Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Rove already indicted for "something"....take on Leopold...

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
 
LeftHander Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-17-06 02:19 PM
Original message
Rove already indicted for "something"....take on Leopold...
The remaining "indictments" are coming and when they are released they will all be told about.

I remember Fitzgerald saying (I think or someone did) in his news conference on the Libby indicitment that some times they issue "secret" indictments. That there is no law requiring the prosecutor to annouce indictments. In Libby's case it they were presetning this indictment to the public the day of. He could choose to offer one, two, several or all possible indicitments at any time.

I believe Leopold. There probably was an INdictment and there probably are more coming. The presenting of the indictment eith private of public in itself is part of the investigation. If Fitz choose to present Rove with an indictment in private, out of the public eye, he probably did so because his actions would influence further indictments for other crimes.


That is my take.

FWIW...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
katty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-17-06 02:20 PM
Response to Original message
1.  sealed indictments
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldLeftieLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-17-06 02:21 PM
Response to Original message
2. Indictments are a matter of public record,
and if you don't have any trouble living in a country with a judicial system that would allow the kind of nonsense you just posted - secret indictments and such (can you say "bill of attainder"?) - then you really have surrendered everything to these bastards in the White House.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-17-06 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Why do you have to rain on everyone's parade?
You have a problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-17-06 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #3
14. She's wrong. See my post below.
And, she has a problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-17-06 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #3
26. Because it's not a parade
That's your problem. You think this is a parade, a feel-good extravaganza. It is not. It is a question of truth and accuracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-17-06 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #26
30. No I don't think this is a parade.
I'm not the one placing bets on the world wide web.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-17-06 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. But you want so bad for it to be YOUR parade
As for the bets, you're just sad that I'm right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-17-06 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. You don't know anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-17-06 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #32
35. Eh, I know a thing or two
But my knowledge, you're right, is very limited.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftHander Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-17-06 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. might of confused it with a sealed subpeona....
I said I recall, some dicsussion about indictments not being made public....either here or elsewhere...I am lookigng
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftHander Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-17-06 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. David Corn wrote about sealed indictments
SNIP

Two words we should think about: sealed indictments." That was said to me by a trustworthy Washington reporter who has been covering the Plame/CIA leak case. He wasn't making a prediction; he was raising a possibility. It could be that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald might choose to file sealed indictments before the grand jury expires at the end of next week. That would mean that the names of the indicted would be unknown to the public--unless the information leaked.

Why would Fitzgerald do this? Perhaps he has not finished investigating. It could be that recent developments--Judy Miller's testimony, Karl Rove's return to the grand jury, the Daily News story that indicates Rove and George W. Bush discussed the leak (and Rove's involvement in the matter) two years ago--have provided him additional leads to chase down. (The Daily News story--see the items below--does raise important questions.) In such a case, Fitzgerald might want to bank several indictments, impanel a new grand jury, and keep digging. This is--needless to say--speculation. But anyone waiting anxiously for indictments should keep this scenario in mind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldLeftieLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-17-06 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. If Fitzgerald's "not finished investigating,"
there is no indictment coming from anywhere, believe me.

That would be so out of character - not to mention stupid and sloppy - for a man of his professionalism and expertise.

Why is it so hard for people to grasp the simple fact that there is no indictment issued and there very well may not be?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftHander Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-17-06 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. Wow you really have your mind made up.....
And you seem to not even know anything about sealed indictments...

It took me five minutes on Google to find out about sealed indictments.

To me because of the deviious nature of Karl ROve his actions of covering up crimes are as important as his participation in the crime itelf. Fitzgerald made this VERY clear in his Libby press conference.

Lying and misleading investigators in a federal investigation concerning National Security is a VERY serious crime. Fitzgerald said that in Libby's indictment press conference.

It doesn;t matter to him for WHAT that indeicment is for...if a crime was commited it deserves a indictment and if it is for obstruction of lying to investigators then that is the crime.

Go and read Fitzgerald's transcript...he is so straight of shooter he could be in the Olympics.

No I think there was a sealed indictment and they delivered it to Rove...When the other indictments are scheduled to be presented to the grand jury it will all be revealed at the time of Rove's Frog march....


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldLeftieLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-17-06 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. You "think"
Bet you read chicken bones to find out how the Nationals will do this season, too.

