" A commenter in the 6/14 Ash post at TruthOut points to this link, an html-ized PDF entitled RS20214: Federal Grand Juries: The Law in a Nutshell. Specifically he notes a paragraph on pg 5 (emphases mine):
They [the courts] will also dismiss indictments in the name of due process where the prosecution sought indictment selectively for constitutionally impermissible reasons; or for reasons of vindictive retaliation; where the prosecution has secured the indictment through outrageous conduct which shocks the conscience of the court; where the prosecution has unjustifiably delayed seeking an indictment to the detriment of the defendant; where the government knowingly secures the indictment through the presentation of false or perjured testimony; or where a witness is called before the grand jury for the sole purpose of building perjury prosecution against the witness
Hypothetically, could either of the items bolded items be interpreted to apply here?
While we've been busy asking what Ruskin's or Fitz's role in this has been, should we be asking what Walton's role was? "
"There is a Sealed vs Sealed indictment recorded in the Libby Case by Judge Reggie Walton, not in the Grand Jury hearings by Judge Thomas Hogan.* anon:
This is why I think people are confused and why I think Judge Walton gave Rove immunity to testify in the Libby Case because his answers would be self incriminating in the leak investigation. Luskin could spin this as exoneration without showing the letter from Fitz."
"It makes a LOT more sense to think that it is all what it appears:
Fitzgerald chose not to indict Rove because of concerns he might lose the case and rove simply will testify in a manner fitzgerald is willing to accept (at least before the event) as truthfully without immunity."