Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

JASON LEOPOLD: SEALED VS. SEALED

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 08:53 AM
Original message
JASON LEOPOLD: SEALED VS. SEALED
Sealed vs. Sealed
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Report

Monday 12 June 2006

Four weeks ago, during the time when we reported that White House political adviser Karl Rove was indicted for crimes related to his role in the leak of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson, the grand jury empanelled in the case returned an indictment that was filed under seal in US District Court for the District of Columbia under the curious heading of Sealed vs. Sealed.

As of Friday afternoon that indictment, returned by the grand jury the week of May 10th, remains under seal - more than a month after it was handed up by the grand jury.

The case number is "06 cr 128." On the federal court's electronic database, "06 cr 128" is listed along with a succinct summary: "No further information is available."

We have not seen the contents of the indictment "06 cr 128". But the fact that this indictment was returned by the grand jury hearing evidence in the CIA leak case on a day that Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald met with the grand jury raised a number of questions about the identity of the defendant named in the indictment, whether it relates to the leak case, and why it has been under seal for a month under the heading Sealed vs. Sealed.


more at:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/061206Z.shtml
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 08:55 AM
Response to Original message
1. An indictment can stay under seal
for an indefinite amount of time. It is up to the judge to decide when to unseal it. Some people think that there's a time limit to these things? There is not.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arugula Latte Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #1
79. I thought justice was supposed to be a public process ...
So much for an open system ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #79
84. Technically, a GJ is part of the investigative process, which isn't open.
We're all learning from this case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemReadingDU Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 08:55 AM
Response to Original message
2. Very interesting!
That Jason Leopold writes this today, and Scooter Libby is due in court today. Coincidence?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grytpype Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 08:56 AM
Response to Original message
3. Oh God, is Leopold still around?
I thought he blew town with Jesse Macbeth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Doctor. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #3
158. This would be why he did not reveal his source I'm guessing...
He said that he would if his source proved to be deliberately misleading. So I figure that, so far, he hasn't been wrong on this indictment.

Wonder what they're waiting for?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
StaggerLee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 08:56 AM
Response to Original message
4. !
:popcorn:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 08:57 AM
Response to Original message
5. Sealed Vs. Sealed Has Bee VERIFIABLY Sealed For OVER A Month!
Edited on Mon Jun-12-06 09:03 AM by Beetwasher
Now, I don't know if this has anything to w/ the the Plame case, it may or may not, HOWEVER, where are all the know it alls who have been saying indictments NEVER stay sealed for that long? Well, here's one that HAS been sealed for that long.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 09:02 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. The proper term is "rarely". Not never, rarely.
Fitzgerald just happens to have been involved in the sorts of cases where indictments can stay under seal for a considerably longer period of time. (i.e. organized crime cases, terrorism cases)

He's not the only prosecutor with access to this grand jury, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 09:04 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. I Know That
Edited on Mon Jun-12-06 09:05 AM by Beetwasher
And as I said, I have no idea whether or not this is Plame related.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 09:09 AM
Response to Reply #10
15. I thought I'd respond to 'all those that said NEVER' there.
Since you didn't name names, had to reply to your post about it. Sorry if it seemed otherwise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 09:24 AM
Response to Reply #15
25. No Problem
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 09:16 AM
Response to Reply #7
20. Can anyone find "Sealed vs. Sealed" at the DCDC site?
Edited on Mon Jun-12-06 09:57 AM by leveymg
Is there a link? How about other "Sealed vs. Sealed"?

Does anyone have a copy of any document with that title? What about "U.S. vs. Sealed" -- anyone find one or more of those issued for that day?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 09:40 AM
Response to Reply #20
44. No.
The court schedule (at http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/Daily_Court_Schedule.pdf ) explicitly states that "any sealed matters will not appear on this schedule."

It also said this the week that Madsen claimed to see it there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #44
65. Can anyone get that .pdf doc to load?
Where in the doc does it state that? When and if, I can get it to load.

If someone can please post a mirror version, it would be very helpful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #65
77. Loaded. Right at the top of that document, is states:
". . .sealed matters will not appear on this schedule."

However, that's just the court schedule. The actual documents, such as indictments (at least unsealed) would appear elsewhere on the record, and would be available on PACER.

Does anyone see any records of sealed documents, anywhere on that site? Please link if you find one.

This is VERY frustrating. :banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #20
85. There's no mention of this case at the DC Cir. Ct search engine
Edited on Mon Jun-12-06 10:29 AM by leveymg
"Sealed" just pulls up documents from the Webster Hubbell case of eight years ago. Interesting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #20
163. Nope
Nothing in the latest court docket, or a search of the DCDC site. I don't believe that the DCDC uses "sealed v. sealed" at all anymore for their court filings, so would appreciate it if anyone's managed to turn one up from after 2004.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tandalayo_Scheisskopf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 09:07 AM
Response to Reply #5
14. It might be added...
That in more "normal" cases, indictments may never get sealed that long. However, when one considers all the players that go to the tippy-top of this administration, and Alberto Gonzalez' well known penchant for treating his job more like that of a consigliere, anything is possible and likely probable.

My point being that in this one, everything you know may be wrong.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 09:24 AM
Response to Reply #14
26. Exactly
Edited on Mon Jun-12-06 09:25 AM by Beetwasher
If ever there were a case where unusual things might happen, Plame would be it. And Sealed Vs. Sealed is curious, indeed, especially considering it's timing and source, to say the least.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gasperc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #5
66. was this discussed at YEARLYKOS??
I watched the CSPAN coverage and don't remember it being brought up??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 09:02 AM
Response to Original message
6. Who ordered the seal?
Like he said, it's unlikely the US Attorney could do that on his own. But someone with even MORE authority.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 09:06 AM
Response to Reply #6
13. Now I have to simply correct you here.
Fitzgerald is well known to have been granted all authority of the Attorney General pursuant to his specific investigation as a special counsel appointed by Acting Attorney General James Comey (I hope I got his first name right.. it's Comey for sure, though) while Ashcroft was in the hospital with that gall bladder business. Libby challenged that authority and got nowhere. Special counsels are appointed to avoid the appearance and incidence of political interference in a legal prosecution. Pursuant to that process, Fitzgerald indeed DOES have the authority to order the seal on his own, because he has limited use of authority equal to the Attorney General so that the Attorney General - Ashcroft then, Gonzales now - doesn't have to be asked, and doesn't have to give an answer from a political hot seat where the interests of the White House and the interests of the People conflict.

So Fitzgerald doesn't need MORE authority. He already has it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hootinholler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #13
56. It's not so Fitz doesn't have to ask the AG...
It's so the AG cannot interfere with Fitz. Fitz, is the effective proxy for the AG in all matters related to the Plame investigation. For all intents and purposes in this matter, to the Judge, Fitz *is* the AG.

He could even call Sibel Edmunds and lift the gag order against her and tortue boy wouldn't be able to do jack about it legally.

-Hoot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #56
67. Fitz' powers are for things related to Plame only though. And...
There is a remedy for calling Sibel Edmunds (sp) in. Just do a Saturday Night Massacre v.2.0. Ask Fitz to resign, and if/when he doesn't, fire him.

That's always been true. It's just that the administration isn't eager to go that route. Kinda puts them in a Nixonian political bind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hootinholler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #67
113. The way it was written, I don't think the AG has the authority to fire him
It would have to come from outside the DOJ. That would be a very interesting move.

It also seems to me that the administration is already in a Nixonian bind.

-Hoot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #113
143. It would have to come from President Bush.
That's how it works.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jazzjunkysue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #67
198. "Fitz-only" means "Sealed" is about Plame. Right? It's his only case
that allows him to seal, right?

Help me out here.

If the only case where fitz has the power to seal is Plame, and this is sealed, then it means it's got to be about Plame.

Logic. Geometry. Proof.

Wrong?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #198
210. Fitz can't seal
anything. He can ask the judge to seal an indictment, though, in any case he's prosecuting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #13
58. Ah, yes. I stand corrected
Edited on Mon Jun-12-06 09:56 AM by Canuckistanian
I forgot about the Libby challenge and that the judge shot it down.

Surely Jason knows that. But I'm puzzled by this:

"But, what is not known is whether the US Attorney can seal the left hand part of the case title on his own"

Seems to me that what's going on here is unique, a set of circumstances that have rarely happened before in a high-profile case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #58
68. Actually there's a quite simple explanation....
Edited on Mon Jun-12-06 10:07 AM by Kagemusha
1. On behalf of the Department of Justice, Fitzgerald asks the judge to seal the name of the defendant.
2. The judge agrees.

Not complicated. (Edit: And that would not be Fitzgerald sealing the left hand of the indictment ON HIS OWN. But he doesn't have to ask anyone in the Justice Department for a may-I)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #6
167. Magisterate judge would
have to order a sealed indictment. The US Att., or Gonzales, couldn't do it on his own.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 09:03 AM
Response to Original message
8. Kick for Leopold!
Thanks, kpete!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MallRat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 09:04 AM
Response to Original message
9. Wasn't there a rumor that Sealed vs. Sealed was...
...something to the effect of "Gonzales vs. Fitzgerald?"

Someone reported (maybe Rawstory?) that Alberto Gonzales could try to circumvent a Rove indictment by pulling rank on Fitzgerald, essentially eviscerating the authority of the special counsel.

Anyone know the story I'm talking about?

-MR
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CabalPowered Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 09:29 AM
Response to Reply #9
32. I think that's the Madsen article that came out
after Leopold's.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yodermon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 09:31 AM
Original message
Try this:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/5/21/184052/881

WARNING: Madsen listed as source. So is tweety. choose your poison ;)


Did Gonzales Kill Fitz's Rove Indictments?
by JiggyFlunknut
Sun May 21, 2006 at 03:40:51 PM PDT

Last Friday, Judge Reggie Walton, the presiding judge in the Libby trial, deliberated over a case titled "SEALED v. SEALED." There is growing speculation that sealed v. sealed is Fitzgerald v. Gonzales' Deputy, Paul McNulty (Fitzgerald's direct superior).

The Wayne Madsen Report and the Chris Matthews Show have both floated the theory that Fitzgerald had secured indictments against Rove, but Gonzales --via McNulty-- came in at the last second and used his power as Fitzgerald's superior to kill the indictments.

IF, this theory is true, Fitzgerald would have likely challenged McNulty's decision in court, pointing to an earlier administrative directive from then acting Attorney General James Comey that gave Fitzerald the "authority of the Attorney General." Comey is long gone, however, and was replaced by McNulty. The question then becomes what, if any, value does Comey's administrative directive have today.

One unfortunate realty of this scenario is that if the judge sides with McNulty, we will never know what really happened, because it will remained sealed. Which, is one explanation about why Rove is acting so smug these days and why the White House has not pulled back his public schedule.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 09:40 AM
Response to Original message
42. When Did McNulty become Fitzgerald's Superior?
I thought it was David Margolis.

*shadow government*
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Patsy Stone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #42
71. McNulty replaced Comey as Deputy AG
Edited on Mon Jun-12-06 10:10 AM by Patsy Stone
So, technically, he is his boss in the regular ol' DoJ stuff -- insofar as your boss' boss is your boss. Margolis, however, is still his direct superior in this capacity, according to Comey's August 2005 letter.

.pdf here: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/ag_memo_aug...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hootinholler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #71
121. That's informing the superior what was done:
The text of the December 2003 letter to Fitz granting authority is:
United States Attorney
219 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
Dear Patrick,
By the authority vested in the Attorney General by law, including 28 U. S .C. 509, 510, and 515, and in my capacity as Acting Attorney General pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 508, I hereby delegate to you all the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department's investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity, and I direct you to exercise that authority as Special Counsel independent of the supervision or control of any officer of the Department.
/s/ James B. Comey
James B. Comey Acting Attorney General


Highlight is mine.

This was further clarified the following February:
At your request, I am writing to clarify that my December 30, 2003, delegation to you of "all the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department's investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity" is plenary and includes the authority to investigate and prosecute violations of any federal criminal laws related to the underlying alleged unauthorized disclosure, as well as federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, your investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted; and to pursue administrative remedies and civil sanctions (such as civil contempt) that are within the Attorney General's authority to impose or pursue. Further, my conferral on you of the title of "Special Counsel" in this matter should not be misunderstood to suggest that your position and authorities are defined and limited by 28 CFR Part 600.