Yeah, I have my mind made up, and, yeah, I know about some parts of the law. Thirty years in DC gets you some understanding.

Now, can you also divine from tea leaves, or is that just silly?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftHander Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-17-06 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. maybe you should spend more time in the law books....
Edited on Wed May-17-06 03:10 PM by LeftHander
rather than knocking down every post in support of Leopold on this board.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldLeftieLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-17-06 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. I asked
Were you talking about Leopold?

You mentioned liars.

Every post?

Naw, just the ones that entertain me.

So, who's the liar you mentioned?

NOT Leopold?

Loeb?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-17-06 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #11
20. I think your tone to Old Lefty Laywer is completely uncalled for.
Her opinion differs from yours and she has more about experience Law and DC politics than you will ever know. I too hope that she is wrong and that there is an enditement but her opinion should be treatted with respect as it is based on experience and knowledge. And before you slam me, NO i DON'T believe everyone's opinion should be given equal weight. Some people's opinion's are worth more and Old Lefty Lawyer is one whose opinion is worth more!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-17-06 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #20
25. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
OldLeftieLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-17-06 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #20
29. Don't matter, baby
It's only a message board, and you cannot imagine how many people land in my IgnoreLand at the very first sign of untoward behavior.

People don't take well to being told that they're making errors, but, hey, that's their choice. I bet they're getting really nasty, huh?

And, you know what? It doesn't make them right, or smart, and, worst of all, it doesn't make them feel any better.

I see none of it, not to worry.

But, aren't you just swell? OldLeftie thinks you'd make a great OldLeftieLawyer yourself. Then you can be OldLeftie's Lawyer.

How 'bout it?

Ignore. It's a beautiful thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-17-06 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #20
34. No one deserves respect
who doesn't give it. I don't care how 'smart' they claim to be.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-17-06 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #34
37. I think people can agree to disagree with civility. OLL can but when she
baited it is a differnt story. One cannot call ones credentials into question, especially with a longtime career, and then expect civility in return. Okay you can "expect' anything you want but the liklihood of getting it isn't great. And I think that would apply to anyone not just OLL.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-17-06 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #8
33. He wasn't finished investigating
when he indicted Scooter Libby. Has a matter of fact, last time I checked he was still investigating. Just because there's an ongoing investigation doesn't mean he won't issue indictments along the way when he has enough evidence to indict any particular individual.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AnarchoFreeThinker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-17-06 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. OldLeftieLawyer, serious question from other thread...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldLeftieLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-17-06 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. Who knows?
No one knows anything about any of it. You need facts, testimony, you know, the stuff of which our judicial system is made, so that you can draw conclusions.

Doing this stuff here is just jerking off without the resultant pleasure, IMHO.

Again, we're all being distracted, and doesn't the Fuckface White House love that? Rove would be so proud of all these theories.

Rove owns these guys, and he's probably mightily amused by it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-17-06 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #2
12. Wrong. Sealed Indictments allowed by Fed Rule of Crim Proced
Edited on Wed May-17-06 03:54 PM by leveymg
Federal Law (See, III., Rule 6, Sec.(e)(4), below):

(4) Sealed Indictment.

The magistrate judge to whom an indictment is returned may direct that the indictment be kept secret until the defendant is in custody or has been released pending trial. The clerk must then seal the indictment, and no person may disclose the indictment's existence except as necessary to issue or execute a warrant or summons.



Federal Rules of Criminal Proceduremain page search | criminal procedure overview
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/Rule6.htm

III. GRAND JURY, INDICTMENT, INFORMATION > Rule 6. Prev | Next
Rule 6. The Grand Jury

(a) Summoning a Grand Jury.

(1) In General.

When the public interest so requires, the court must order that one or more grand juries be summoned. A grand jury must have 16 to 23 members, and the court must order that enough legally qualified persons be summoned to meet this requirement.

(2) Alternate Jurors.

When a grand jury is selected, the court may also select alternate jurors. Alternate jurors must have the same qualifications and be selected in the same manner as any other juror. Alternate jurors replace jurors in the same sequence in which the alternates were selected. An alternate juror who replaces a juror is subject to the same challenges, takes the same oath, and has the same authority as the other jurors.

