| Author |
Message |
    
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1219
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 10:14 pm: | 
|
Target Letter Drives Rove Back to Grand Jury
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t
Wednesday 26 April 2006
Karl Rove's appearance before a grand jury in the CIA leak case Wednesday comes on the heels of a "target letter" sent to his attorney recently by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, signaling that the Deputy White House Chief of Staff may face imminent indictment, sources that are knowledgeable about the probe said Wednesday.
It's unclear when Fitzgerald sent the target letter to Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin. Sources close to the two-year-old leak investigation said when Rove's attorney received the letter Rove volunteered to appear before the grand jury for an unprecedented fifth time to explain why he did not previously disclose conversations he had with the media about covert CIA operative Valerie Plame and her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who criticized the Bush administration's use of pre-war Iraq intelligence.
A federal grand jury target letter is sent to a person in a criminal investigation who is likely to be indicted. A "target" of a grand jury investigation is a person who a prosecutor has substantial evidence to link to a crime.
Last week, Rove was stripped of some of his policy duties in a White House shakeup orchestrated by incoming Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten. The White House insisted that Rove was not demoted, but insiders said the executive branch is bracing for a possible indictment against Rove.
Luskin was accompanying Rove to US District Court in Washington, DC, Wednesday morning and unavailable for comment. Rove was told by Fitzgerald's staff that his testimony could last for as long as three hours.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/042606I.shtml
|
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 11332
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 4:45 am: |
|
The cable news outlets were saying that Rove has been assured that he is not a "target", only a "subject". A target is someone who the prosecutor is planning on indicting.
I posted last week that Rove's change in responsibility might be related to Fitzgerald's investigation. Now that it has come out that Bush declassified the fact Plame worked for the CIA (something he can legally do) I think it will be harder to get convictions on people like Scooter and Turd Bloosom. |
curmudgeon
Citizen
Username: Curmudgeon
Post Number: 765
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 7:09 am: |
|
Actually it is not at all clear that Bush can legally declassify the status of an intelligence officer. Most of what is classified is so because of executive order, but the status of intelligence officers is classified by statute. Laws of the United States apply no less to the President than they do to anyone else - or at least that used to be the case (remember the Paula Jones lawsuit?) |
Darryl Strawberry
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 7097
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 7:16 am: |
|
"(remember the Paula Jones lawsuit?)"
 |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 11333
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 7:26 am: |
|
Curm, doesn't the act define a covert operative based on if they worked undercover outside the country in the past five years (?). |
curmudgeon
Citizen
Username: Curmudgeon
Post Number: 766
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 9:42 am: |
|
I believe it does, Bob. See Michael Isikoff's piece about Plame-Wilson's covert status in the Newsweek Periscope. |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 3214
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 11:03 am: |
|
I think that a Cheney indictment might be cause for celebrations in the street. I feel like ordering some party hats, just in case. Kudos to Fitzgerald for having as much tenacity working on a serious issue as Starr did working on something comparatively trivial. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 949
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 7:25 pm: |
|
Notey,
Remember your love of Fitz when this thing ends and you are left flapping in the wind. Just when I think it can't get any better I find out you along with several others are still waiting at the top of the stairs for your parents to tell you it's Fitzmas morning. Between this fairy tale and your bubble bursting over the small if any Democratic gains this fall will leave you and many others a bit cold. Don't worry, get a second mortgage and pay for the winter heat. At that point you'll only have two more years of Bush. |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1223
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Friday, April 28, 2006 - 12:13 am: |
|
MSNBC reports Rove believes he is in legal jeopardy............
Karl Rove has described his three and a half hour meeting with a grand jury as grueling, and is more worried about being prosecuted than ever, MSNBC is reporting.
RAW STORY has also learned that an MSNBC report tonight revealed that one of Rove's lawyers said the presidential adviser described his fifth grand jury appearance as "hell." MSNBC's David Shuster appeared live on Keith Olbermann's 8pm show this evening and stated that Rove was surprised by the tone of the questions as well as the length of time he was required to testify.
Shuster agreed with Brian Unger, sitting in for Keith Olbermann, that it was "easy to imagine" that Rove's legal situation was the cause of his recent reduction of responsibilities. However, he added, "I don't see there's any chance that Karl Rove's going to resign, barring an indictment."
The three and a half hour duration is considered highly unusual for a fifth appearance before a grand jury, Shuster reported. Also not boding well for Rove is the fact that the grand jury plans to meet tomorrow. Some are speculating that an indictment for Rove may be handed up tomorrow, though others have claimed such a fast turnaround time is unlikely.
One MSNBC commentator claimed that the fifth appearance also ties the record held by Betty Currie, former President Bill Clinton's personal secretary.
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/MSNBC_reports_Rove_believes_he_in_0427.html |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1225
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Friday, April 28, 2006 - 12:28 am: |
|
Luskin is all over saying Rove is not a target.
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&tab=wn&ie=UTF-8&q=Rove+target&btnG=Search+News
Rove's fifth trip to Prosecutor's office has got the Plame wheels spinning and everyone's hopes against hope that Rove will learn what freedom really means: from behind bars.
The Rove legal team is, of course, saying: nothing to see here, folks -- which is good enough for the folks at the National Review who dutifully speculate: "The Rove side apparently believed the [Time's Viveca] Novak conversation would be exculpatory for Rove, and it led to still more investigation by the grand jury -- which may be the topic of today's testimony."
The Washington Post's Dan Froomkin sees that for what it is: "everything we're hearing this morning about what happened inside the courthouse yesterday is coming from Rove's camp, and is therefore presumptively spin."
Tim Grieve doesn't buy the National Review's "fifth times an exculpatory charm" theory, noting that: "People testify before grand juries because they have to or because they think doing so will get them out of whatever jam they’re in. Which description describes Rove?"
According to Christy Hardin Smith, the spin appears to be finding traction in the press as everyone keeps repeating Rove attorney Robert Luskin's mantra that Fitzgerald hasn't made a decision on whether to bring charges against Rove.
Few if any mention that that's not his job:
The thing about being a prosecutor working with a grand jury is this: as a prosecutor, you present information to the grand jury, you recommend particular charges for particular people — but you are not the person who indicts. The members of the grand jury do that — and it would be incredibly presumptuous, not to mention potentially rude and irritating to the grand jury, for a prosecutor to just step out and say he was going to indict someone when that is the job of the jurors themselves.
And then there's the linguistic hair-splitting going on regarding Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's intentions. Rove's lawyer Luskin continues to specify that Rove isn't the "target" of the investigation, that he's the "subject." Back to Tim Grieve:
"Target" is a term of legal significance here. The U.S. Attorneys’ Manual defines a "target" as someone "to whom the prosecutor or the grand jury has substantial evidence linking him or her to the commission of a crime and who, in the judgment of the prosecutor, is a putative defendant." If Rove isn’t a "target," what is he? Scooter Libby’s lawyers have said that Rove is a "subject," and Luskin has all but confirmed as much in the past. A "subject," the U.S. Attorneys’ Manual says, is a person "whose conduct is within the scope of the grand jury’s investigation."
here-
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/35562/
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page