The SEALED vs SEALED in indicitive that *something* funny is afoot!

-Hoot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Patsy Stone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #121
123. Right you are, hoot!
My bad for the wrong .pdf, and thanks for the right one. You know, the problem with this case is that there isn't *enough* to keep up with. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hootinholler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #123
127. Yes, I agree about not enough to keep up with...
I wonder what WaterMan thinks about this?

-Hoot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donailin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 10:11 PM
Response to Original message
230. The most depressing thing I've ever read
so it could be possible that this version of a 'saturday night massacre' is the "new american century saturday night massacre" where they kill Fitz's indictment and no one ever finds out.

Is Fitz gagged from speaking of this to the press?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 09:05 AM
Response to Original message
11. how many sarcastic remarks will be in this post
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
 Add to my Journal Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IsIt1984Yet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 09:06 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. Yours makes 1.
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SmokingJacket Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 09:10 AM
Response to Original message
16. Seriously, though, if Leopold is right...
and I have been a BIG doubter, I will publicly apologize.

Maybe even send Will Pitt a pie or something.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 09:11 AM
Response to Original message
17. I want to see a link or a screen shot with "06 cr 128" and the
words "Sealed vs. Sealed" with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia letterhead or on its website.

I went there quickly and couldn't find it. If someone has a Pacer account, that might be the place to look.

Thanks in advance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jersey Devil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #17
86. Here's a screenshot


Straight from Fitz's Desk, which makes it totally believable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nolies32fouettes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 09:13 AM
Response to Original message
18. thanks
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acmavm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 09:13 AM
Response to Original message
19. I will SO laugh my ass off if this sealed indictment is for KKKarl.
That will be just too funny.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 09:18 AM
Response to Original message
21. 1-06-cr-128: SEALED v. SEALED; Case is not available to the public.

http://patrickjfitzgerald.blogspot.com/2006/05/sealed-v...

5.25.2006
SEALED V. SEALED - May 17th Grand Jury...
1-06-cr-128: SEALED v. SEALED; Case is not available to the public.

COMING SOON!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 09:22 AM
Response to Reply #21
23. That's not the District Court site and not the document.
Do you have a link or a screen shot of the actual court document?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rose Siding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 09:22 AM
Response to Reply #21
24. D'oh - Had me going for a second
:D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 09:24 AM
Response to Reply #24
27. Me too.
Not funny. x(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 09:29 AM
Response to Reply #24
31. My intentions weren't to pull your leg
check out the post date of this blog entry...

peace :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #31
89. Okay. Thanks.
Noticed that date. How do we know it was actually posted then? Sorry, I've converted to skepticism and am thinking of buying an ordination in that sect. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yodermon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 09:28 AM
Response to Reply #21
29. I saw that
and was intrigued that the date of that post was 5-25; Leopold is only reporting this Now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #29
33. I am curious where the PF blogger got his/her info?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 09:33 AM
Response to Reply #33
35. The PJF blogger is full of shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #35
38. could be, but this blog entry is interesting...
peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #38
54. I'll always be at peace with you, Sabra.
I was just giving you my opinion of that blog. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #29
181. Maybe that is the
"credible source?" :wow:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 09:18 AM
Response to Original message
22. another snippet
"The fact that the indictment has been under seal for more than a month also suggests that it involves a high-profile investigation, he said."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sammy Pepys Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 09:26 AM
Response to Original message
28. If it's sealed....
Why would Rove and Luskin know about it? Moreover, why would Fitzgerald tell them?

Indictments get sealed so that the other side doesn't know they're about to be indicted. If this is true, than most of everything else we've been told had to have been fabricated.

Leopold is full of shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 09:31 AM
Response to Reply #28
34. Indictments Can Be Sealed AND The Defendent Can Know About It
It DOES happen for various reasons. It happened recently in the Duke case as one example and happens in organized crime cases as well.

"Additionally, it's entirely plausible for a federal prosecutor to obtain permission from a federal magistrate or a judge, have an indictment unsealed for the limited purpose of having parts of it read to a defendant and his or her attorneys in an attempt to have the defendant cooperate with an investigation to avoid facing further charges, legal experts said."

It happens and it's not all that unusual.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sammy Pepys Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #34
40. Yes, it did happen in the Duke case....
...but we're talking about two very different circumstances here. The Duke case was sealed probably because they didn't want the third suspect to know he was being investigated in relation to the alleged crime or felt he was a flight risk.

The Plame case has been going on for something like two years now, and Rove has testified in front of the grand jury a couple of times. He knows he's a part of the investigation. Sealing an indictment wouldn't make a lick of sense....nor would bringing Rove to Patton Boggs to tell him he has 24 whatever kind of hours to get hius business in order (as Leopold reported previously). That would defeat the purpose of a sealed indictment entirely.

Moreover, as diabolical as we like to believe the BFEE is, there's no way he's a flight risk. He'd be located in a second. All of the reasons for sealing an indictment simply don't wash.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #40
47. Wrong
It's not just flight risk.

"Additionally, it's entirely plausible for a federal prosecutor to obtain permission from a federal magistrate or a judge, have an indictment unsealed for the limited purpose of having parts of it read to a defendant and his or her attorneys in an attempt to have the defendant cooperate with an investigation to avoid facing further charges, legal experts said."

That's a reason that would actually be quite plausible in this instance. They use the in organized crime cases for this reason, to get other higher up. Not to mention there are Nat'l Sec. issues involved here. Who know WHY this was sealed both LEFT AND RIGHT. Which is the unusual part about this case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sammy Pepys Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #47
53. I'm not buying it....
Leopold has lost my trust. Again, what has he reported that's been verified? Not a single thing.

Who are these legal experts he's supposedly getting these quotes from? They seem innocuous enough to me that naming the source wouldn't be a big deal.

And if this scenario is true, why wasn't it reported initially when we heard about the 24 hour deadline, the 15 hour meeting, and everything else. Furthermore, we had Pitt and truthout telling us they had seen or had knowledge of the dates on the indictment documents. If they got that info, whether through seeing the actual documents or being told of them by a source, how come they didn't also know the indictment was sealed?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IsIt1984Yet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #53
55. I'm with you on this. Question everything.
I will personally believe it once there is publicly verifiable evidence. Until then, it's all merely speculation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #53
57. You Don't Have To, But I Will Continue to Correct Your Disinformation
I'm just pointing out that your are spreading disinformation.

Believe what you want, but I will continue to correct your disinformation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sammy Pepys Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #57
62. Feel free....
Edited on Mon Jun-12-06 10:00 AM by Sammy Pepys
I refuse to be led along by the nose and just believe anything that comes down the pike, especially when the batting average for Leopold/Truthout on this is zero, with some very spectacular strike outs.

Like I said: if Leopold's right, I'll be up here apologizing so quickly your head will spin. I will eat my words. But for every day that goes by and for every further explanation amending the last that comes from the truthout camp, I think it's legitimate to wonder what the hell is going on over there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #62
63. Good For You!
Nobody's telling you to be lead by anything. As I said, believe what you want for whatever reasons you want. Personally, I don't have enough data to determine much of anything about the Plame case one way or another and no matter what you believe, neither do you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sammy Pepys Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #63
72. OK, so since I'm so wrong on all of this....
...let me ask you a serious question about this case.

Leopold writes:
Additionally, it's entirely plausible for a federal prosecutor to obtain permission from a federal magistrate or a judge, have an indictment unsealed for the limited purpose of having parts of it read to a defendant and his or her attorneys in an attempt to have the defendant cooperate with an investigation to avoid facing further charges, legal experts said.

I believe you've told me this has been done before in organized crime cases. If you have an example of one where an indictment has been partially unsealed for the same or similar purposes as we're looking at here, I'd love to know about it.

It does not make sense to me that you would be able to partially unseal a sealed indictment. It seems to me you'd have to unseal it all, or keep it all sealed. But, I admit that I could be wrong about this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #72
80. You're Wrong
Edited on Mon Jun-12-06 10:27 AM by Beetwasher
It's been done, when I get the chance I'll post examples, or feel free to do a search yourself if your so interested. There were examples posted on previous Plame threads as well.

You are wrong about the information you are posting, but as far as I know you may in fact be right that the whole thing is bullshit. I don't know, I don't have enough information and neither do you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sammy Pepys Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #80
90. When you find some examples....
...I'd love to see them. I'm asking in good faith.

I've looked and can find no references to cases that either had indictments partially unsealed, or were temporarily unsealed and then re-sealed for the purposes of negotiating legal deals. I'm not saying these instances don't exist, I just want to see a case or incident where something like that happened. I don't think something like that is possible to do, but I welcome correction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sydnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #90
108. see post # 97 n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sammy Pepys Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #108
111. Thanks.
After further reading (your post and elsewhere), I think it's certainly within the realm of possibility that the indictment was sealed for cooperation and/or publicity purposes, and that makes me feel a little bit better about the scenario and that I did not consider all the alternatives.

I remain skeptical, but am happy to have the other info to temper that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sydnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #72
97. From Talk Left
Posted by TalkLeft
May 24, 2006 04:43 PM
Re: DiSalvo, Case is US v. DiSalvo, 34 F.3d 1204 (3rd Cir. 1994) It's a very long opinion, but the sealing stuff starts in headnote 10 (lexis version)

Basically, two were indicted in mob case, one of them, Simone was a lawyer. Both get convicted. The codefendant, DiSalvo appeals and says the indictment was improperly sealed as to him.

The indictment had been sealed not because they were flight risks, but to avoid publicity and because the investigation was ongoing. Simone had been in another trial when the indictment came down and they didn't want to announce it until his trial was over, which was expected to last four months. Simeone was told of the indictment and agreed with the decision to seal it.

I'm not saying this case is similar to Rove's just that if the Government wanted the indictment sealed the court can grant the motion for any number of reasons, including the high media interest in the case and an ongoing investigation. And even though sealed, the government can request an exception to tell the defendant.

It's not a D.C. case, but I thought it was interesting and worth mentioning.

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014930.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IsIt1984Yet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #63
74. Exactly - it's ALL speculation until we see proof.
You speculate that it's all true, others speculate it's not. Until we have proof, that's all either "side" has on this issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #74
81. Wrong, I Do No Such Thing, I Have No Idea Whether It's True Or Not
And have repeatedly stated as such. The difference between me and some others is I admit I don't have enough information to make a determination. Others state categorically that their BELIEFS and SPECULATION are correct, as if they DO have enough information to determine that. They don't have enough information.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DancingBear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #81
109. No, that isn't true, either
Edited on Mon Jun-12-06 11:41 AM by DancingBear
What the pro-evidence side is saying is simply this:

The facts, as stated by Leopold in his original article, are not correct.

He stated Rove WAS indicted on May 12th. He made no mentions of sealed indictments or anything of that ilk. No mention that he WILL be indicted at some point.

He was very clear.

Rove.Has.Been.Indicted. Done deal.

That, as of right now, is patently untrue, and no matter what happens from this day forward it will never magically become true.

That fact is not in dispute. The remainder of his "facts" (lock downs, Secret Service, etc.) stretch credibility to the point of absurdity, but I can only argue that since NO ONE has verified any of them, and since the "source pool" for Leopold and TruthOut continues to shrink (per Mark Ash today it is down to one) that they are (being kind here) highly suspect.

The fact that many here refuse to look honestly at what has been placed before them and instead let more and more slack off the rope in their efforts to catch something is troubling.

I, like almost everyone here, hope that Rove gets fitted for an orange jumpsuit yesterday, but when someone tries to pass off slipshod reporting and constantly changing "updates" on me just because they can't (or won't) admit a mistake is something I can and will not accept.

If by some act of magic someone shows me an indictment of Karl Rove with "May 12th" stamped on it (and remember, a certain someone here guaranteed that would be forthcoming) then I will be here with mea culpas all over the place.

