the hook.
6. Yes Wakeup, the motivations for hindering an investigation have always been known, but we're talking about hindering a trial here and we're fast approaching a public phase of questioning. the issue of witnesses just csame up this week, the same day as the announcement that Rove would not be indicted.
Are you saying it was sheer coincidence that those two things happened on the same day, and that an indictment and a court imposed immunity for rove's testimony in the Libby case are not possible? I think they were assuredly connected. If I'm wrong, I'll go drink vinegar, for God's sake.
thnx kathleen. good argument.
i dont have anything to add. i'm not sure what is going on.
" Wake Up, Just because each of the culprits knows what they all did, does not mean they are all going to know exactly how every person testified under questioning or what others not involved in the leaking have told, or for that matter what other evidence Fitz has that does not come from their own testimony.
That may to some extent be true, but you have forgotten to mention why we were talking about it. The issue is whether any conceivable reason exists to SEAL an indictment of Rove. It is not necessary for every person to know the totality of all evidence involved in the case for there to be no reason to seal. all that requires is that the prosecutor lack any reasonable basis to assert that publicly disclosing the indictment is likely to compromise the investigation . It's not necessary for anyone to know everything Rove said or didn't say-- all that is necessary is that they know he is testifying and otherwise communicating with the special counsel. Once they know that, there is no good reason to seal because whether they know or not they have the same motive to destroy evidence, tamper with him threaten him, harm him or whatever they would have if they knew about an indictment.
"At a certain point it's bound to become doggy dog."
Certainly, often even the tightest bonds often break when people are subjected the threat of criminal prosecution, but again that provides no reason why an indictment would be sealed.
"I know through discovery they have to inform each other of what they plan to do, what evidence they have, etc, but they have to answer questions associated with the dox they have surrendered, so stuff happens in cross examination."
They don't have to inform the other side what they "plan to do." The prosecutor does have to disclose discoverable evidence and what HE HAS DONE with respect to witnesses in the case is absolutely subject to disclosure.
"I don't know, if everybody knows everything before hand, why have such legal options except that they are sometimes needed an employed?"
I'm not sure what that means. Of what options are you speaking?
"Also, I understand that because a procedure exists, it does not mean it was utilized, but that it is a possible explanation for a yet to be resolved question."
In the ultimate sense, everything is possible. But, where one possible explanation is only slightly more reasonable than theorizing that Rove had a Fitzgerald clone created whose thoughts and actions he controls and the real Fitzgerald is hidden away in a secret gulag, it makes little sense to hang your hat on it.
"I think there is more than one defendant, more than one charge, but no indictment for one defendant on one charge."
Again, I don't know what that means.
"I think it is possible that one charge is obstruction of justice, in the event that Rove lies under oath even with the immunity as per one charge."
You are confusing yourself. Certainly, if IN THE FUTURE Rove lies under oath he can be charged for it. that has no bearing on the issue of whether HE HAS BEEN INDICTED. Again, THINK. If you are a prosecutor would you make a deal with someone to testify after charging him with being a perjurrer knowing that must be disclosed to the defense and will destroy his utility as a witness? wouldn't ANY prosecutor with a functioning brain realize that IS THE VERY LAST THING to ever do? Either you charge him because you think he should be prosecuted and accept the consequence that doing so destroys his utility as a witness against others, or you don't charge him and try to use him as a witness against others. If you would just THINK, you would realize how foolish these absurd scenarios sound to anyone remotely objective and rational.
"I am aware that indictments are not sealed for no reason, but your reason for assuming there isn't reason doesn't make sense to me."
I can't help if it doesn't make sense to you. That doesn't have any bearing on whether it does make sense.
"I think it is easy when reading all of the reports and comments to conflate each others agruments in our mind."
Yes, and as I've said that is what you are doing to a large degree and you are so busy spinning for some reason to believe the arguments you want to believe, you don't stop and THINK FOR YOURSELF and use your own brain.
"To clarify; I did not say I thought Fitz indicted Rove to force him to tesitfy in the investigastion.
1. I said I thought Fitz indicted Rove and others on various charges.
2. I said I thought that this week, when Judge Reggie Walton asked Fitz to clarify the investigation and say who he would be calling as witnesses in the Libby Case, that at this point, the Court imposed immunity on Rove with regard to one of the charges, so that he would not take the 5th in the Libby trial, for various reasons, including guaranteeing Libby a fair trial, in the event that Rove's testimony could exculpate Libby but incriminalize himself."
That's just fantasy. There is no way to respond to it but to point out that it simply did not happen.
" I don't claim to KNOW what the deal is, but I'm clearly roooooting for a way that comes out with Rove not all the way off the damned hook and I won't take Luskin's word for it."
It's not a matter of just taking Luskin's word for it. It's haviong the capability that what he said it completely consistent WITH ALL OTHER KNOWN FACTS and Truthout's version id TOTALLY INCONSISTENT with all other known facts, common sense, reason, and the reality of how our criminal justice system oerates.
