New AP article about the Leak... lots of inside details...

[DougieZero]

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/19/D8DBDEOO4.html

except... i don't really understand all of it... can someone tell me what it's trying to say?

also... what the hell is with tim russert?...

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. HOLY COW!

Ok tim russert, Rove says taht he knew the identity before it was published by novak, Rusert denies it... purely a he said, she said.... and good ol' tim may also find himself in the midst of this mess



this may also bring down some major media figures folks

[hang a left]

2. Rove and Libby shopped their story to Russert amongst

other journalists.

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. We knew that, but this actually is starting to ahem

finger good ol' tim too

[Carolab]

4. Yes, but is Timmah lying or did he tell the truth?

I think Rove is lying.

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. At this point Rove reminds me of... good ol' Haldeman

his lips are moving he is lying

[emulatorloo]

7. tim is telling the truth, Libby is lying

Libby is claiming Russert told him about Plame/CIA.

Sorry , I don't buy it scooter.

[crispini]

9. they are all trying to blame the reporters.

hmmmmmm.

[Carolab]

10. Actually, it seems that they are BOTH lying.

Rove is trying to say that Libby got the information from Russert, but he got the information from Libby and Novak, however, and NO ONE ELSE--other than whomever told him in the so-called "social setting"--who he says, CONVENIENTLY, he can't remember!

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

43. Agreed.

I'd like to see Whoresert called back to the stand.

[libertypirate]

6. Did Rove go to Africa?

http://miawmdwtfw.blogspot.com/2003/07/ari-read-memo-on...


'Hardball with Chris Matthews' for July 21
Read the transcript to the Thursday show
...

DAVID SHUSTER, NBC CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): A witness who testified at the grand jury and lawyers for other witnesses say the memo was written in July of 2003, identified Valerie Wilson, also known as Valerie Plame, as a CIA officer, and cited her in a paragraph marked S for sensitive.

[hang a left]

12. No Rove stayed back at the WH.

[crispini]

8. Well I noticed that once again they are trotting out the

"we got Plame's name from a reporter" thing.

But given the presence of everybody and their dog on AF1 on the trip to Africa where the Plame memo was... I have a hard time believing that.

[cynatnite]

11. Seems like they're trying to blame the reporters...

They said Rove testified that his discussions with Libby before Plame's CIA cover was blown were limited to information reporters had passed to them

[Carolab]

13. This July article says otherwise

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/080105Y.shtml

When They Knew
By Massimo Calabresi
Time Magazine

Sunday 31 July 2005

Sources indicate that Rove may have learned Valerie Plame's identity from within the Administration rather than from media contacts./b]

As the investigation tightens into the leak of the identity of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame, sources tell TIME some White House officials may have learned she was married to former ambassador Joseph Wilson weeks before his July 6, 2003, Op-Ed piece criticizing the Administration. That prospect increases the chances that White House official Karl Rove and others learned about Plame from within the Administration rather than from media contacts. Rove has told investigators he believes he learned of her directly or indirectly from reporters, according to his lawyer.

(snip}

[cynatnite]

14. It's obvious rover's lying from this and the other article...

but I do think the WH will try to shift the blame to reporters and the CIA. I doubt it'll work, though.

Thanks for posting that.

[Carolab]

16. Yup. Libby is fingering the reporters; Rove fingering Libby AS WELL.

What a snake.

[aquart]

24. It doesn't matter what they do in the press.

The only thing that matters is what they did in front of the jury.

[cynatnite]

46. Yep, and getting caught in lies...

These are the days that I cherish.

[aquart]

15. "Testimony shown to Rove"???? WTF???

Who the bloody hell shows anyone someone else's SECRET GRAND JURY TESTIMONY????

[hang a left]

17. Fitzgerald could have shown it to him during Rove's last trip to

the gj. He could have said something like "well that is not what Libby said, let me show you." Then he let him see a transcript. It could be a strategy to get him to contradict Libby. Remember he testified for 4 and a half hours, they probably covered alot of territory. He was probably even confronted with transcripts of his other trips to the gj.

[faithnotgreed]

19. seems so

article states that rove was shown this "testimony" (who knows if it was legit or not) during a gj session

[aquart]

21. And they know this to be true because........?

I'm not saying it's not. I'm just saying that my experience is different. I just don't see giving someone the opportunity to know what someone else said about him. And CORROBORATE it? Are you kidding me?