Sadly, I am not too worried about having to do so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #109
110. Bullshit
Edited on Mon Jun-12-06 11:49 AM by Beetwasher
You have no idea what the facts are, aside from no indictment has been announced. However unlikely it may be, there may be sealed indictment. To insist otherwise is to merely assert your opinion and that is just as much a speculation as saying there is an indictment. You don't know and neither do I. If he was indicted and it was seal, we wouldn't know about it or the circumstances as to how/why it was done that way until the judge sees fit to allow that info to be released.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DancingBear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #110
112. Fine
Leopold said HE WAS INDICTED on May 12th.

NOTHING about under seal.

NOTHING.

So you argue back the "sealed indictment" defense.

I give up. Enjoy the day.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #112
114. I Argue The Possibility
Edited on Mon Jun-12-06 12:23 PM by Beetwasher
I say nothing categorically. You think your speculation, and that's all it is, is something more. Your entitled to your beliefs, but all you have is speculation, all any of us has is speculation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sammy Pepys Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #110
115. OK, I have no idea what the facts are....
...but I'm not convinced Leopold or truthout do either.

What we do know is that several of the specificities truthout and Leopold have reported on have neither been verified nor come to fruition. When truthout/Leopold first came out with this story, there was much fanfare attached to it....particularly with regards to the deadline (Monday or Wednesday...depending on which version you preferred). When the original version didn't pan out, details began to change. We've gotten curious explanations about "getting ahead of the news cycle" and semi-apologies and wait-and-sees. Now, a month later, we're getting a sealed indictment story.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to be skeptical. If Rove is indicted and truthout got it right, I'll be happy and also contrite. But if this whole saga was a baseball game, we've gotten into the later innings and truthout has yet to put a run on the board.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #115
116. Of Course It's Reasonable To Be Skeptical!
By all means, be skeptical. I only take issue w/ people who make categorical pronouncements about this case when it's frankly not possible to do so given the information we have. I remain skeptical myself about Leopold's account, but I'm not willing to declare categorically that he's full of shit, I just don't have the data. None of us do, no matter how much some declare otherwise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sammy Pepys Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #116
117. Then let me redact my...
"full of shit" statement and say that I currently lack some confidence in his abilities. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #117
119. LOL!
That's cool, no worries. I have no problem's w/ people who question Leopold, honestly this really is NOT about him and I'm NOT defending him, no matter what some here would like to peg me as doing. For all I know he IS a huckster who's full of shit, but the Plame case continues regardless of his reporting and frankly, there are plausible scenarios in which there could be a sealed indictment (however likely or unlikely). I merely want to make sure that people have accurate information. There's lot's of misconceptions and disinformation floating around.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sammy Pepys Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #119
122. No problem here...
Damn, I would LOVE to have the facts available so we did know what's going on here. Soon enough, hopefully.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ladyhawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #109
150. Don't forget the ludicrous "24 business hours" Rove had
to "get his affairs in order." That part is patently FALSE. I'm still not thrilled with the lack of professionalism displayed by Pitt when some questioned the story. Truthout, Pitt and Leopold have lost my trust. Period.

If it turns out Rove was indicted on May 12--not likely--I'll apologize about being wrong, but it still won't change the fact that the Leopold story as published was still wrong on many counts. It won't change Will Pitt's appalling behavior, either. As for his "apology," I've seen that song and dance so many times I could probably perform the number myself.

I shake my head at folks who want this to be true so badly they compromise their own intellectual integrity. Quite frankly, it's disturbing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #150
156. Maybe the "get your affairs in order" was Rove's cue to
stifle the media about his sealed indictment. Fitzgerald may have told Rove and his attorneys his team will keep quiet about it and if it leaks in the media, it came from the Rove side and not Fitzgerald's side.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ladyhawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #156
172. This explanation seems like grasping at straws.
In order to attempt to rescue Leopold's story, we could speculate endlessly on what he "meant." A solid news story doesn't lend itself to such speculation. Leopold made a positive claim that Rove was indicted on May 12, 2006. He bears the burden of proof and so far, that is sadly lacking.

Once again, if I'm wrong, I'll admit it and do a happy dance celebrating Rove's indictment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #172
179. It was just speculation on my part. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
twalling Donating Member (3 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #150
221. Pitt said...
"When the documents come out they will have dates on the top.

Those dates will be Friday May 12, 2006."

Today, Marc Ash said:

"We believe that the indictment was returned and filed 'on May 10 2006.'"

So there's a discrepancy here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 09:41 PM
Response to Reply #221
225. Plus,
Edited on Mon Jun-12-06 09:42 PM by Marie26
in his latest story, Leopold has widened the indictment date to be "the week of May 10th." Which is a Wednesday. Is he going Wednesday to Wednesday? Or going from Monday, May 7 - Friday, May 12th? Does this have something to do with business hours? God knows.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #81
171. I've been saying the same thing for a month now
Edited on Mon Jun-12-06 03:33 PM by Juniperx
There isn't enough information to make a determination in either direction. I choose to wait and see. The only thing I've ever said, other than there isn't enough information, is that this administration has never acknowledged, respected or adhered to a law, so we can't base any assumption on history... or on law.

I find it annoying that some will insist one way or the other. I'm happy to see someone going to the trouble to point out the erroneous information... on either side of the debate!

Thanks, Beetwasher.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr_Spock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 08:23 PM
Response to Reply #74
213. I've read this entire post and he has NOT SPECULATED THAT it was
all true. Where did you read that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #53
131. Gee whizz! You have some high opinion of yourself, don't you?
Do you think Leopold is going to lose any sleep or even be aware that you've "lost confidence in him". Or anyone else is going to be exercised by it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #28
36. Your analysis if deeply flawed. The Prosecutor would tell Indictee
Edited on Mon Jun-12-06 09:35 AM by cryingshame
in order to get information-cooperation. Thus using indictments as an incentive.

That is pretty simple to grasp.

You seem anxious to say that Leopold is full of shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bridgit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 09:41 AM
Response to Reply #36
45. i don't find his analysis as deeply flawed as yours in that yours...
Edited on Mon Jun-12-06 09:43 AM by bridgit
presumes these guys up for inspection to be patsies, pansies & wallflowers they are not; they are hard boiled shit-heads that know precisely what they did and my sense is that they know quite well how much room they have to run before they cut any deals...and no piece of paper will circumvent their cause, certainly not snippets of a story they are likely already very well apprised of having been contributory to the deed however ill
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sammy Pepys Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #36
50. Leopold is full of shit....
This has been going on for nearly a month. Nothing Leopold has reported has come to fruition or been verified. The details of the story have changed, some in ridiculous ways.

If Leopold is right, I won't hesitate to issue a huge mea culpa. I'll even throw some money truthout's way for the effort. But at this point there's no reason to believe Leopold has come anywhere close to nailing this thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sydnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 09:44 AM
Response to Reply #28
49. Talk Left posted weeks ago that this very scenario
was possible, when there was first discussion of of this sealed vs sealed. She also said that it (sealed vs sealed) DOES exist as reported.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bridgit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 09:28 AM
Response to Original message
30. "Additionally, it's entirely plausible for a federal prosecutor to...
"...obtain permission from a federal magistrate or a judge, have an indictment unsealed for the limited purpose of having parts of it read to a defendant and his or her attorneys in an attempt to have the defendant cooperate with an investigation to avoid facing further charges, legal experts said." - By Jason Leopold, t r u t h o u t. o r g

very well...

in a grand jury scenario, isn't a defendant considered 'uncooperative', where he is otherwise known, suspected, or thought to be known of a given legal/illegal circumstance via corroborated testimony elsewhere then considered to be obstructing justice? isn't that person then indicted for same? as was often the case in the clinton hearings? susan mcdougal as a for instance? cannot that person then 'do time', as did susan?

to what end is it then, to then wave a little piece of cheese beneath the nose of a corroborated to be, or a known mouse?

my sense is that this is not a game...at least imo

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 09:35 AM
Response to Original message
37. I found reference to it on a Spanish-speaking blog - some good pics on the
site.




http://dodgone.blogspot.com /


LEAKGATE-SEALED VS. SEALED




rough google English translation

Although to Jason Leopold all the attacks of a press have caido him of which Rove is masterful manipulator, the controversy has put in a first flat case that was already almost in the forgetfulness after the encausamiento of Libby by art of magic, and if the case is had slow it is because they are had been solving questions of instruction of the process 1-cr-05-394. Possibility to see vice-president as witness of case, if not like Co-conspirador not encausado, either like properly encausado, since Libby has declared under oath who made the filtration by cheney order, would open a political crisis without precedents, bush is single image of regime, whereas cheney is man strong done without precedent in history North American, since constitutionally it is a decorative figure that activates in case of death or presidential incapacity, declared legally, in spite of as it is the case, is but that evident.
 Add to my Journal Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemReadingDU Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 09:38 AM
Response to Original message
39. Update by Marc Ash
"06 cr 128"

Once again we will attempt to clearly separate what we know from what we believe - and why. What we know will be based on official records and official statements. What we believe will be based on single source information and general background information obtained from experts. The conclusions we arrive at should be considered carefully, but not taken as statements of fact, per se.

We know for certain several things about federal indictment "06 cr 128" (Sealed vs. Sealed). The indictment was returned by the same grand jury that has been hearing matters related to the Fitzgerald/Plame investigation. The indictment was filed in the time frame (around May the 10th) that the indictment of Karl Rove was first reported. The title of the indictment, Sealed vs. Sealed, is unusual. Typically a sealed federal indictment will be titled, "US vs. Sealed." The indictment has been sealed for roughly five weeks, an unusually long time (although not unheard-of). We know that experts watching the Fitzgerald/Plame investigation are keeping a very close eye on "06 cr 128" (Sealed vs. Sealed). We know that we attempted to contact Karl Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, on two occasions while researching this issue and both calls went unreturned.

Now for what we believe: We believe that federal criminal indictment "06 cr 128" (Sealed vs. Sealed) is directly related to the Fitzgerald/Plame investigation. That's based on a single credible source and the information discussed above. We believe that Karl Rove is cooperating with federal investigators, and for that reason Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald is not willing to comment on his status. That is based, again, on a single credible source, and background information provided by experts in federal criminal law. We believe that the indictment was returned and filed "on May 10 2006." Same single credible source, and details from the filing records. We believe that if any of the key facts that we have reported were materially false or inaccurate some statement to that effect would be forthcoming from Fitzgerald's staff. That is based on the same single credible source.

more...
http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2006/6/12/9216/618...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 09:40 AM
Response to Reply #39
43. thanks for the update!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
5X Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #39
78. So, now it is 'single credible source' when it used to be .....
8, then 5, now one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Monkey see Monkey Do Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #78
91. Well spotted! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coalition_unwilling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #39
100. I'm wondering if it's "Sealed vs. Sealed" because the
defendant isn't Rove, but rather Cheney? Or would Fitz name him as an unindicted co-conspirator? I don't know enough about the mechanics involved to know whether the political sensitivity of indicting a sitting VP on a national security matter would merit having indictment sealed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemReadingDU Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #100
107. I thought maybe Cheney too
maybe Rove actually is cooperating with Fitz to go after Cheney
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JudyM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 09:31 AM
Response to Reply #107
257. He'd lose all his power in that crowd if he turned on the grand poobah.
And he's still hanging and has even been grinning a lot lately... I hope you're right, though!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rosesaylavee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 09:39 AM
Response to Original message
41. Thanks for posting.
K & R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robcon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 09:42 AM
Response to Original message
46. Leopold is a liar
He said that Rove was indicted, that Rove knew it, and that he had 24 (business??) hours to get his affairs in order.

The idea that Rove 'knew' he was indicted, and didn't resign, is impossible, IMO. Rove is a Bush-bot, and would never stay on his job if he knew he was indicted.

Leopold is evading the basic story he gave.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #46
52. Yeah! Cuz You Say So!
:eyes:

Yeah, Rove would resign, uh huh. Because these guys ALWAYS do the right thing. Give me a break. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #46
60. self-delete
Edited on Mon Jun-12-06 09:58 AM by Hissyspit
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stepnw1f Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #46
64. Seems You Have a High Regard for Rove's Ethics
"Rove is a Bush-bot, and would never stay on his job if he knew he was indicted."