"I think the presence of a sealed indictment on some charges, will keep Rove from lying under oath in Libby's case even with the immunity."
The existence of an indictment that would be dismissed if he testifies truthfully would be no more effective than a the very real ability to simply file an indictment if he does not testify truthfully and THAT WOULD MAKE SO MUCH MORE SENSE IT IS INCALCULABLE because as i said smart prosecutors don't deliberately destroy the credibility of their own witnesses
"5. I think the immunity is not for Rove's testimony in the Grand Jury, but Rove's testimony in the Libby Case, so he does not take the 5th, with or without an indictment. It would not take an indictment filed against Rove to cause Rove to take the 5th in the Libby case."
Same
"5. I know I don't know what the real deal is, just trying to think aloud with the rest of you and making no pretense that I want it to be some way that doesn't have Rove off the hook. "
My point is it is very unwise to think out loud if your thoughts make no sense and are extremely damaging to your credibility and persuasiveness.
"6. Yes Wakeup, the motivations for hindering an investigation have always been known, but we're talking about hindering a trial here and we're fast approaching a public phase of questioning. the issue of witnesses just csame up this week, the same day as the announcement that Rove would not be indicted."
I have no idea what the point is there beyond what has already been addressed.
"Are you saying it was sheer coincidence that those two things happened on the same day,"
No, it's probably not a coincidence, but it's another very good reason to recognize the Rove was indicted claim for the pure BS it is.
obviously, Fitzgerald has a timetable and Rove must comply with it. If he Rove had to give what was wanted by that date, that's reason to think he did so, was not indicted and got the letter from Fitzgerald. That serves BOTH their purposes, while your farfetched scenario is not only farfetched but serves neither of their purposes.
"and that an indictment and a court imposed immunity for rove's testimony in the Libby case are not possible? I think they were assuredly connected. If I'm wrong, I'll go drink vinegar, for God's sake."
Then go ahead and pucker, up. If you are still clinging to that unbelievable on every level bunch of lies, there simply is no point doing anything more to save you from yourself.
2:19 PM
WakeUp:
I disagree that there is no good reason to seal an indictment against Rove and others and that is where we part company.
I don't presume to question your credibility. We all think for ourselves here. You can and do disagree, wihtout me presuming that your opinion is not based on "Thinking".
I think the possibility that Fitz made a very persuasive argument to the Court that his indictment needed to be sealed to further his investigations as they pertain to collateral crimes and co-defendants, is very likely.
We disagree, shall I attack your credibility and impugn your mental proceses?
I understand that the issue of an indictment against Rove for obstruction of justice is in the future, if he fails to testify truthfully in the Libby case.
My point is that imposing immunity on Rove, for the Libby testimony precludes his taking the 5th in that case., not that it proves or disproves the existence of a sealed indictment.
Disgreeing with you does not damage my credibility with anyone but you. You'd do better to invest this much energy in worrying about Luskin's credibility. His actions will affect all of us. I'm just expressing an opinion which everyone is free to disregard, including you.
I think imposed immunity could easilly be SPUN by Luskin to mean No Indictment, as could "un-indicted co-conspirator" be SPUN by Luskin to mean No indictment.
Shall I call you a member of cult because you are so credulous of Luskin? You seem to think that because he knows he'd be caught, he wouldn't lie. I'm not saying he's lying, just spinning.
You don't know what Fitz said to Luskin, but you seem quite comfortable accepting his veracity without verification. I am not.
In any case, my credibility doesn't depend on your opinion. I use my real name when I comment, not a presumptuous alter ego pseudonym. Disagreeing with you does not mean I or anyone else need to "wake up".
By the way, you say "obviously if Fitz has a schedule then Rove must comply with it"??? Didn't you say Rove and the others could delay testimony till after the midterms, the '08 elections and maybe even 2010? Either they can delay testimony or they have to meet a schedule or do you switch positions in order to disagree?
More importantly, the issue is not a scheduling one. The issue is that because the Rove "No Indictment" announcement came on the same day that Fitz was in Court for a Pre-Trial hearing in the Libby case, it is likely to be a CONSEQUENCE of Judge Walton asking Fitz WHO would be tesitfying, not WHEN they would be tesitfying.
And I don't need you to save me from myself. I don't really care if you agree with me, so it's not going to be some big devastating event if I am wrong about what I think is going on.
You seem to have a problem with me not accepting your explanation. Don't sweat my opinion. Save, yourself. We won't clink glasses when all is said and done.
Kathleen said...
WakeUp:
/
"I disagree that there is no good reason to seal an indictment against Rove and others and that is where we part company. "
Then NAME ONE that makes the slightest bit of sense.
"I don't presume to question your credibility. We all think for ourselves here. You can and do disagree, wihtout me presuming that your opinion is not based on "Thinking"."
I DO question your credibility. I don't think you have ANY concerning these issues because you have no understanding, knowledge or ability to reason. I know you are young and were raised to believe "self-esteem" is a divine right and all opnions are worthy simply because they exist. I am from an era where we were taught to disrespect things noty worthy of respect.