[faithnotgreed]

30. true - thats why i said who knows if its legit or not

who knows anything at this point

the story has gotten so hot everyone is eager to write something and in that environment of course we cant always know if its a distraction or a red herring or just made up

[aquart]

20. Does anyone on this planet know of someone doing that?

Seriously. Has anyone who's ever been on a grand jury heard of anyone being shown anyone else's SECRET TESTIMONY???

If it's a standard technique, please please tell me. I was only on one grand jury that lasted three years and we brought lots of people back but never once showed them something someone else said.

But I have no idea what other juries do.

[hang a left]

22. I don't know about GJ.

It does happen in civil court. Transcripts are read back, put up on a screen ect..

[aquart]

27. That's public record.

Grand jury proceedings are not.

[hang a left]

31. I realize that.

It could be done inside the courtroom. The only person it would be new to would have been Rove. I am not saying that it was done ,only that it was possible. Unless the article is disinformation, how else would Karl know that Libby's testimony conflicts with his. Unless they talked to each other about their testimony. That I think is a big no no. But now that they won't be reappearing, I am not sure that it matters. Who would leak something like this is another question. Another thought I just had was that perhaps it was revealed to Karl in negotiations for a plea bargain deal.

[aquart]

36. You cannot confront your accuser in a grand jury.

Therefore it follows that you can't hear testimony that contradicts yours. The jury and the prosecutors know. The witness only knows what he was asked, and what he replied.

[Carolab]

44. Check this out

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20011025_kwan-g...

{snip}

Witnesses May Legally Disclose What They Told the Grand Jury

A second way that aspects of an investigation can be disclosed legally, despite grand jury secrecy rules, is through witnesses who testify before the grand jury.

These individuals � arguably the most critical participants in grand jury proceedings � are under no obligation to keep what they told the grand jury a secret. Indeed, more than that, it is actually improper for a prosecutor to instruct a witness to keep her knowledge of the proceedings confidential.

Nevertheless, targets of a grand jury investigation usually want to keep that fact under wraps. Other witnesses, too, normally are loathe to publicize any connection between themselves and a criminal investigation. As a result, it is no surprise that we rarely hear from grand jury witnesses about their own testimony.

The Limited Accuracy of Much Grand Jury Reportage

For these reasons, any media reports regarding what is transpiring before a grand jury must be viewed with skepticism. Since witnesses rarely talk to reporters, the reports may be third- or even fourth-hand.

Moreover, even if witnesses do talk to the media, their accounts are frequently skewed by personal agendas, faulty recollections, or the challenge of divining the true nature of the investigation.

After all, the information flows in only one direction in the grand jury room. Witnesses are not jurors who view the entirety of the testimony and decide upon charges, but rather individuals who simply appear, testify, and depart. They give information rather than receiving it.

Although the Government will inform a target who testifies of his target status, non-target witnesses ordinarily do not know how their pieces of the puzzle fit into the overall picture, much less who the targets are. Thus, a witness who believes that his testimony is wholly insignificant may in fact supply the smoking gun, whereas another witness who claims to be at the center of the storm may be providing only the most peripheral details.

{snip}

[Carolab]

23. Here are the rules concerning that.

http://www.spjwash.org/access/grnd.htm

http://www.udayton.edu/~grandjur/stategj/kentucky_secre...

The Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)(3)(C)(i) does provide that the disclosure of matters otherwise prohibited by Rule 6 of matters occurring before the grand jury may be made when so directed by a court "preliminary to or in connection with a judicial proceeding." U.S. v. Sells Engineering, Inc., supra; U.S. v. Baggot, 463 U.S. 476 (1983). This rule allows disclosure upon a strong showing of "particularized need" in civil cases, including bankruptcy adversary proceedings. In re Shenker, 157 B.R. 21 (E.D. Mo. 1993). It may also extend to certain administrative hearings if they are preliminary to judicial proceedings. Attorney disciplinary hearings are included in this exception. Matter of Federal Grand Jury Proceeding, 760 F.2d 436 (2d Cir. 1985).

It is the responsibility of each grand juror to maintain the secrecy of the grand jury's proceedings. This means that the grand jurors should discuss grand jury matters only within the grand jury meeting room. Grand jurors can only be released from their permanent obligation to keep the grand jury proceedings secret by order of a judge.

While this Court has discretion, and the rule provides that this Court could release the proceedings, it is essential to understand that the only reasons this Court has been given this authority are to prevent potential perjury, to address allegations of malfeasance within the Grand Jury itself or to release information if the proceedings are connected with another judicial proceeding. It is important to understand in a Grand Jury investigation that there are no rules governing testimony or the questions asked by the jurors. Thus, witnesses may freely offer hearsay evidence, evidence that could be suppressed because of the exclusionary rule, and opinion evidence. There is little necessity to establish a foundation for the proffered testimony. It is also imperative to recognize that testimony before the grand jury may also be unreliable in that the accused has no opportunity to confront the witnesses against him.