Ech.....

But hey... Jason's a liar..right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeBunk Donating Member (435 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #46
73. I totally agree. People forget that leopold gave specific details
He's full of crap.

Only reality will work for me. No guessing, no conjecture, no I he was right because we desperately want to believe it.

This guy is irresponsible, stupid, and dangerous.

And, if Rove is under sealed indictment I will happily eat my words. Until then...reality is what it is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #46
75. How do you know he is a liar and wasn't just making a mistake, relying
on what he thought were credible sources, but whose information was wrong, or partially wrong (say, on the timing)? Where is your evidence that Leopold is lying--that he deliberately told the public something he knew to be untrue? "Wrong" and "lying" are two different things. The timing of a public announcement about an indictment can change based on internal developments in the case, which none of us can know about yet. Also, internal negotiations, deals and other activities could result in an indictment being withdrawn or overridden (as has been reasonably speculated--that Gonzales pulled rank on Fitzgerald, and that Sealed v. Sealed is Fitzgerald v. Gonzales--Fitz trying to fight off a "Saturday Night Massacre."). Maybe Leopold made a mistake--and now, like all of us, is waiting to find out what the hell happened. Why jump to the conclusion that he lied?

Credibility, Robcon. He has some. You don't. He had sources. You have nothing. Where is your evidence that he lied?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jaysunb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #75
208. Thanks PP
Somebody has needed to say this for a long tome.

I've basically stayed away from this conversation because I don't want to mingle my high hopes of Rove taking one in the ass with the facts as they are available to us, and I think I trust Pitt, Ash & Leopold a lot more than some of the folks around here....

I don't call the plumber to cut my grass, and I don't rely on people outside the reporting business to get my news. :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeBunk Donating Member (435 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #75
260. Some people need to GET GROUNDED IN REALITY
How do I know he's a liar.

For the same reason I know Bush is a liar. Reality doesn't match his claims.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #46
162. Now that's funny. And so winsomely naive.
As long as it ain't public, Rove will not give up shit.

You talk as though we are dealing with honorable people. The Republicans are thieves. There is no honor among thieves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacetalksforall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 09:44 AM
Response to Original message
48. Doesn't it take collaboration to fight collaboration? If Leopold has/is
one person contributing to a loosely formed team of people sharing what they know and what they surmise, why keep kicking him? Why express impatience this way? If we are collaborators in trying to find and predict the truth and the moves, why kick and keep kicking a fellow collaborator?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 09:46 AM
Response to Original message
51. Sealed v. Sealed is a very unusual indictment title, according to lawyers
cited in the article, and I've certainly never heard of such a title before. Usually, it's U.S. v. Sealed, the "Sealed" name being the name of the accused whom the prosecutor thinks is a flight risk, or may tip off others or shred evidence, or whom he wants to pressure into giving others up. Why would Fitzgerald want to seal the left side of the indictment title, that is, who is BRINGING the indictment? What other name could there be but "U.S."?

Intriguing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Patsy Stone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #51
82. Fascinating.
Can the Government ask for an indictment on some other entity's behalf?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karmakaze Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #51
83. Not that unusual at all:
Sealed v. Sealed

No. 02-7164 (2d Cir. June 13, 2003) ; Clearinghouse Number: 55360
Description

2nd Cir: In Suit Claiming Lack of Child Protective Services Violated Minors Due Process Rights, Interpretation of Connecticut Statutes Certified to State Supreme Court
http://www.povertylaw.org/poverty-law-library/case/5530...

Or maybe:

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:81/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU...

Or maybe:

SEALED V. SEALED
Civil Action No. A-96CA-527 (W.D. Tex.)
EXEMPTIONS: None
DISPOSITION: Court ordered case sealed and closed (1998)
FEES AND COSTS: None
http://www.usdoj.gov/04foia/01addendum.htm

Or maybe:

See Sealed v. Sealed, No. 95-192 (D.D.C. filed June 7, 1995)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/c...

Or even:

The following is a sample of such a disclosure from the case of Sealed v. Sealed, 1997 WL 169368 (E.D.Pa. Apr 04, 1997)
http://www.pa-newspaper.org/web/2005/10/juvenile_news_r...

I could go on and on, but a few minutes and the search string "Sealed V Sealed" in Google will let you know that there is NOTHING unusual about "Sealed V Sealed" being used.

What this really smells of to me, is unverifiable "facts" being used to back up unverifiable "facts".

In other words its all bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jersey Devil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #51
88. Maybe Rove was indicted by France
and they want to keep that a secret.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #51
166. Not unusual, 1 out of 5 cases since the beginning of the year
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian_rd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 09:57 AM
Response to Original message
59. FRONT PAGE PLEASE (K&R)
We need to keep this out of the memory hole.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 09:59 AM
Response to Original message
61. K & R again n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Grateful for Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 10:06 AM
Response to Original message
69. K&R!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeBunk Donating Member (435 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 10:07 AM
Response to Original message
70. Fool me once
I'll believe it when I see it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cooley Hurd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 10:13 AM
Response to Original message
76. K&R - TO & Leopold filling in the gaps...
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bridgit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 10:30 AM
Response to Original message
87. "People don't drink the sand because they're thirsty...
"They drink the sand because they don't know the difference."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Patsy Stone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #87
92. :) Yep.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trumad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 10:43 AM
Response to Original message
93. I am so rooting for Leopold and TruthOut.
Only because it would make this place explode. It will be great reading here at DU if jason comes through.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #93
173. I'd love the smell of roasted crow
And I'm sure I'm not big enough a person to keep myself from being a total bitch and lording it over all those here who caused me such grief over this! My stance is now and always has been that there isn't enough information and we cannot judge this based on history or law because the current administration doesn't play by the old play book. We aren't in Kansas anymore.

Yep, I'll pass the salt and pepper when crow eating time arrives, and if for no other reason than to see the explosion, I hope TO and Leopold were spot on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jazzjunkysue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #93
200. They're not backing down. They're putting it all on this. That's telling.
Really. Ash is sure this will all come out at some point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
novalib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 10:43 AM
Response to Original message
94. THANKS! I STILL BELIEVE!
Thanks so much for posting this.

I still believe that what Jason Leopold posted a few weeks ago is completely accurate.

Mr. Leopold has been a TRUE FRIEND to the Progressive Cause.

He does NOT deserve to be villified.

HE is NOT the enemy.

Bush, Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and all the rest of the corrupt Bush cabal regmie -- THEY ARE OUR ENEMIES!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 10:47 AM
Response to Original message
95. This is what I know
Up until Jason's report, the press was speculating wildly about Rove's indictment.

Once Jason's report was release, the press not only stop talking about whether Rove would be indicted, articles popped up everywhere how Rove was taking it all in stride.

Rove has not officially been cleared by the prosecutor's office, that is also a fact.


The biggest thing that stands out in my mind is how the press all of a sudden stopped talking and speculating on a Rove indictment.. It was everywhere in the news and on M$M. After Leopold's report though, the press went silent and started publishing articles on how well Rove was doing.

I find that in itself, highly suspicious.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #95
96. Don't forget about David Schuster.
He was convinced that Rove will be indicted. I think he was told by his bosses to keep quiet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #96
98. And Chris Matthews who thought
it would happen the day Leopold said it did. Notice after the weekend, he changed his tune as well... The media was playing this up until that weekend, and then they got really quiet about it....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bridgit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #95
101. the so-called M$M, knows too well what this group of usurpers are...
capable of after having seen seasoned anchors dragged through the gutter and made to resign, as well as presidents & VP's of whole news divisions, people up & down the line dragged same-wise for having sourced improperly...

i for one am very tired of the 'two steps forward one step backward' approach to these things. and that is putting a positive spin on these things as mostly the forward march flat-out stops while rove pops a fresh cork.

my preference is for a forward march, predicated upon timely truth, paused perhaps to consider...but ever-forward. and not in retreat, or found without, but that's just me
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #95
137. These nuts were doing the MSM's work for them. They could
feel free to ignore it all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jazzjunkysue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #95
201. Amen. They'd send out every flogging talking head if this were dead.
They'd use it in their fight to retain the house. They'd use it to deflect from everything else that's sinking. If they had a decent idea that Rove and Cheney were not indicted, they'd be screaming from the rooftops that we're a bunch of conspiracy theorists.

It would be loud and incessant.

It's not. It's nowhere to be found.

They all know it's him. They know alot more than they can let on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RevolutionStartsNow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #95
202. It could mean nothing, but it's a very interesting point
Of course the press may have stopped talking about just because they are stupid and have no attention span, but it does seem strange that they aren't talking about it one way or the other, at all, now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr_Spock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 08:27 PM
Response to Reply #95
214. That is extremely suspicious...
I remember hearing the press speculating about this topic repeatedly. Hmmmmm....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 10:54 AM
Response to Original message
99. What? No bouncy smilies in this thread?
No one is celebrating this time. Gee, I wonder why?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bridgit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #99
102. not yet...
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #99
103. here ya go...
:bounce: :woohoo: :bounce: :woohoo: :bounce: :woohoo: :bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Patsy Stone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #103
104. Fitz!
:bounce: :bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deaniac21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 11:05 AM
Response to Original message
105. I B E L I E V E ! ! ! !
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Missy Vixen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 11:13 AM
Response to Original message
106. It wouldn't be an indictment thread
Edited on Mon Jun-12-06 11:13 AM by JulieRB
without a nice picture, now, would it?



:loveya:
Julie
president for life of the PFEB
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
princehal Donating Member (341 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #106
120. I am rooting for the story to be true
Mostly because a lot of the naysayers are complete jerks to everyone else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #120
175. Hear, hear!
Not very nice of me, or you, to think that way... but what the heck!


:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #106
136. Julie, can you blow that up a little?
;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Missy Vixen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #136
168. Cat, how do I do that?
I don't know. :dunce: :argh:

Julie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #168
182. testing...


Ahhhh...much better! :P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasChick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #182
199. Oh, my word! What a delicious looking man!
:9
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robinlynne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 12:16 PM
Response to Original message
118. way to go Jason Leopold!
I thought people were a bit too quick to criticize Jason, who has always been an excellent reporter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 12:37 PM
Response to Original message
124. Sealed vs. Sealed?
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: That is all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #124
125. Why are you rolling on the floor laughing your ass off?
This is a serious case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #125
128. Cause it's silly
Edited on Mon Jun-12-06 01:14 PM by Marie26
I tried the explaining thing, & the research thing, & the convincing thing. But, now I'm doing the laughing thing. It seems to be the only appropriate reaction anymore. "US v. Sealed" would be a normal sealed indictment - federal criminal cases are listed as "US v. Defendant". So, here, this cite would mean that Fitzgerald sealed the federal prosecutor's name from the indictment as well. So, he sealed the US attorney's office, to keep the US attorney from knowing about the indictment from the US attorney? :crazy:. It must be a case that's sealed from the public and not the parties themselves. A lot of times, cases are kept completely secret & off the docket. But that's usually for drug conspiracy trials, and AFAIK there's not a "sealed v. sealed" cite now - there's just no docket cite at all. Leopold is just making shit up again. It's very convenient that this "Rove indictment" came down at the same time that the GJ handed down indicments in the Abramoff case - if this indictment exists, it's most probably part of the Abramoff conspiracy case, which would be a big story in itself. IMO, I wonder if Leopold just went to PACER, checked for any indictments handed down lately, & latched onto anything marked "sealed." Maybe I'll check Pacer too.

ETA: Here's an interesting ABA story about the DC "secret dockets" - "Snook says there is a presumption among most judges that once a witness has cooperated and been sentenced, the case will be unsealed by prosecutors. "If theyve testified, then everybody knows who they are," Snook says. But Snook acknowledges that in some instances, cases will remain sealed and off the docket entirely.

When asked why the court doesnt simply docket cases as "sealed v. sealed," Snook said the courts new electronic case filing system is to blame.

"It appears that our system doesnt allow that option. If a case is sealed, it just doesnt appear."