(b) Objection to the Grand Jury or to a Grand Juror.

(1) Challenges.

Either the government or a defendant may challenge the grand jury on the ground that it was not lawfully drawn, summoned, or selected, and may challenge an individual juror on the ground that the juror is not legally qualified.

(2) Motion to Dismiss an Indictment.

A party may move to dismiss the indictment based on an objection to the grand jury or on an individual juror's lack of legal qualification, unless the court has previously ruled on the same objection under Rule 6(b)(1). The motion to dismiss is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1867(e). The court must not dismiss the indictment on the ground that a grand juror was not legally qualified if the record shows that at least 12 qualified jurors concurred in the indictment.

(c) Foreperson and Deputy Foreperson.

The court will appoint one juror as the foreperson and another as the deputy foreperson. In the foreperson's absence, the deputy foreperson will act as the foreperson. The foreperson may administer oaths and affirmations and will sign all indictments. The foreperson -- or another juror designated by the foreperson -- will record the number of jurors concurring in every indictment and will file the record with the clerk, but the record may not be made public unless the court so orders.

(d) Who May Be Present.

(1) While the Grand Jury Is in Session.

The following persons may be present while the grand jury is in session: attorneys for the government, the witness being questioned, interpreters when needed, and a court reporter or an operator of a recording device.

(2) During Deliberations and Voting.

No person other than the jurors, and any interpreter needed to assist a hearing-impaired or speech-impaired juror, may be present while the grand jury is deliberating or voting.

(e) Recording and Disclosing the Proceedings.

(1) Recording the Proceedings.

Except while the grand jury is deliberating or voting, all proceedings must be recorded by a court reporter or by a suitable recording device. But the validity of a prosecution is not affected by the unintentional failure to make a recording. Unless the court orders otherwise, an attorney for the government will retain control of the recording, the reporter's notes, and any transcript prepared from those notes.

(2) Secrecy.

(A) No obligation of secrecy may be imposed on any person except in accordance with Rule 6(e)(2)(B).

(B) Unless these rules provide otherwise, the following persons must not disclose a matter occurring before the grand jury:

(i) a grand juror;

(ii) an interpreter;

(iii) a court reporter;

(iv) an operator of a recording device;

(v) a person who transcribes recorded testimony;

(vi) an attorney for the government; or

(vii) a person to whom disclosure is made under Rule 6(e)(3)(A)(ii) or (iii).

(3) Exceptions.

(A) Disclosure of a grand-jury matter -- other than the grand jury's deliberations or any grand juror's vote -- may be made to:

(i) an attorney for the government for use in performing that attorney's duty;

(ii) any government personnel -- including those of a state or state subdivision or of an Indian tribe -- that an attorney for the government considers necessary to assist in performing that attorney's duty to enforce federal criminal law; or

(iii) a person authorized by 18 U.S.C. § 3322.

(B) A person to whom information is disclosed under Rule 6(e)(3)(A)(ii) may use that information only to assist an attorney for the government in performing that attorney's duty to enforce federal criminal law. An attorney for the government must promptly provide the court that impaneled the grand jury with the names of all persons to whom a disclosure has been made, and must certify that the attorney has advised those persons of their obligation of secrecy under this rule.

(C) An attorney for the government may disclose any grand-jury matter to another federal grand jury.

(D) An attorney for the government may disclose any grand-jury matter involving foreign intelligence, counterintelligence (as defined in 50 U.S.C. § 401a), or foreign intelligence information (as defined in Rule 6(e)(3)(D)(iii)) to any federal law enforcement, intelligence, protective, immigration, national defense, or national security official to assist the official receiving the information in the performance of that official's duties.

(i) Any federal official who receives information under Rule 6(e)(3)(D) may use the information only as necessary in the conduct of that person's official duties subject to any limitations on the unauthorized disclosure of such information.

(ii) Within a reasonable time after disclosure is made under Rule 6(e)(3)(D), an attorney for the government must file, under seal, a notice with the court in the district where the grand jury convened stating that such information was disclosed and the departments, agencies, or entities to which the disclosure was made.

