Tuesday, June 20, 2006

comments from the comments

a few comments from the comments

* don:
" 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? "

* kathleen:
"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.

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."
* anon:
"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."

1 comment:

Kathleen said...

I think that is possible that imposed immunity could be construed and spun by an attorney who doesn't show his letter, as a no indictment. Technically, it's true. But then again so could unidicted co-conspirator mean no indictment. If you don't see the letter or hear it from the Fitz's.
mouth, it isn't the fact for me.

I think Fitz made an effective case to Judge Walton that the indictments had to be sealed because they might hinder further investigation. That makes a lot of sense to me. Many months have passed since Libby's indictments and more evidence collected.

I think the Court decided at this past hearing in the Libby case, to impose immunity on Rove for this Libby trial because his testimony could incriminate him and might exculpate Libby. It might incriminate others. At any rate, the same day that walton requested a list of witnesses from fitz in the Libby trial, luskin announced that Rove would not be indicted in the leak investigation. They had to be connected to happen on the same day.

I think the other indictment US vs. Sealed, which is not a criminal case, but connected to the Fitz thing, could be an indictment against Luskin as an Officer of the Court, if he committed an unethical act which could disbar him in a presentment before the Court. That of course would not be in the Libby case trial. It's within the possibloty and was one of the reports on Wayne Madsen.

Randall Sanborm, Fitz's spokesperson said he could not comment on Rove's status to the MSM. Luskin says he can't comment because of a pending investigation. Does that sound like Fitz is folding up his tent?

What would be the reason Fitz can't comment, if its all over and there is no sealed indictment?