Snook says its been that way since March 2005. From that point on, the court no longer had the option of docketing cases as "sealed v. sealed."


http://www.abanet.org/journal/ereport/m10secret.html

PSS: If I'm wrong & there is a Rove indictment, I'll be sure to do a big, embarrassing "I APOLOGIZE" post, if that helps any.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stop the bleeding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #128
129. I am at the Federal Document site right now and this is what I have been
able to find.

First there are a boat load of "Sealed" cases for the date range in question.

Second I can not find any that have the exact title of Sealed vs Sealed, only USA vs Sealed and just some cases with Sealed and nothing else

Third any possibles do not come up in the DC District Courts - they come up in other District Courts from across the land

Fourth the case number provided is generic - in other words it pulls back about 200-300 cases.

Just trying to shed some light on this - any help on what else to look for would be helpful

I am at the site and can find it if it is there.

Peace!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yodermon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #129
138. So, you cannot..
..find search results that look like this:
?

(linked from http://patrickjfitzgerald.blogspot.com/2006/05/keep-pac... )
Between May 10 and May 17, the grand jury that meets in the leak case returned four sealed indictments. Three of those indictments have since been unsealed and have to do with non-related cases. One indictment remains sealed and is filed in the courthouse as SEALED v. SEALED.
Im sure youve read about this on some blogs and have seen the theories. Most federal prosecutors have never seen a case filed as SEALED v. SEALED. Its usually US v. SEALED, but this one is very special and there is the screenshot! ;)
Have a GREAT weekend.

posted by Patrick J. Fitzgerald at 5/26/2006


try searching "01-06-cr-128", as the "01" was not in the leopold article.

:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sheelz Donating Member (869 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #129
140. Salon checked it out
Leopold proceeds to quote a "former federal criminal attorney" as saying: "The question here is that nobody who I have spoken to -- top criminal attorneys, law professors, etc. -- is aware of the left part of the case title having been sealed."

Oh, really?

We checked the U.S. District Court's database this morning. Approximately 158 criminal cases have been filed since the beginning of the year, and approximately 31 of them -- or one out of every five -- have been styled "Sealed v. Sealed." And each and every one of these "Sealed v. Sealed" cases contains exactly the same description -- "Case is not available to the public" -- as the one provided for 1-06-cr-128, the case that Leopold suggests may be Rove's.

We asked Truthout's Marc Ash whether he was aware that 30 other 2006 cases carry the "Sealed v. Sealed" designation and whether the existence of such cases doesn't undercut Leopold's latest story. "Well, I think we're into semantics," he said in an e-mail response. "We say 'unusual,' you say 'about one out of every five.' Obviously we've taken a keen interest in '06 cr 128.'"

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Snivi Yllom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #140
157. that's not a raging endorsement by Salon
It's more like an underhanded "cough <bullshit> cough"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sheelz Donating Member (869 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #157
222. Yep!
:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #129
142. Cool!
Edited on Mon Jun-12-06 02:08 PM by Marie26
Thank you. I can get into PACER, but I'd rather not use it for something so, um, completely unrelated to my job. The fake Patrick Fitzgerald site has an (apparant) screenshot from PACER of that cite. Did you find any "sealed vs. sealed" cases listed at all outside of the possible time-frame? I don't know if they're maybe just using a random screenshot from some case or if the screenshot itself was possibly photoshopped.

Your research seems to match the info that the DC District court docket doesn't list sealed cases at all. That Leopold cite actually seems incomplete, which might be why it's pulling up so many cases. (They should start out XX:"cite"). 06 indicates that it was filed this year, but that doesn't tell us when or where it was filed. Maybe one clue would be to find other, unsealed, cases that were filed around the same time in the DC District Court - they're filed sequentially & are assigned a number based on when it's received. So, if 01:06-cr-127 was filed the same day as Leopold's Rove indictment, it gives it some credence - if it was filed last week, it proves the next sequential 01:06-cr-128 case couldn't have been filed when Leopold said it was. I checked the DC district court schedule, and it looks like 06-cr-127 is a case called "USA vs. Curry," which is scheduled for a status conf. by Judge Roberts on June 19th. http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/Weekly_Court_Schedule.pdf Can you find out when that case was filed? That might help show when 128 was actually filed w/the DC district court.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stop the bleeding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #142
149. I am a researcher that looks up criminal information all day long
I use PACER everyday - so this is job related in a way, but here are my problems

When using the case number provided of 06-cr-128 and variations of case# 1:06-cr-128, 1-cr-06-128, and also with suffix of 127 I get 79 possible matches for the 128 and about 30++ for the 127.

I can not find any for the date range in question nor for the DC District Court.

I do not understand where places like Salon and others are getting this "Sealed vs Sealed" I only can find USA vs Sealed and variations of that. Granted PACER is a big site and I am only searching in the criminal and civil sections but I am dumbfounded where these other blog sites have been able to find this.

I am replying so that more people can add some clues for me, cause I don't mind checking several times in order to clear this up, also I am waiting on Libby's new filings to come out in response to today's hearing.

Peace and help on this would be greatly appreciated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #149
153. Maybe what's happening
is that Salon is finding civil cases. AFAIK, it's possible for a civil case to be labeled "sealed v. sealed" when there's some vital interest in protecting the identities of the parties. It's not that the indictment itself is sealed, but that the Plaintiff/Defendant's names are kept private because of some compelling interest. This is usually because one or both of the parties is a child. FWIW, I did a Lexis search on "sealed vs. sealed" in all combined federal & state cases, and came up w/exactly one case - a civil case involving allegations of child abuse. That's it. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stop the bleeding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #153
155. I don't think it could be on the civil side - even though I checked to
make sure, if it had a "cv" instead of the "cr"

I am still getting roadblocked and even have done a more exhaustive search in order to turn this up but no luck as of yet.

Anyone who has some clues please offer them up - this is getting frustrating ;)

PS no new Libby filings as of 3:23pm EST
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Qutzupalotl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #149
174. See post #138 from yodermon in this thread.
Edited on Mon Jun-12-06 03:49 PM by Qutzupalotl
The prefix you want is "01-".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stop the bleeding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #174
187. The 0 before the 1 is not allowed ie: invalid per the PACER site
it will only allow 1:06-cr-128 or 1-cr-06-128 as a searchable case# format :shrug:

also no new Libby filings as of 5:41pm for his hearing today
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sydnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #128
133. Talk Left said that the case does exist
"Posted by TalkLeft
May 21, 2006 06:04 PM
There is such a case but there is no way to tell who the parties are. "

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014903.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #133
159. Also said.. "I think this kind of speculation is hurtful to both sides.
Edited on Mon Jun-12-06 02:43 PM by Marie26
I give it less credence than a rumor." The very next sentence. This is a three-sentence comment on a blog, so it's hard to tell what the poster meant. He might've meant that there is such a case cite - someone here also pulled up this cite, but it goes to lots of cases, so there is "no way to tell who the parties are." I'm wondering if the 06-cr-128 cite actually goes to a "Sealed v. Sealed" case name, & if it's filed in the DC district court. I'd appreciate it if anyone w/PACER can verify that one way or the other.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sydnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #159
169. SHE has written quite a bit about the Plame case
and her reference to "hurting both sides" was in reference to giving any credence to Madsen, as she was going to write about it in her blog at the time and then reconsidered.

Jeralyn Merritt is not new to this type of an investigation and I can be sure she knows her way around all the research sites to find it if it is listed anywhere to be found.

She also also discusses Madsen and his 'reporting" here and also reminds us of several facts ... along with her take on the status of Rove.

"Posted by TalkLeft
May 18, 2006 11:49 PM
I think Rove has been spilling the beans since at least his October, 2005 grand jury appearance, when his indictment appeared imminent. His lawyer characterizes it as "cooperating fully with the investigation." I have always believed it was cooperating for a 5k .

One other note: Gonzales acknowledged on Face the Nation that he was a witness before the Plame grand jury. Maybe if he was called back on May 12, it was to testify again, not to be apprised of an Indictment.

Gonzales got the original call about preserving e-mails. He told Andy Card immediately. Card shared the info with Rove. They waited 12 hours to tell the White House staff about it. Details here .

250 pages of e-mails turn up in February from the Executive Office of the President and Vice President. Were they deleted e-mails? Did Rove tip them to the e-mails as part of his effort to cooperate? Did he implicate Andy Card?

This case has so many tentacles, it's hard to keep track fo them all."

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014884.html

the link for the "5k" is here ... http://www.ussc.gov/2004guid/5k1_1.htm seemingly the same deal that Cunningham got, who was under indictment while he was cooperating, wearing a wire, and still showing up to vote everyday.


Talk Left (Jeralyn) is well worth a daily visit.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #169
170. Sounds like
Edited on Mon Jun-12-06 03:40 PM by Marie26
an interesting site. But there's nothing there that says anything definitive about this "sealed v. sealed" indictment. If this is true, why couldn't she confirm that it was filed in DC district court, & that the cite actually goes to the named case? It doesn't look like there was much to be found.

For her article, she interviews Rove's spokesman, Mark Corallo - he calls Truthout's newest claims "demonstrably false," stating "They are "utter lies. There is not a shred of truth to them." He denies that Rove's attorneys ever had a meeting w/Fitzgerald at Patton Boggs, says they never discussed a plea, says that Patton Boggs is not a source, and finally, states definitively that Rove has not been indicted and has not received a target letter. The worst part is the last response - Corrallo passed along Mark Ash's name to reporter Howard Kurtz because "he knew that Kurtz was writing a story about how, in Corallo's words, the mainstream media had to "follow up on the lunacy and these frauds who are passing themselves off as legitimate journalists." The article makes Truthout look pretty bad. And yeah, it's Rove's spokesman, but it still says alot that the person who's in a position to know is steadfastly denying, even making fun of, these allegations.

Then, she's asked about the allegation that Gonzales somehow sealed the Rove indictment after it was issued (thus, Sealed v. Sealed), and responds "I think this kind of speculation is hurtful to both sides. I give it less weight than a rumor." That sounds like a pretty good policy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #128
147. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #147
152. Excellent post!
:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #147
154. LOL!
Edited on Mon Jun-12-06 02:32 PM by Marie26
"Deliberately vilifying an ace investigative reporter." :eyes: Pusillanimous! :toast: But isn't it hard to be both bombastic and pusillanimous? It'd be timid & irresolute to say nothing, not be resolute & act all sure of myself. Maybe you just think it's a cool word? I agree. Such calumniating opprobrious invective!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #147
177. Hear, hear!
:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #128
176. Good for you!
I'm sure I'm not the only one taking names and screen shots to be sure you do... if it happens... you know ;)


:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #176
178. Go for it.
Edited on Mon Jun-12-06 04:00 PM by Marie26
Oh, I've also been creating a secret stash of screenshots from every single Truthout supporter. Just in case... you know. ;) :bounce: This is one time I'd be really happy to be wrong, it just doesn't seem likely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #178
183. The only difference is...
I never claimed to know what the deal is... nor have I said absolutely yes or no... I'm a wait and see'er :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #183
185. Wait & see
Edited on Mon Jun-12-06 04:35 PM by Marie26
I was just kidding (or was I?) :evilgrin: But I guess we'll all just have to wait & see exactly what happened here. These bouncy icons are pretty addictive, though. :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
evermind Donating Member (833 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #128
192. Have you read the Salon article?
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/06/12/rove/...

They seem to have it the other way round from you, saying that

---quote---
Until earlier this year, sealed criminal cases did not appear at all in the public database of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, a practice that prompted protests from the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, which said that 18 percent of the criminal cases filed in the court between 2000 and 2005 were essentially hidden from public view. In response to such concerns, the District Court altered its system earlier this year so that at least the existence of each sealed case is now noted in the public database. Under the new system, every sealed case appears in the database with the designation "Sealed v. Sealed" regardless of the caption the prosecutor might have used when the case was filed. Thus, contrary to the expert opinion included in the Truthout report, there appears to be no significance at all to the fact that case 1-06-cr-128 bears the designation "Sealed v. Sealed" rather than "U.S. v. Sealed."
--end quote--

So it seems like they're saying since "earlier this year", cases sealed from the public started appearing as "Sealed vs Sealed" - and that therefore it's no big deal, unlike what leopold seems to be saying.