Obviously, grand jury proceedings may be seen as a two-edged sword; the proceedings permit charges to be brought without substantial evidence, and an indictment may thus be returned against an individual who will later be found not guilty by a petit jury. Conversely, the grand jury investigation is often used to protect those individuals who should not be charged with an indictable offense.

When a grand jury permits the accused to testify, it gives the accused the right to explain his actions and to offer any defenses he/she might have. Often, the accused, if he presents himself correctly, can obtain sympathy from twelve people which will result in a �No True Bill.� After all, the accused need only convince four people of his innocence to avoid indictment. Still, if the accused testifies the prosecutor may obtain testimony from the him which may implicate him as to the charges being brought or in perjury charges, if it can be discovered that he is not testifying truthfully (nowhere is this truism more keenly illustrated than in the Mel Ignatow cases).

So it is that while grand jury proceedings are far from perfect, they provide the Commonwealth invaluable opportunities to seek justice for its citizens. However, the limitations of the system, as noted above, are part and parcel of why the United States Supreme Court and the lower Courts of this nation have shrouded the grand jury proceedings in confidentiality. It is this Court�s belief that the intent of our criminal rule was never to permit the wholesale release of Grand Jury testimony at the whim of the Grand Jury Judge, and while the Court has discretion in this area, exercising that discretion would set a dangerous precedent for potential abuse. While there are cases that have been decided in other jurisdictions that have released portions of grand jury proceedings, as a general rule these are specific requests for certain portions of the record which relate to civil or pending criminal matters or a showing of �particularized or compelling need.� In re Jessup Petition, Del., 136 A.2d 207 (1957); State v. Hartfield, Ore., 624 P.2d 588 (1981).

The United States Supreme Court reiterated this point in Douglas Oil Co. V.

[aquart]

25. Thanks. Is this the part?

"3) No grand juror, public or private attorney, city attorney or corporation counsel, reporter, interpreter or public servant who held a witness in custody before a grand jury or special inquiry judge, or witness, principal or other person shall disclose the testimony of a witness examined before the grand jury or special inquiry judge or other evidence received by it, except when required by the court to disclose the testimony of the witness examined before the grand jury or special inquiry judge for the purpose of ascertaining whether it is consistent with that of the witness given before the court, or to disclose his testimony given before the grand jury or special inquiry judge by any person upon a charge against such person for perjury in giving his testimony or upon trial therefore, or when permitted by the court in furtherance of justice."

Seems to me it needs a court order to show that testimony to someone else. Am I reading it wrong?

[Carolab]

28. I believe you have it right. I added to the first post, BTW.

See the second link.

[aquart]

33. Yes. It emphasizes NOT showing the testimony to someone else.

It's very specific about who can get a look:

The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure also contain similar secrecy provisions. “The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure make it abundantly clear that grand jury proceedings are absolutely secret. There are three exceptions: (1) During the pendency of criminal trial proceedings the contents of certain portions of the grand jury transcripts may be made available to the defendant's attorneys as part of the discovery/preparation process; (2) A witness in the grand jury is free to reveal his or her own testimony; and (3) Government employees working on the matter may see the testimony. Other than the foregoing, no participant in the proceedings, including grand jurors, court reporters and prosecutors, may reveal (and certainly and absolutely not to the public) what is said in the grand jury. Criminal and contempt proceedings can, and have in the past, flowed from such improper revelations.”

Showing Libby's testimony to Rove would have violated these rules.

[Carolab]

35. I think the mention of "perjury" is pertinent here.

I have read Fitz specializes in perjury cases/convictions.

It would seem that showing someone else's testimony when you are looking for perjured testimony would open the door to FURTHER perjury.

[aquart]

37. It only opens the door to collaboration and corroboration.

And it violates the protection given to witnesses who jeopardize their lives by speaking.

It is only necessary for the JURY to be be aware of the previous testimony while Rove is asked HIS recollection of events. The JURY compares.

This story says Rove was shown a transcript of Libby's SECRET testimony and given a chance to agree with it. Which he did.

I do not believe it happened.