"I think the possibility that Fitz made a very persuasive argument to the Court that his indictment needed to be sealed to further his investigations as they pertain to collateral crimes and co-defendants, is very likely."
Well, then give some remotely plausible description of what he might have said. You can't because there is nothing he could say to convince anyone an indictment needed to be sealed BECAUSE THE WHOLE WORLD IS AWARE OF THE INVESTIGATION AND ITS NATURE AND SCOPE. thus, everyone who would have any motive to obstruct or impede the investigation ALREADY HAS IT and knowlwdge of an indictment would not chane that one iota. How can that possibly be difficult for you to understand?
"We disagree, shall I attack your credibility and impugn your mental proceses?"
Feel free. If you have reason to question my knowledge, intelligence and ability to think you SHOULD question them because the directly bear on my credibility.
"I understand that the issue of an indictment against Rove for obstruction of justice is in the future, if he fails to testify truthfully in the Libby case. "
That's NOT what you have been arguing. you have been claiming he WAS indicted in May for past conduct.
"My point is that imposing immunity on Rove, for the Libby testimony precludes his taking the 5th in that case., not that it proves or disproves the existence of a sealed indictment."
Again, that's NOT what you were saying. .
"Disgreeing with you does not damage my credibility with anyone but you."
If it makes you feel better to believe that go ahead. I think ANYONE reading what you write would find you utterly lacking in credibility with regard to these matters. YOU know almost nothing and when you are uninformed you are usually misinformed.
"You'd do better to invest this much energy in worrying about Luskin's credibility. His actions will affect all of us. I'm just expressing an opinion which everyone is free to disregard, including you. "
I'm actually trying to HELP you. I would be doing you no favor to patronize you and smile and nod while you blabber inanities. Real help involves trying to get people to understand more and think more wisely.
i think i've addressed the reat of your post in other threads or earlier in this one. They remain total nonsense.
WakeUp;
If my opinions are such utter nonsense, why have you wasted your beautiful mind arguing about them?
Surely an "employed" attorney would have more meritoriuos things to do with their self proclaimed superior mentality.
Take your own advice and pick your battles more wisely. You're all in a lather, for no good reason.
You still can't simply admit you don't know what you are4 talking about. You are simply a poor pitiful victim. It's my fault for pointing out the nonsense and I should have better things to do because your posting nonsense as thought it was true is harmless.
After all, people posting nonsense that might get repeated and spread because no one identifies as it is garbage isn't a problem-- it's the internet and that's par for the course.
I think exposing and repudiating lies and ignorance is worthwhile. If you disagree I won't bother trying to change your mind.
( I wonder if you have the same attitude toward ignorant falsehoods spread by white supremacists to support arguments the government is controlled by a secret socialist international society dominated by Jews.
You have a fault? Who would have thought?
No, you don't wonder anything about my attitudes. You just wanted an excuse to write the words you did about Jews.
The only victim here is civility, comity, and courtesy.
You are right, it is a pity.
Chalk one up for you.
Say what? I do wonder how people like you can hold such ludicrous thoughts. The patholgies which cause people to invent absurd rationalizations to justify clearly wrong ideas based in ignorance is in some respects fascinating and in all respects dangerous to an informed civil society.
I'm not sure what you mean by I wanted an excuse to the words i did about Jewss. Perhaps you can explain. (Just so you don't have to wonder or make an assumption, I am Jewish although not observant).
As for victims, the victims would be anyone who would have read the nonsense you write and acepted it uncritically without being informed about how it was the product of a know-nothing spreading disinformation. Now people at least can judge the conlcusions you try to support knowing that you have no clue about the most basic facts, procedures and principles on which you based your arguments.
I think writing utter garbage under the pretense you know anything about these things is extemely discourteous of you. Misleading people is a bad thing. People who do it deserve no respect.
You don't wonder what I think about any issue because you already have categorized it a certain way.
You also give the readers here no credit for discernment.
Surely if I am as unknowledgeable as you portray me, why would you assume readers here could not figure that out for themselves?
I am not portraying my self as an expert in any field. Speaking as Jane Q. Citizen I have a right to express my opinion, on any subject, and I don't need no stinking credentials or permit from you.
Your desperation to be "right', smarter, thiser or thater is palpably pathetic and neurotic.
nNo, I give OTHER readers (besides you and LeeB) plenty of credit and what I write is for their benefit because I do grasp the futility of trying to explain anything to you because you are simply incapable of understanding.
Yes, you have the right to express your opinions and I have the right to state that your opinions are nonsensical ones because they come from an unintelligent source, ignorant of the most basic facts, incapable of understanding elementary principles of law, completely devoid of common sense and suffering from crippling partisan emotion and thus incapable of reason.
I can't stop you from coninuing to say really stupisd things. I can point out how stupid they are and express my disgust you won't stop.
The sound of one tongue kvetching.
Is it foam yet?
Post a Comment