I'd like to know how leopold works out that the case in question is from the particular grand jury that's working on the Plame and Abramoff investigations, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stop the bleeding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 12:46 PM
Response to Original message
126. LEVEYMG -- CHECK YOUR INBOX - I have questions for you
regarding - PACER :)

I have been doing some checking and I need a little bit better info before I continue

thanks Mark

stb
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stop the bleeding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #126
130. PAGING MARK
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #130
180. did you ever get your answer?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stop the bleeding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #180
233. yes, down thread Marie and Tom have put together some good
research in posts 189 and 194 and the following responses are qwuite telling
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nolabels Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 01:26 PM
Response to Original message
132. Effing crooked government wastes trillions of dollars on making war.......
just for reason of supporting the effort of keeping defense contractors in business. Like the skeptic in me says 9/11 was an inside job and just about anything else is possible with all these crooked bastards.


Btw, what would you think they were doing with trillions of dollars and all the resources one could find?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nimrod2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 01:28 PM
Response to Original message
134. This tells me he was either indicted or not, or maybe Rove was
going to be indicted but didn't, or Jason has good sources or not, or maybe Jason i still making things up as he goes or maybe not.


In summary, I hope Rove has been or gts indicted, but again maybe he won't.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coexist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 01:36 PM
Response to Original message
135. kick!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
garybeck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 01:45 PM
Response to Original message
139. a TRIAL can't be sealed
once someone is indicted, the next step is a trial, which by law has to be public. They can't keep this secret forever. Under normal circumstances the trial phase would begin shortly after the indictment, like in Libby's case, we are hearing news about it regularly.

so in order to keep this sealed, it seems there would have to be an effort to postpone the trial.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yodermon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #139
148. Well this article contradicts that assertion:
http://www.abanet.org/journal/ereport/m10secret.html


<snip>
In a study released this week, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press says that, over a five-year period, D.C. defendants in more than 450 out of 2,600 criminal cases were indicted, tried, prosecuted and sentenced to jail in complete secrecy.

"Im just flabbergasted with the numbers," says Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the reporters committee, which is based in Arlington, Va.
<snip>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #148
165. And that should be
Edited on Mon Jun-12-06 03:01 PM by Marie26
the real story here. The DC court's "secret dockets" allow them to keep cases completely off the public record. They don't use "sealed v. sealed" - it's just all kept from public view. It's even worse for immigration hearings, which are kept totally secret. We should be yelling & screaming about that, instead of a non-Rove indictment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 01:57 PM
Response to Original message
141. what indicates that sealed v sealed has anything to do with fitz's GJ?
Just asking.

By the way, the DC federal court has stated that "In this Circuit, proceedings concerning compliance with grand jury subpoenas and objections to subpoenas on the ground of privilege are sealed in the district court. See Sealed v. Sealed, No. 95-446 (D.D.C. filed Dec. 12, 1995), rev'd and remanded, In re Sealed Case, 326 U.S. App. D.C. 317, 124 F.3d 230 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (motion to quash on grounds of attorney-client and work-product privileges), cert. granted sub nom. Swidler & Berlin v. United States, 118 S. Ct. 1358, 140 L. Ed. 2d 509 (1998); Sealed v. Sealed, No. 95-377 (D.D.C. filed Nov. 6, 1995), rev'd and remanded, In re Sealed Case, 323 U.S. App. D.C. 233, 107 F.3d 46 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (action to compel production of subpoenaed documents which were withheld on basis of attorney-client privilege and work product immunity)."

So my question is what evidence does Leopold offer that supports the conclusion that this particular "sealed v. sealed" case has anything to do with Fitz and his GJ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #141
144. That sealed v. sealed was filed at the time he got told Rove got indicted.
And that's all, folks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #144
161. How do we know that?
All the cite tells us is that it was filed sometime this year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #161
186. Because it hadn't appeared beforehand, I guess.
And around the 'right time', it did appear.

Seriously, it's thin stuff. But I'm not saying Leopold's necessarily wrong. His capacity to prove himself right is just very thin. Nothing anyone can do about that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #186
194. "06-CR-128" was filed May 16-17th.
Edited on Mon Jun-12-06 06:26 PM by Marie26
OK, I used PACER to download a complete docket of all cases filed in the DC District Court between May 10th and June 12th. The case cites have a formula - the first number is the year, the "CR" is the type of case (Criminal), and the last number is sequential & assigned to each case based on when it was filed. So, the first criminal case filed in 2006 would be 1:06-CR-0001, the second one would be 1:06-CR-0002 etc. Even though this doesn't tell us exactly when it was filed, it does tell us what order it was filed in. So, if 06-CR-400 was filed on August 12th, that tells us 06-CR-401 couldn't have been filed until after that date.

The criminal docket doesn't list a 06-CR-128; it's completely missing from the docket. This is typical for sealed cases in the DC courts. However, we can tell when it was filed based on the dates of the surrounding cases. Here's the complete list of criminal cases filed in the DC district court from May 10 - May 23, 2006.

1:06-cr-00123-HHK
USA v. MANSOER Filed: 05/10/2006 Office: Washington, DC

1:06-cr-00125-RBW
USA v. DORIUS et al Filed: 05/12/2006 Office: Washington, DC

1:06-cr-00126-JDB
USA v. ABDOULAYE Filed: 05/12/2006 Office: Washington, DC

1:06-cr-00127-RWR
USA v. CURRY Filed: 05/16/2006 Office: Washington, DC

1:06-cr-00129-RMC
USA v. WASHINGTON Filed: 05/17/2006 Office: Washington, DC

1:06-cr-00131-PLF
USA v. HILLIARD Filed: 05/18/2006 Office: Washington, DC

1:06-cr-00132-EGS
USA v. MANOR Filed: 05/18/2006 Office: Washington, DC

1:06-cr-00136-HHK
USA v. GARCIA Filed: 05/23/2006 Office: Washington, DC

No 06-CR-128 listed at all. But the case before it, CR-127, was filed on May 16, 2006. And the case after it, CR-129, was filed on May 17, 2006. Therefore, we know that 06-CR-128 was filed either May 16 or May 17th. According to Leopold's original story, Rove was indicted (secretly) on May 12th. In his new "Sealed vs. Sealed" story, he says "As of Friday afternoon that indictment, returned by the grand jury the week of May 10th, remains under seal.. The case number is "06 cr 128." But based on the dates in the docket, that case cite CANNOT be the Rove indictment. This case was filed on Tuesday, May 16 or Wed., May 17th - NOT May 12th (when Fitz supposedly met w/the grand jury), and NOT during the week of May 7 - May 13th.

Either the case cite he used is wrong, or the date of the supposed indictment is wrong - both cannot be correct. And where is the indictment? There's no missing numbers at all from May 12 - May 16th, when the indictment was supposedly made, no "sealed vs. sealed," and the two cases listed from that time period are not Fitzgerald's. Even secret cases will be assigned a number, even if it doesn't appear on the docket. The first "gap" in numbers comes on May 16th, and then 4 other cases are missing from the docket from May 18-23. My point is that you could pick ANY of these unlisted numbers & randomly decide it's a Rove indictment - but NONE of them fit the supposed date of the indictment. Therefore, the reasonable conclusion is that 06-CR-128 is not the Rove indictment, and no indictment was issued against Rove on May 12th.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stop the bleeding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #194
195. Good detective work
Edited on Mon Jun-12-06 06:26 PM by stop the bleeding
You have been able to solve this with the appropriate site and method I am at PACER right now and have been killing myself trying to figure this riddle out.

Thanks again

now I can go back to just checking for the new Libby filings due out from today's hearing


PS on edit: please check post#189 I like the work both of you did, but I think y'all's research may contradicting each other.

Please help :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 07:52 PM
Response to Reply #195
209. Seperate numbering.
Edited on Mon Jun-12-06 07:56 PM by Marie26
AFAIK, Motions are labeled "Misc." and filed seperately. So, there's three consecutive numbering systems - one for criminal filings(CR), one for civil filings (CV), and one for "Miscellanous" motions (MC). There can be three different citations - a 06-CV-128, a 06-CR-128, and a 06-MC-128, all at the same courthouse. I tried entering the 06-MC-0128 citation into PACER, and it came up as a motion from the USA v. Libby case that was filed in the DC District Court on April 28, 2006. The movant is Time, Inc., who filed a Motion for an Extension of Time to respond to a subpeona, and later also moved to quash the subpeona. If you're still w/PACER, let me know if you get the same results. It's got a complete history of the motion & the judge's rulings in the case. It's quite a coincidence that the real Libby motion (06-MC-0128) has almost the same exact number as the supposed Rove indictment (06-CR-0128). Maybe Leopold's source has a weird sense of humor. Maybe Leopold's got a weird sense of humor. Who knows.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tom22 Donating Member (240 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 08:15 PM
Response to Reply #209
212. Great work Marie! I don't know what to think about the
06-cr-128 claim at this point. The date is off for Leopold's story. No one can verify that it is a sealed v. sealed case. Maybe the Time Inc motion docket number is a coincidence. But nothing in the docket numbers support Leopold's claims as far as I can see.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wrinkle_In_Time Donating Member (664 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 10:07 PM
Response to Reply #212
228. Thank you Marie26, tom22 and stop the bleeding. Good work!
Proper research is a rare breath of fresh air in this very smelly argument.

Kicked & rec'd so that people can see some facts instead of speculation for a change.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sheelz Donating Member (869 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #209
236. Marie....
Take a look at this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

"In the Libby case, people have likely picked up on a sequence in the documents that are being filed."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #236
258. Great post
Thank you! That was exactly the info I was looking for.

"In the Libby case, people have likely picked up on a sequence in the documents that are being filed. One side files a Motion; the other side files a Response; and then the first side files a Reply. After the Reply, the judge might hold a hearing, or he might issue a ruling. If he holds a hearing, it could be in open court, and thus become part of the public record. We've had this already in the pre-trial hearings where Team Libby and Mr. Fitzgerald openly debate issues...

The judge can also hold hearings "in camera," which is Latin for "in his chambers." There is usually a stenographer there recording the hearing. The judge can afterward decide if the hearing should be put on the public record, or if he should "seal" it due to information that is sensitive, or potentially damaging to a witness not on trial, or if that information could cause prejudice towards one side in the trial.In the documents filed, the journalists' attorneys have requested that if Judge Walton does decide to hold further hearings, that they be in camera."

A sealed Libby in-camera hearing would explain the missing numbers in the docket. If we can confirm that the sealed hearings do receive a CR heading, it seems to pretty much solve the mystery of the missing case file. According to H20Man, it seems like Libby's lawyers filed broad subpoenas & discovery requests, which the NY Times & Time are fighting hard because they claim it's a "fishing expedition" that violates reporters' privileges. In order to decide on the motion, the judge has to hear all the evidence about why the documents/info is needed, or why it should be privileged. This could definitely reveal sensitive information, or protected reporters' sources. So, the journalists have asked for the hearings to be held "in camera", & it makes sense that they would ask the judge to seal the hearing, as well. This is actually exactly the type of hearing that should be sealed. That was a great post, & it really helped tie up some loose ends.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tiptoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 06:15 AM
Response to Reply #194
247. "May 17" == Wednesday, a GJ meeting day...and a "business day," the end
of which 8-hr period would conclude 24 business hours after Friday, May 12.

see: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #144
188. Circumstantial evidence. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sheelz Donating Member (869 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #141
146. Absolutely nothing!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Snivi Yllom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #141
160. this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dave29 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #160
164. signs point to no
that's what mine says
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sheelz Donating Member (869 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 10:59 PM
Response to Reply #160
239. You're showing Leopold's single source.
:silly:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MilesColtrane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 01:59 PM
Response to Original message
145. Leo has got his fingers crossed.
It must be tough to believe you're going to be vindicated at any moment while day after day ticks off.
After a while you'd start grasping at straws.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smoogatz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 02:19 PM
Response to Original message
151. He could be right.
He could be completely full of shit. Don't touch that dial!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 04:30 PM
Response to Original message
184. I came in onthe last act of this drama and have a question...
What I don't understand about this whole affair is the rationale for Jason to drag this thing out if it is a lie out of whole cloth. Is he trying to design a complex "cover" story about why the Rove indictment he so famously promoted is a hoax? Or is he really doing some investigative reporting?