[Carolab]

38. What about this section (from the first link)?

RCW 10.27.090 Secrecy enjoined-- Exceptions -- Use and availability of evidence.
(1) Every member of the grand jury shall keep secret whatever he or any other grand juror has said, and how he or any other grand juror has voted, except for disclosure of indictments, if any, as provided in RCW 10.27.150.
(2) No grand juror shall be permitted to state or testify in any court how he or any other grand juror voted on any question before them or what opinion was expressed by himself or any other grand juror regarding such question.
(3) No grand juror, public or private attorney, city attorney or corporation counsel, reporter, interpreter or public servant who held a witness in custody before a grand jury or special inquiry judge, or witness, principal or other person shall disclose the testimony of a witness examined before the grand jury or special inquiry judge or other evidence received by it, except when required by the court to disclose the testimony of the witness examined before the grand jury or special inquiry judge for the purpose of ascertaining whether it is consistent with that of the witness given before the court, or to disclose his testimony given before the grand jury or special inquiry judge by any person upon a charge against such person for perjury in giving his testimony or upon trial therefore, or when permitted by the court in furtherance of justice.
(4) The public attorney shall have access to all grand jury and special inquiry judge evidence and may introduce such evidence before any other grand jury or any trial in which the same may be relevant.
(5) The court upon a showing of good cause may make any or all grand jury or special inquiry judge evidence available to any other public attorney, prosecuting attorney, city attorney or corporation counsel upon proper application and with the concurrence of the public attorney attending such grand jury. Any witness' testimony, given before a grand jury or a special inquiry judge and relevant to any subsequent proceeding against the witness, shall be made available to the witness upon proper application to the court. The court may also, upon proper application and upon a showing of good cause, make available to a defendant in a subsequent criminal proceeding other testimony or evidence:
(a) when given or presented before a special inquiry judge, if doing so is in the furtherance of justice; or
(b) when given or presented before a grand jury, if the court finds that doing so is necessary to prevent an injustice and that there is no reason to believe that doing so would endanger the life or safety of any witness or his family. The cost of any such transcript made available shall be borne by the applicant.

*********

Doesn't the above pretty much relate to testimony being shown in COURT--that is, AFTER the grand jury has returned a "true bill" and the case goes to trial--but not before?

[aquart]

47. That's what I think.

To this day no one knows what happened in my grand jury, although it spawned other gjs, had articles in the NYT and Forbes...because almost everyone involved took a plea. ONE PERSON went to trial while we were still sitting (we operated in two phases, indicted the minnows and then went for a settlement with the real sharks)he got convicted on all 25 counts...that's the only available public record of any of the evidence we saw.

I realized that white collar criminals do NOT want to face juries. They take a plea and sing their wizened hearts out.

[hang a left]

39. It is possible it didn't happen.

Do you think that maybe during the course of negotiating a plea bargain that this particular clause might apply?

"During the pendency of criminal trial proceedings the contents of certain portions of the grand jury transcripts may be made available to the defendant's attorneys as part of the discovery/preparation process; "

[Carolab]

42. Again, I think that this means AFTER the GJ has returned a true bill.

And the case is bound for/in court, but NOT before.

[Tatiana]

18. Will THIS finally cause mediawhores to bite the hand that has fed them? nt

[DefenseLawyer]

26. This is spin coming directly from Luskin

and no one else. Take it with a grain of salt, other than to note that Rove is trying to sell out Libby big time.

[TahitiNut]

29. I'm betting Judy Miller is the 'laudromat' for the Plame leak.

Remember, Judy didn't write a story about it. She'd be 'officially free' to discuss it with other news organizations if the NYT wasn't going to use it. Nice cover.

They're playing the same games with the 'leak' that they played with all the Iraq-WMD crapola - farming it out, baiting other people to swallow it, and 'laundering' it through people not involved. It's like a complex shell game.

[Carolab]

32. Why, then, wouldn't other reporters say she told them? n/t

[TahitiNut]

40. Maybe she only told them what questions to ask?

Maybe she got the 'leak' in a strategy session (I think she's part of the cabal) and after prompting some other reporters made a pre-arranged call to Rove? These people are playing 'hide the cucumber' - it's part of their arsenal of deceit, evasion, and corruption.

[Carolab]

45. That conflicts with accounts that Rove actually got his info elsewhere.

From someone within the administration.

Unless Judy got the leak at the same time.

But, still, why wouldn't other reporters report that Judith "prompted" them?

[savemefromdumbya]

34. Rove was hired in the beginning because he was a good leaker

look at the archives of his role in the repub party and his famous leak which got him a job

[lovuian]

41. Rove has been caught lying to the grand jury two times and

theres a discrepency in testimony between Russert and Libby...