(iii) As used in Rule 6(e)(3)(D), the term ÍÍforeign intelligence information'' means:

(a) information, whether or not it concerns a United States person, that relates to the ability of the United States to protect against --

actual or potential attack or other grave hostile acts of a foreign power or its agent;
sabotage or international terrorism by a foreign power or its agent; or
clandestine intelligence activities by an intelligence service or network of a foreign power or by its agent; or
(b) information, whether or not it concerns a United States person, with respect to a foreign power or foreign territory that relates to --

the national defense or the security of the United States; or
the conduct of the foreign affairs of the United States.
(E) The court may authorize disclosure -- at a time, in a manner, and subject to any other conditions that it directs -- of a grand-jury matter:

(i) preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding;

(ii) at the request of a defendant who shows that a ground may exist to dismiss the indictment because of a matter that occurred before the grand jury;

(iii) at the request of the government if it shows that the matter may disclose a violation of state or Indian tribal criminal law, as long as the disclosure is to an appropriate state, state-subdivision, or Indian tribal official for the purpose of enforcing that law; or

(iv) at the request of the government if it shows that the matter may disclose a violation of military criminal law under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, as long as the disclosure is to an appropriate military official for the purpose of enforcing that law.

(F) A petition to disclose a grand-jury matter under Rule 6(e)(3)(E)(i) must be filed in the district where the grand jury convened. Unless the hearing is ex parte -- as it may be when the government is the petitioner -- the petitioner must serve the petition on, and the court must afford a reasonable opportunity to appear and be heard to:

(i) an attorney for the government;

(ii) the parties to the judicial proceeding; and

(iii) any other person whom the court may designate.

(G) If the petition to disclose arises out of a judicial proceeding in another district, the petitioned court must transfer the petition to the other court unless the petitioned court can reasonably determine whether disclosure is proper. If the petitioned court decides to transfer, it must send to the transferee court the material sought to be disclosed, if feasible, and a written evaluation of the need for continued grand-jury secrecy. The transferee court must afford those persons identified in Rule 6(e)(3)(F) a reasonable opportunity to appear and be heard.

(4) Sealed Indictment.

The magistrate judge to whom an indictment is returned may direct that the indictment be kept secret until the defendant is in custody or has been released pending trial. The clerk must then seal the indictment, and no person may disclose the indictment's existence except as necessary to issue or execute a warrant or summons.


(5) Closed Hearing.

Subject to any right to an open hearing in a contempt proceeding, the court must close any hearing to the extent necessary to prevent disclosure of a matter occurring before a grand jury.

(6) Sealed Records.

Records, orders, and subpoenas relating to grand-jury proceedings must be kept under seal to the extent and as long as necessary to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of a matter occurring before a grand jury.

(7) Contempt.

A knowing violation of Rule 6 may be punished as a contempt of court.

(f) Indictment and Return.

A grand jury may indict only if at least 12 jurors concur. The grand jury -- or its foreperson or deputy foreperson -- must return the indictment to a magistrate judge in open court. If a complaint or information is pending against the defendant and 12 jurors do not concur in the indictment, the foreperson must promptly and in writing report the lack of concurrence to the magistrate judge.

(g) Discharging the Grand Jury.

A grand jury must serve until the court discharges it, but it may serve more than 18 months only if the court, having determined that an extension is in the public interest, extends the grand jury's service. An extension may be granted for no more than 6 months, except as otherwise provided by statute.







NY State Law:

http://www.mcacp.org/issue5.html
Muldoon's Criminal Law |
Sealed Indictment
Other Articles


Issues In NY Criminal Law--Vol. 1, #5©
Issue: Sealed Indictment

THE usual route of a felony charge is to start in local criminal court as a felony complaint. Upon either a preliminary hearing or referring the case to the grand jury, the charge is evaluated and perhaps voted as a felony indictment.

While it's common for the felony case to begin locally, there is no requirement for this in the CPL. Less frequently, a charge starts out in grand jury. This is the "sealed indictment" (the term is not found in the CPL). A sealed indictment might be used where the prosecutor, for whatever reason, does not wish to alert the prospective defendant to the fact that criminal charges are being investigated. See Muldoon and Feuerstein, Handling a Criminal Case in New York, sec. 3:3 (West Group 1999-2000)

In the usual situation, where a felony case was first in local court, a defendant has the statutory right to testify before the grand jury. To exercise this right, where the case is no longer in local court, the defense must notify the prosecutor. If the case is still pending locally, it is the prosecutor who must advise the defendant.

What notice is the prosecutor required to provide where the case was never filed in local court? None. People v Woodward, 197 AD2d 905, 602 NYS2d 262 (4th Dept 1993).


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldLeftieLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-17-06 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #12
17. That's right. So what?
What does your cut and copy have to do with anything that's not going on in the Fitzgerald investigation?

This is why people go to law school - so that they don't think cutting and pasting is understanding how the law works.

Now, just because I'm amused, why would Rove still be wandering around and Fitzgerald still working if there were a "sealed indictment" extant? And what would be the reasons for that sealing?

Enlighten me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-17-06 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #17
21. Just cut the crap and apologize to the others for misinforming them.
It's not a small mistake, OLL. If you've forgotten this since law school, maybe you should look it up, as did I. Amazingly easy to do these days.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldLeftieLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-17-06 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #21
27. Darling
You're all het up, and you're not really understanding how these things work.

That's all right.

Calming breaths. Calming breaths.

All that cutting and copying can overtax one.

But, thanks for the laugh.

Maybe a nice brown paper bag would help? Breath in, slowly, mindfully.

I'm warning you - cutting and copying can be deadly, especially in the hands of the vastly uninformed.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackORoses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-17-06 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #17
23. unenlightenable
You continue to amaze me.

You've made up your mind and now damned if your not going to make up all of ours as well.

Is that image you have as your icon actually you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stop the bleeding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-17-06 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #12
18. your research never stops
thanks Mark
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-17-06 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-17-06 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #12
28. Wow! Excellent detailed post! Thank you very much! :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jazzjunkysue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-17-06 07:33 PM
Response to Reply #12
36. Thanks for doing the R&D. Much appreciated. It's possible. Sealed.
Wouldn't that make sense given that Rove's testimony could, might, should bring down the presidency, and maybe even both houses?

This is not pinocle we're talking about, here. It's treason.

So, there are any number of reasons to send this in sealed and act on it when appropriate.

This is no hit-and-run, or bank robbery.

And others are right to point out the influence and negotiating that Rover is capable of.

Also, remember that most suits are thrown out on technicalities. If there are any presidential loopholes Rove can slip through, Fitz will be sure to avoid them, even if it means a delay.

I still say the GOP is too silent to be believed on this. They're not unleashing the swiftboats for good reason: It will backfire on them.

Thanks, TO. Keep up the good work. I want to know what you know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-17-06 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #2
15. There are such things as sealed indictments
Edited on Wed May-17-06 03:10 PM by dogday
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47045




Targets of the investigation have already been notified, though in sealed indictments the information would be withheld from the public.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-17-06 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #2
24. Right on cue
n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EST Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-17-06 02:38 PM
Response to Original message
5. I can imagine the surreptitious pressure, or perhaps
insidious pressure, from the WH is enormous. Please, please don't drain the tub or sink any of little georgie's boats.

Fitzgerald's record for thorough-going investigation and closing all the loopholes on the rich and powerful is legion and well deserved-witness his conviction of a powerful, popular ex-governor, here in Illinois.
Designing an escape-proof net for someone like Kkkarl Rove must be extraordinarily complex and time consuming.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shakespeare Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-17-06 02:47 PM
Response to Original message
9. That's where I think Leopold is inaccurate. Not wrong, but inaccurate.
Yes, I think he's on the verge of being indicted. For what--I don't know, but given what we know to have happened to Valerie Plame, and given what Libby was charged with, some educated guesses can be made that it'll be in somewhere in the ballpark with perjury.

I think Leopold is off when he says Rove's already been indicted--sealed indictments aren't, to my knowledge (and I do have some knowledge on how this works), handled the way Leopold has posited. What I think Rove and Luskin may have been given by Fitzgerald is the much-spoken-of target letter. Luskin has denied receiving one in the past, but I don't believe anyone has denied (or even been asked) if a target letter was delivered within the past few days.

Do I wish Leopold had been a little sharper on his choice of words? Absolutely. But I'm not ready to pile on and call him a sucker or a liar; I want to see what happens with the grand jury this week, which should pretty much follow based on the spirit of what was in Leopold's stories Friday and Saturday.

Indictment, no--target letter....highly likely.
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 Wed Apr 24th 2024, 06:32 PM
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