My guess right now is sinisterly in the first direction (altho I wish it wasn't). In my long life of 66 years I have sadly seen too many bright, capable people completely hoodwink THEMSELVES into thinking something is so when it isn't. They try so hard to do so, they can't let it go.

I wish this were not the case with Jason and TO. At this point, I think it is. Let's all hope we've been proven wrong. It would be such a help to us here!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tom22 Donating Member (240 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #184
189. I did a little research in the DC Federal District Court
Edited on Mon Jun-12-06 05:44 PM by tom22
docket. The number 06-128 is related to the Libby case but it has nothing to do with a Karl Rove indictment. Go dig up Judge Walton's decision on May 26, 2006 on discovery in the Libby case. It refers to misc. numbers (probably the numbers for motions in the Libby case) for the motions to quash subpoenas. Misc # 06-123,124,125,126,127 and 128 and 169. If I had to guess, the sealed parties in 06-128 are Time, Inc v. I. Lawrence Libby. I don't think the numbers are a coincidence. Somene has been pulling TruthOut's chain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #189
190. this makes some sense - consistent with the court's practice
It is the practice of the US District Court for DC to caption grnad jury subpoena fights as "sealed v. sealed."

From a 1998 case: "In this Circuit, proceedings concerning compliance with grand jury subpoenas and objections to subpoenas on the ground of privilege are sealed in the district court. See Sealed v. Sealed, No. 95-446 (D.D.C. filed Dec. 12, 1995), rev'd and remanded, In re Sealed Case, 326 U.S. App. D.C. 317, 124 F.3d 230 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (motion to quash on grounds of attorney-client and work-product privileges), cert. granted sub nom. Swidler & Berlin v. United States, 118 S. Ct. 1358, 140 L. Ed. 2d 509 (1998); Sealed v. Sealed, No. 95-377 (D.D.C. filed Nov. 6, 1995), rev'd and remanded, In re Sealed Case, 323 U.S. App. D.C. 233, 107 F.3d 46 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (action to compel production of subpoenaed documents which were withheld on basis of attorney-client privilege and work product immunity)."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #189
191. Exactly.
Edited on Mon Jun-12-06 05:54 PM by Harvey Korman
If you look at the article, notice what it does--it takes circumstantial evidence that dovetails with another unverified event (the docket number came about the same day as HIS REPORT on Rove) and offers it as proof that the story was true.

This "new development" is a non-starter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stop the bleeding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #189
197. Great job --- here is a copy from the document
Edited on Mon Jun-12-06 06:27 PM by stop the bleeding
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
____________________________________
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )))

Misc. Nos. 06-123)
06-124
06-125
06-126
06-128
06-169


I. LEWIS LIBBY, ) )
Defendant. )
____________________________________)
)
NBC NEWS, MATTHEW COOPER, )
JUDITH MILLER, ANDREA MITCHELL, )
TIME INC., AND )
THE NEW YORK TIMES, ))
Movants. )
____________________________________)
ORDER




the layout is a little off, but a copy of the document is here

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/files/Libby_06052...

also more docs here in the DU Research Forum

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Lastly see what post#194 says about the consectutive case#s ???? - Does this mean y'alls work is contradicting each other?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #197
205. Bingo!
Edited on Mon Jun-12-06 07:30 PM by Marie26
You've got it! It sounds like a perfect hoax for someone to give Leopold a motion from the Libby case as "Rove's secret indictment." The date is even right - this order was issued on May 26, 2006. The order lists 6 motions in order - probably the motions numbered 123-128, & 169? That would make Time's Motion to Quash the 128 motion. The order for that motion gave Time until June 2 to produce the documents to the court. Leopold's "Sealed v. Sealed" article also came out on June 2. The motions citation is a little different, though. Filed motions receive the "MC" label, not "CR", which signals the inception of a criminal case. Motions get a different label (Misc.) and seperate consecutive numbering. (So the full numbers of the motions here are 06-MC-123, 06-MC-124, etc.) These motions aren't contradicting the criminal docket, because that was a list of new criminal cases (w/o anything for 06-CR-128). According to Leopold, the cite here is 06-CR-128, which corresponds w/a criminal indictment, not a motion. And Time's motion to quash would be numbered 06-MC-128. So, the Libby motion citation is a little off, but it's still pretty close to Leopold's Rove citation. I have the sudden image of someone at Time reading Truthout & laughing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #197
226. stop the bleeding
Please, please put together all of this great research so we can bring this to a close.
Sounds to me like some VERY INTERESTING Conclusions...
I only want the TRUTH...
So do not worry about being kind...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stop the bleeding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 10:09 PM
Response to Reply #226
229. With my limited cognitive capacity....
Edited on Mon Jun-12-06 10:17 PM by stop the bleeding
it does not look very positive for Jason right now, Marie and Tom have done some stellar research at being able to fill in the blanks on dates and case numbers etc.

I am not sure what to believe anymore about this story, I keep thinking about that lady on the Yearlykos CSPAN deal the other day -(Mary or Marcy Wheeler??) Who said in a nutshell be very skeptical of everything that comes out on this unless that it is from Patrick Fitzgerald.

I would very much like to see Jason vindicated in this matter, unless something more is offered up as proof at this point or if we have missed something significant(like another explanation for this numbering) then this is what we have, facts on filed documents that are concrete.

As of the time of this post there is no new Libby filing(s) in regards to the hearing today.

Peace and keep on trucking kpete B-)

BTW - we have been getting rain from our first Tropical Storm of the year - Woohooo we need the rain, but the plants need it more
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #229
234. thanks for the quick reply
I tend to agree with you regarding Jason...

All in good time,

In the meantime, life is good...

no rain, some fog...

Peace







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sydnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 10:45 PM
Response to Reply #229
238. didn't Wheeler say the only person she trusted to report on the story
was Murray Waas? I seem to remember that statement from her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 07:15 PM
Response to Reply #189
206. Thanks for the info
I think you've got that exactly right. The misc. numbers correspond to the different motions filed - from 06-MC-123 to 06-MC-128 & MC-169. The judge's order goes down the line & issues a ruling for each motion. So, if he's ruling in the same order they were listed at the top, that makes MC-128 Time, Inc.'s Motion to Quash. Your guess sounds pretty spot on. Who do you think has been pulling Truthout's chain?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crabby Appleton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #206
211. Thanks Marie26 et al
I think you're on the right track. Do you know if a -CR- case is always an indictment, or just an indication that it relates to a criminal matter, ie a motion to suppress, etc?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tin Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 08:42 PM
Response to Reply #211
216. Ditto. Great 'real-time' research and analysis
...and an excellent job communicating your findings. Thanks, everyone!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tin Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #216
217. And BTW, this type of analysis deserves to be recorded into a journal
...just a suggestion for your consideration. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 09:07 AM
Response to Reply #211
254. That's a question
I have too. I know CR signals a criminal indictment, and the begining of a criminal case against a defendant. But it might have other meanings, as well. The Motions themselves are filed as Misc. (MC), but maybe the hearing on the motion can be a CR? Sometimes, when a party files a motion to quash/suppress a subpeona, the judge will order a seperate "in-camera" hearing away from the grand jury to rule on the side motion. These side hearings can also be held on the admissibility of evidence. So, maybe, 06-CR-128 is a new hearing that's being held on the original Libby case. We know there is a 06-CR-128, it is secret, and it was filed on May 16-17, in the same courthouse where the Libby case was held. So if it isn't a Rove indictment, what is it?

If I had to guess, I'd say it might be a seperate hearing related to the Libby case. The Libby case is dealing w/issues of journalistic privilege, & the right to keep sources secret, which could explain why the hearing was kept off the record. It makes sense, cause the Time motion to quash was filed April 28th, and the judge's order was released May 26th. According to the judge's order, at least 5 different motions were filed by Judith Miller, the NY Times, Cooper, and Time, and his order covered all those motions. Also, when I looked at the criminal docket, there's not many "off-the-docket" cases, but then there's a lot of missing case numbers from May 16th - May 23th, which corresponds perfectly to when the Libby judge would be hearing evidence on all these various motions. The missing cases are - 128, 130, 133-135. Five missing hearings, to cover 5 filed motions? Maybe. Can anyone confirm that? Would an "in-camera" motions hearing receive a CR label? I don't want to state that for certain unless I'm sure. But it seems like a pretty good explanation for the missing case numbers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tin Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #254
262. Your premise on the CR labels might be right
Edited on Tue Jun-13-06 12:55 PM by Tin Man
We know that the 5 CR cases missing from the docket were filed between May 16 and May 23.

Now look at Judge Walton's ruling regarding the 6 MC motions associated with the Libby case:

"Currently before the Court are motions to quash submitted by NBC News, Andrea
Mitchell, Time Inc., Matthew Cooper, The New York Times, and Judith Miller . Upon
consideration of the papers filed in connection with these motions to quash and the oral
arguments heard by the Court on these motions
, and for the reasons set forth in the accompanying
memorandum opinion, it is hereby this 26th day of May, 2006..."

This is speculative, but it just might be, as you suggested, that the missing CR labels represent hearings in which the oral arguments regarding the MC motions were presented before Judge Walton. If this were the case, the dates of the missing CR labels (May 16-23) would dovetail nicely with Judge Walton's decisions on the motions, handed down in the ruling of May 26.

Edit: the only problem I can see w/ this hypothesis is that there were/are 6 MC-label motions ruled upon by Judge Walton, while there are only 5 CR-label cases absent from the docket. So there's not a nice 1-to-1 correlation of MC-to-CR labels involved.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #262
263. That makes sense
As for the "missing motions hearing," I only got the CR's filed between May 11-May 23. If you look at the 6 motions, it look like one was filed much later than the others. (MC-169) The others were all filed in order, from MC-123 to MC-128. So, it could be that the 5 motions were filed at the same time would receive replies at about the same time (20 days for Def. to reply). Usually, motions will be scheduled for a hearing as soon as the other party replies. Motion MC-169 was filed sometime later, and so would receive a later hearing date. I'm guessing, if we looked at a complete list of hearings from May 23 - May 26, the last missing hearing date could have been held during that time. In addition, a lot of these parties are so closely tied together that the judge might rule on 2 motions at once (ex. - Andrea Mitchell & NBC News). There's not an exact one-to-one correlation, but it's pretty close & the hypothesis goes pretty far to explain the sudden rash of missing hearings in the same time frame that Libby oral arguments were held. I guess this all might be moot, now, anyway, since Fitz has apparantly confirmed today that Rove wasn't indicted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tin Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #263
264. although Fitz may not have indicted Rove
Your sleuthing still has some value. If correct, it shows just how wildly off-the-mark Leopold's June 12 "Sealed vs. Sealed" story was. If a couple of DU'ers can figure out the true story from public records in one day, how credible is Leopold's reporting about anything?

FWIW, I've had questions about Leopold's story on the 'Rove Indictment' since the start. For instance, I can guarantee that Leopold isn't the only DC reporter with deep sources. While it was conceivable that Leopold may have scooped the other reporters on a big story, it's entirely implausible that none of these other DC reporters wouldn't have picked-up the scent had there actually been a trail.

So considering the collapse of the 'Rove Indictment' story, and the questions Marie26 et al have raised about the June 12 'Sealed vs. Sealed' story - it's becoming pretty clear that Leopold wasn't simply misled in his reporting (as some would like to hope), but was actually just talking out his ass - searching for evidence that would support the big story he wanted to write.

So for me, the value of the thread is that a few brainstorming, tag-teaming, DU researches were able to finally bring to light the 'Jason Leopold side' of the 'Rove Indictment' story. It now appears to me that Leopold just desperately wanted to 'break to big story' a la Matt Drudge and the Monica Lewinski scandal, without having done the due dilligence. Prior to the TruthOut story, there had been chatter about a Rove indictment for some time, and with Fitz meeting the GJ, I suspect Leopold assumed that 'this was it' and went out on a very, very long limb in a quest for fame (or something). Anyhow, Like I said earlier, the value of your research is that it helps illuminate the Jason Leopold element of this whole story - and it's not pretty. But it is what it is, and the truth shall set you free.

