I think there is a scenario where Leopold and his sources were acting in good faith. I don 't know how Jeralyn can say that Rove testified with no 5th ammendment and no safety net. How would she know that?and
If Rove was a reluctant witness and was claiming his 5th ammendment rights, and they were arguing different kinds of immunity, say during the 15 hour session, then Fitz could impose immunity on him and completely eliminate Rove's need to invoke his 5th ammendment rights. His status is unclear because it remains to be seen if he obstructs justice even with immunity. Just because Luskins says Rove's been cooperating doesn't mean it's so.
I think the threat of indictment was imminent and Fitz decided to grant Rove immunity even without Rove requesting it, to force him to testify or face obstruction charges. It's called imposed immunity. I love it.
Think about it. If Rove was cleared, wouldn't Fitz have held a press conference? His letter said he doesn't anticipate indicting Rove "at this time". This means he might consider it at a later date. Why would Sanborn refuse to comment on Rove's status, if he got an all clear? I think Fitz was forced to say something by Judge Walton in the Libby case because he wanted clarification on the investigation, most likely because Rove is going to have to testify and if he's constantly taking the 5th, it'll obstruct the trial.and
Take heart, Rove's a small fry in this scheme.
I believe I am correct when I say that Judge Walton, hearing the Libby Case, just this past Monday requested clarification of the status of the Plame investigation, no doubt to determine who would be called to testify.and
My guess is that Fitz, in response to Judge Walton's request, wrote a letter to Rove, whose testimony he needs in the Libby case. To guarantee that Rove will testify and not take the 5th, I beleive that Fitz imposed immunity on Rove to force him to answer questions, or be indicted for obstruction of justice. He may not be indicated for leaking Plame's name, but he could be inidicted for conspiracy to defraud Congress and the people.
By taking away the legal need for Rove taking the 5th, Fitz boxes him into giving up the whole goddamned WHIG or be indicted for obstruction.
I checked the link to read up on transactional and use immunity and read further, where I discovered 'Imposed Immunity". I said, Ah, hah. I love this concept because it does not require Rove to request it. Rove has no choice. He's forced to take it. YESSSSS!!!! I love the idea of Rove not calling the shots, and not having any say about it but being told what he FUCKING HAS to do, or be FUCKED HIMSELF.
P.S. Think about the timing of this. Dopey and Darth and, it looks like most of the WHIG group, books it to Camp David to hide when they know Fitz has to go back into Court for a Hearing this past Monday, then upstages the whole show buy spiriting off to Iraq, to drown out the headlines and give journalists too much to discuss to ask to see "The Letter". If Luskin got a letter exonerating Rove, wouldn't he have plastered it all over the place?
Instead we had Commander Codpiece, dashing in and out of the Green Zone for a Photo Op and bop back to the Rose Garden to play Alpha Male with a blind man. Boy, talk about Freudian. What if we all took off our shades?
I think they were expecting the worst. But Fitz has gone for the slow fuse. The Big Bang is just around the corner. I can wait till the 4th of July.
i hope she's right
"There was really nothing Fitz could do if Rove just took the 5th, and refused to accept a deal, except impose immunity. If Rove can't take the 5th and still refuses to give up the facts, Fitz can still indict him for obstruction of justice."ftr - here's the article she is referring to, particularly this:
"If you take the Fifth, you won’t have to say so more than a few times. Once you’ve exercised your right to remain silent in response to several questions, and it’s clear that you’re not going to give any further answers, you’ll be excused. However, there’s a hitch. Sometimes, the prosecutor grants immunity to a witness who’s exercising her right to remain silent, to try to force her to testify. It doesn’t matter whether or not you’ve requested immunity. The prosecutor or judge can just impose immunity on you—and then you’re no longer entitled to the protection of the Fifth Amendment (because if you’re immune, what you say can’t be used against you)."(via don)