Anyhow, good stuff here that probably belongs in a journal for future reference - seldom do we see threads in the GC forum that contain this kind of useful info. Thanks again for the great effort Marie26, Tom22, and StopTheBleeding.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
evermind Donating Member (833 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 06:05 PM
Response to Original message
193. What I found interesting about this story
was the apparently gratuitous paragraph on Peter Zeidenberg. It appears right in the middle of the story and doesn't seem to have any need to be there.

The lead prosecutor on the Abramoff case is Peter Zeidenberg, who has worked alongside Patrick Fitzgerald in the CIA leak investigation for more than two years and has spent a considerable amount of time investigating Karl Rove's role in the leak. Zeidenberg is currently prosecuting David Safavian, who is on trial in US District Court, charged with obstruction and lying about his contacts with Abramoff.


Is Leopold hinting at his "sources", do you think? I can't see any reason in the story why he should need to mention Zeidenberg, who only appears in that one paragraph, at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #193
196. Zeidenberg spent a lot of time investigating Rove
Maybe this is further proof that the indictment is for Rove.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
evermind Donating Member (833 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #196
203. Well, maybe, but he doesn't link Zeidenberg into the sealed case
at all (at least not explicitly). I just can't see why he suddenly gets a mention, out of nowhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 06:55 PM
Response to Original message
204. I really hope Jason has been right all along.
.........
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 07:24 PM
Response to Original message
207. Why should I give a crap what this stupid dumbshit says?
He let us all down. And he will have to earn back his credibility. He hasn't even started on that yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #207
219. Stupid dumbshit?
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 08:30 PM
Response to Original message
215. makes sense to me
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 08:54 PM
Response to Original message
218. Does anyone here know what a "just so" story is?
That's ALL truthout has been giving.

Pace the don't-need-no-stinkin-evidence credulous folks, sure, it's doesn't mean the story's false.

Why do people believe in "just so" stories that are given without publically verifiable evidence?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Patsy Stone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #218
232. As a general rule:
Anyone who believes everything they hear is stupid. But look what happened here. It was EXACTLY the public verifying the evidence, and there was no verification. In the process, we all learned a lot about sealed indictments. What did this cost anyone?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #232
237. I'm sorry - I have no idea what you intended to communicate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Patsy Stone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 11:21 PM
Response to Reply #237
242. You asked
"Why do people believe in "just so" stories that are given without publically verifiable evidence?"

I said that blind belief can be bad; that people who believe everything without questioning anything are usually stupid and that, in this case, the public (the researchers in this thread) actually verified (or *didn't* verify to be exact) the facts that the article purported to be true. Thus, I was agreeing with you. The last sentence was to say that after all was said and done, some pixels were wasted in the process, some people may have had their opinions changed and some never will. IOW, we still don't know much more about the case, but we all know a lot more about the DC dockets and sealed indictments.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 09:29 AM
Response to Reply #242
256. Ok. Thanks! :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HuffleClaw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 09:12 PM
Response to Original message
220. Sealed vs. Sealed ???
what crap is that? this new wave of slapping a 'secret' sticker on anything that is embarassing to this administration is truly scary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wrinkle_In_Time Donating Member (664 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 09:32 PM
Response to Original message
223. Kicking for the reality-based crowd. Read #186, 197, 205, 209
Let's hear it for Marie26, tom22 and stop the bleeding for doing actual research instead of speculation.

Brava & Bravo! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #223
224. Well most of us are just waiting to hear from Fitzgerald.
But I'll still give a :thumbsup: to STB, Marie and Tom. :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stop the bleeding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #224
231. FITZ!!!!
We need a good Fitz sighting or at least some picts
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Patsy Stone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #223
227. True. Bravo and Brava.
Edited on Mon Jun-12-06 10:09 PM by Patsy Stone
But who is to say the impetus for the research wasn't the speculation? This is how DU works sometimes. That doesn't make speculation, or a mistaken premise, a bad thing. It just makes them speculation and a mistaken premise. And if everyone talks it out and compares notes or speculates while sitting in a cubicle without time to do the research, so what? Are we being graded on coming up with the right answer within some sort of time frame?

This next bit is not directed towards you, but this seems like a good place to put this thought. I see nothing wrong with being wrong. It happens. Some people here have no tolerance for it, and I think they need to find a forum where every post is vetted. That way they can take it to the bank, e-mail everyone they know and say they're the smartest kid on the block because they saw it first.

Facts and reality are important, but so is the process of talking things through and weeding out that which is not viable or able to be proven.

If everyone knew everything, how boring would that be?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wrinkle_In_Time Donating Member (664 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #227
235. I also see nothing wrong with being wrong. That's fact-based.
I do see much wrong with rampant speculation, blind faith, cliques, hubris, cynicism and a bunch of other human faults if they go unchallenged by facts, critical thinking, independence, skepticism and a bunch of other human gifts.

Likewise, this was not directed at you personally. I am responding to your thoughtful post with my own.

Having read the "talking things through" on this topic, I sadly see far too little of the weeding out that you hope for and a far too much scattering of new seeds. Clarity was rarely found (I suspect that's because there wasn't anything there, but that's my skepticism talking).

We can never know everything: that's the beauty of science. We can also be creative: that's the beauty of art. Some people abuse both of those beautiful things and just invent crap to make themselves look/feel good: that's ugly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Patsy Stone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 11:08 PM
Response to Reply #235
240. Life is messy. :)
Edited on Mon Jun-12-06 11:58 PM by Patsy Stone
People, and their egos, are messy.

If someone goes out and makes a statement and puts it out for everyone to see, it is our duty to question it. Likewise, if someone speculates about a premise and, through testing and analysis, finds it's true, we have a new fact. A fact which still must stand up to constant questioning. "X happens. But why does X happen here, but not here?"

At the end of the day (in this thread) we found that it is not uncommon for an indictment to be sealed "on the left". That the indictment is not necessarily Rove's, and that truthout published something which has holes in it. The main premises of the article might be wrong, but saying that because this happened now means that truthout is wrong all the time is also speculation.

What have we learned?

1) Lots of people at DU just like to yell at each other.
2) Some people believe what they want to believe and facts do not interfere with their opinions.
3) Sometimes a banana is just a banana.

Also, there are two definitions of speculation. The one refering to a premise arrived at through faulty logic or conjecture, and the one meaning contemplation of a topic. The first is rarely helpful, unless it leads to further research which proves or disproves that premise, the second is very helpful. Never be afraid to ask, "What if?"

p.s. I like the Pixies a lot. Have you thought of Velouria as your next screen name? :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Garbo 2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #227
241. I want to know EVERYTHING but figure I won't. After Fitz's October press
conference where he said the grand jury either indicts or it doesn't and we don't tell you why so and so wasn't/weren't indicted and there's no report on the investigation and that's the way it should be, I figured a whole lot of stuff could have come out and come down (people cooperating, ratting out others, etc) but if there was no related indictment and trial in which that information came out, we simply wouldn't definitively know.

Damn!!

Meanwhile, Libby evidently has a spectacularly poor memory ("I forgot the Vice President of the United States told me" as I'm sure all of us would, LOL). And Rove, in the "I wasn't a source but oops maybe I was but I still don't remember that" sweepstakes, isn't far behind.

Speculation sometimes leads to interesting stuff. What we suspect, speculate, is one thing. What we know for sure is pretty much bottom line squat. Just IMO. (Perhaps in a more rational moment, although maybe not, LOL.)

:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Patsy Stone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 11:41 PM
Response to Reply #241
243. The only thing I know
is that I know nothing. I, too, want to know EVERYTHING. I want to know how those meetings in Cheney's lair went down. I want to know what was said in that Rove/Novak conversation. I want all of it. And I know I'll probably never get it. Unlike others here, however, I don't kill the messenger. Caveat Emptor. I figure that every little scrap has at least a nugget of truth, relative to the matter at hand, or not. Putting the pieces together can be frustrating though when you're missing the center of that yellow flower in the corner of the picture! Damn!

We're also (some of us) very impatient. That leads to a lot of people digging, some publishing what they've found, and some just talking shit. I wouldn't trade one piece of our tin foil, or one ridiculous premise in this place. It all shakes out in the end anyway, and I enjoy the process. Gotta love it.

And: C'mon! Give it up for the "I forgot" excuse. It's not original, but it's a time-tested weasel defense. At least when you hear it you know you're dealing with a bunch of liars. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KyndCulture Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 04:22 AM
Response to Original message
244. Oh look at the DUers eating each other....
Edited on Tue Jun-13-06 04:23 AM by KyndCulture
This is a pathetic thread to be greatest or on the front page...

I'm ashamed of my fellow DUers about this subject. Wow what a bunch of cynical pricks we've all become. Things are so bad, we can't get our voice heard anywhere, we have to eat our own now.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 06:15 AM
Response to Reply #244
246. and all fro naught as ROVE IS FREE! damm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
high density Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 06:06 AM
Response to Original message
245. Well it now looks like that Leopold's reporting was totally wrong
I guess "just have faith" still doesn't work in reporting, just like it didn't work for Dan Rather.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shadowknows69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 06:39 AM
Response to Reply #245
249. Thus passes Truthout.org from the ranks of my favorites list
Another semi-apology or lecture about sealed indictments might make me read there again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnfunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 07:08 AM
Response to Reply #245
251. So you're falling for Rove's lawyer's spin over Leopold...
There's more going on underneath the surface of the Roveian spin than anyone is aware.

Remembver, the source for the report of no charges is Rove's mouthpiece.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shadowknows69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #251
261. I wish I could have blind hope like you do.
but reality keeps getting in the way of that for me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crabby Appleton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 06:39 AM
Response to Original message
248. No Rove indictment
in the news today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Connie_Corleone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 06:46 AM
Response to Original message
250. Is Leopold looking for another job this morning??
Rove won't be indicted. So much for sealed VS sealed as far as Rove is concerned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnfunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 07:10 AM
Response to Reply #250
252. "So much for sealed VS sealed as far as Rove is concerned"?
Again, this is coming from Rove's lawyers, who have proven not to be a reliable source.

There's more going on behind the scenes than the public knows.

Betcha Rove has agreed to rat out Libby and someone else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Snivi Yllom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 08:40 AM
Response to Original message
253. Waiting patiently for the retraction...
tick tock tick tock tick tock.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 09:18 AM
Response to Reply #253
255. It might be a long wait
I have a feeling oceans will turn & mountains will fall before Leopold ever retracts that story. The most I'm hoping for is no new "updates." If you look at his past, he has never apologized for any of the erroneous stories he wrote - even after the editors did. And in this case, Truthout ran Leopold's ridiculous "sealed v. sealed" story w/o bothering to do the most basic fact-checking; knowing he had only one unnamed source, knowing Leopold was changing the story. In Ash's explanation, he doesn't even get the right indictment date - he says it was May 10th, when Leopold's original story said May 12th. The whole thing seemed very hastily-written & badly edited. Why release it at all? It makes me think they were more interested in CYA than in actually finding out the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 09:53 AM
Response to Original message
259. NY Times: Leak Counsel Won't Charge Rove, Lawyer Announces
WASHINGTON, June 13 The prosecutor in the C.I.A. leak case on Monday advised Karl Rove, the senior White House adviser, that he would not be charged with any wrongdoing, effectively ending the nearly three-year criminal investigation that had at times focused intensely on Mr. Rove.

The decision by the prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, announced in a letter to Mr. Rove's lawyer, Robert D. Luskin, lifted a pall that had hung over Mr. Rove who testified on five occasions to a federal grand jury about his involvement in the disclosure of an intelligence officer's identity.

In a statement, Mr. Luskin said, "On June 12, 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

FYI
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #259
265. That's it? No more investigation?
eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #265
266. Of Rove, at least.
Edited on Tue Jun-13-06 08:36 PM by Marie26
Sorry. But Fitzgerald isn't packing up; he's still prosecuting the Libby case & could bring other indictments in the future. Maybe Cheney, not Rove, is the actual intended target. It's not over (but the Rove indictment story sure is).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Nov 01st 2014, 04:06 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC