Malloy says Rove likely HAS been indicted.

[benburch]

In a totally sealed case. Sealed v Sealed that Fitzgerald's boss issued.

Does anybody have more on this?

[yodermon]

1. wha?

Is he just referring to the TO saga, or is it new info?
either way :popcorn:

[Cetacea]

6. He said IF true...

If is the operative word here.

[babylonsister]

2. OMG! Trouthout couldn't be right, could they? Nah.

:eyes: :bounce:

[hlthe2b]

3. It has been hypothesized.... What was Malloy's source?

or rationale for saying this?

[benburch]

5. That there was an indctment in "Sealed v Sealed"...

...issued by the judge who is Fitzgerald's boss.

[Leopolds Ghost]

36. I thought... The judge is not Fitzgerald's boss, Gonzales is.

Fitz may have been granted absolute discretion under the terms of the job description Comey gave him, but Gonzales or his Deputy can still fire him. It would not be a wise thing to do, but if you are talking about who Fitz works for, he works for the Justice dept.

He is only an "officer of the court" in the same since that anyone else involved in the proceedings is an "officer of the court." The judge convenes the court. He does not hire and fire prosecutors. Someone with more knowledge can correct me if I am wrong.

[Kostafarian]

37. Not even close

Sealed v. Sealed is a figment of Madsen's imagination designed to piggy back the leopold controversy hoping to turn clicks into cash.

If you can link to a single credible report of Sealed v. Sealed then we can talk.

Gonzales isn't even Fitz's boss as he had to recuse himself.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KittyWampus]

46. "Nutcase"? Suggesting Leopold, Pitt & Ash are "nutcases" is unwarranted

and highly unflammatory and says rather a lot about YOU.

[Catrina]

72. Sealed V Sealed is NOT a figment of Madsen's imagination. Here's a

link that explains why an indictment might filed that in court ~

Discovering Secret Dockets

......

According to a survey by The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press for this guide, federal courts and many state courts allow for "super-secret" cases, which never appear on the public docket or are hidden using pseudonyms, such as "Sealed v. Sealed" or "John Doe v. Jane Doe." Courts that maintain these secret dockets will neither confirm nor deny the existence of such cases. As a result, these cases proceed through the court system undetected.

Further down however, it says that in a recent terrorism case, kept secret by the DOJ, two reporters, Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball were able to find out about the case because of sources they used:

Faris' case may have remained a secret were it not for two Newsweek reporters, Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball, who discovered through intelligence documents that Faris was suspected of working for key al Qaida operative Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

This has been challenged in court and apparently sometimes only documents, and not an entire case, may be listed as 'Sealed V Sealed'. Which means that unless the Prosecutor requests that the case not appear on the public docket under that title, or the judge makes such a decision, it can be found ~ also, not all states allow this, but most do.

However, while the law disfavors secret dockets, they are still used by federal and state courts to hide sealed cases. When an entire case is sealed, rather than individual documents, federal courts either remove the case from the public docket or replace the parties' names with anonymous pseudonyms such as "Sealed v. Sealed."


And another interesting discovery from this report, Mark Corallo, Rove's spokesperson, either does or did work for the DOJ. And, he doesn't like reporters finding out about 'Secret' indictments for 'national security' reasons. So, presumably he would not consider it a lie if asked about such an indictment. He would, after all, be protecting the country! :sarcasm:

The Justice Department will not divulge how many other individuals are being held in secret on terrorism charges. "We have been very consistent in not discussing exact numbers," Corallo said. "Even though it seems like innocuous information, it is not."

Corallo claimed that providing numbers of individuals arrested on terrorism charges would "give a road map to the terrorists." Terrorist organizations could determine how many terrorists the Justice Department has captured and monitor the government's progress, he explained.

http://www.rcfp.org/secretjustice/secretdockets/pg1.html


So, Mark Corallo might think that a sealed Rove indictment should not be made known to reporters for 'national security' reasons, and MIGHT lie about it, if asked! Interesting! Seems it might not be too far-fetched to take Mark Corallo's statements to reporters with a grain of salt!! The more we learn, the more possibility there is that TO may have been right.

[JuniperLea]

93. Figment?

Seems you should be the one to prove your statement.

[Jersey Devil]

47. The renowned JiggyFlunknut Theory arises yet again!!

"sealed vs. sealed", ROFL

[KittyWampus]

45. Malloys "Source" Is Wayne Madsen Filtered Through Some Fool On DKos

it's silly nonsense and Malloy should have done more research before suggesting this.

[stop the bleeding]

4. what makes him believe this - pure conjecture or something more? n/t

[Scoody Boo]

9. Yeah, lets all line up and get kicked in the head again.

Wait, don't start without me. I need to get my Ruby Red Shoes to click them together. I consulted my Magic 8 Ball and after saying "No" 16 times, it finally said "yes" when asked about a Rove indictment.

There is an equal chance that it was Bigfoot being already indicted as there is of Rove having a sealed indictment on him. Oh wait, Bigfoot is a fairy tale. Just like Jason Leopold Rove Indictment.

[benburch]

7. If you want to hear what he actually said rather than my recollection...

...the archive will post on http://www.whiterosesociety.org in about two hours.

[Maddy McCall]

8. This is, what, the third or fourth thread on this topic.

You can search today's threads. It's already been posted and pretty much debunked by people with legal knowledge, as it was in the dKos thread that spurred the convo.

[benburch]

10. Pardon me for not reading ALL of DU!

And for posting what a talk show host is saying quickly enough for people to tune in and hear part of it...

:P

[Maddy McCall]

12. Didn't mean to jump your case about it...

and was working on a book review while typing. :D

[benburch]

13. No prob...

...with Bob!

http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com.nyud.net:8090/images1/xday_time_sm.jpg

[TahitiNut]

14. Well, if everyone read instead of posted ...

... it'd be really, really easy. :silly:

[benburch]

19. Because then 100% of all messages would be from...

GROVELBOT!

[cliss]

29. So what's the big fuss about?

This thread was posted in the General Discussion. The thread clearly states, "Malloy says..."

What more do you need? I for one appreciate ALL threads that I jump on. The DU is not a paid news service. We all take turns posting the news so -

Chill out.

[TahitiNut]

48. Yep.

(sigh) I don't know what it is - reading comprehension or humor impairment - but I find myself shaking my head too often.
Oh well. :shrug:

[upi402]

134. you can have my clothes, I'll lend ya some bolts anytime

but... seriously now, my motorcycles???

[Just Me]

20. I'm not a speed reader. It would be nice if others would just,...

,...take a few moments to nutshell what's happening 'cause, I have a life: work, single momma-hood, a home to keep,....unable to do DU all the time.

Why is this happpening? Why are normally connected and patient and persistent people being so goddamned nasty on here?

I HATE THIS.

[Laurab]

73. Me TOO

I HATE this, too - the nastiness, attack posts, jumping in two seconds after someone has posted to attack....it's ugly and I don't understand it.

I'm happy for ANY information, I'm thankful for the DU'ers who keep on trying, but it's enough to dissuade a lot of people from posting. I cannot wait until whatever it is goes away.

[Pacifist Patriot]

49. I got the same when I posted something the other day.

It's the nature of this large beast and I, like you, do not have time to read all of DU to see how many times something has been posted. I look at the Latest Page, the Greatest Page, look at the first two pages of the forum to which I'm about to post and do a keyword search in that forum IF the search function doesn't hang up on me. And I still apparently posted a multi-dup even after all that.

Honestly, duplicate topics don't bother me until I see six of them on the Greatest page and four are from the same forum. Only then does it get to the realm of obvious in these tired pressed-for-time eyes. ;)

[Just Me]

15. Oh, C'MON!!! Chill!!! Not everyone's on DU 24/7 like you.

You could be so generous as to link the threads and offer the facts otherwise rather than be presumptuous.

Doncha' think? :shrug:

[Just Me]

11. Well, I wish it were true 'cause Karl would squeal like a baby,...

,...anything to save his own ass,...the BFEE knows it. Of course, the BFEE's tentacles are pretty freakin' huge and they'd "guarantee" pretty much anything that manure-filled carcass requested.

Who knows? :shrug:

Nevertheless, to see that freakin' weenie roast would be,...delicious. Just delicious.

[Scoody Boo]

17. He won't turn on anyone on a perjury indictment...

If the Bush Admistration could choose, they would choose a perjury indictment. Especially since there is no one indicted for outting Valerie Plame. Libby, Rove and the rest of the cabal feel pretty assured that they can beat a perjury indictment if no one goes down for outting Plame.

[benburch]

21. I can't fault that logic.

You're right.

[thereismore]

27. I like your avatar. It took me a long time, but now I've

found out who she is. One brave, cool chick.

[benburch]

32. I hope I have even a fraction of her bravery.

I admire her legacy greatly.

[DemReadingDU]

54. I have wondered a long time too, but haven't

figured her out. Who is she? Thanks!

[thereismore]

56. Her name is Sophie Scholl. Google time! nt

[DemReadingDU]

68. Thank you! An inspiration for all of us

Sophie was recorded as saying "Somebody, after all, had to make a start. What we wrote and said is also believed by many others. They just don't dare express themselves as we did."

http://www.answers.com/topic/sophie-scholl

[BrklynLiberal]

81. Goosebump time. What an incredilbly brave woman.

[Just Me]

130. 21 years old --- immediate execution for expressing a faux freedom,...

,...to dissent, to oppose,...tyranny.

An existential, earthly angel whom few recognize,...until history grows, as it will in spite of oppressors: always has and always will. Her life will be known as far more precious than those who stole it. Same with all those who STEAL life, likewise.

[Sydnie]

23. How is that?

They lied to the FBI and to the GJ. Doesn't matter one bit if they never charge anyone with the underlying crime. The charges are very different. Fitz is a winning prosecutor. He wouldn't indict if he didn't think he had a good case.

What makes you think they could dodge these charges?

[Scoody Boo]

26. Because of the fact that there is no underlying crime.

There will be no deals made or any rolling over. In court, Libby's lawyers are going to do nothing but harp on the fact that there was no crime commited. There wasn't if no one is indicted for Plame. They will baffle them with bullshit and the jury will wonder what the big deal was.

That is why I say that the perjury indictments will not scare anyone into talking. The Bush Administration is popping champagne corks and toasting themselves on a job well done if perjury indictments are all Fitz can come up with.

[Bolo Boffin]

31. Perjury is a standalone crime.

If Libby or Rove perjured themselves, then away they go. Lying is lying.

[Scoody Boo]

51. I have never said any different...

It is just my view that before a jury, they are going to have to say what Libby and Karl Rove are lying about. "They were lying about the outting of a CIA Agent." "Who outted the CIA Agent?" "Uh...nobody." "And they lied about this?" "Yes." "But it never happened?" "uh..no."

See what I mean? I am nobody. A layman when it comes to the law. By training I am a geologist, I deal with rocks and minerals and dirt. They are there, I can feel them, look at them under a microscope, crush them and burn them in my lab. What is there is there in my field.

With perjury indictments in this case, I have trouble seeing where the "there" is. As a layman, to me the "there" is a Plame indictment.

A jury will have people like me. I know that Fitzgerald will try to make sense of it to the jury, but do you not think that the attorneys for Rove and Libby will try to muddy the waters?

[Catrina]

60. You couldn't be more wrong ~ a crime was committed. If the crime

crime was grand theft instead the outing of an agent and her organization and a witness refused to tell the prosecutor what he knew about the crime, would that mean no money had been stolen?

I think the jury will fully understand the magnitude of the crime.

The crime is there. A damage assessment was done by the CIA immediately after Valerie Plame's Brewster Jennings ID were revealed. It was after that assessment that the CIA demanded an investigation. Plame and Brewster Jennings were tracking WMD ~ their operation was ruined and that placed this country in more danger of terrorists getting their hands on them. I think a jury will get that.

Fitzgerald just won another case in Illinois. Over fifty indictments against several members of Republican Gov. Ryan's administration. It took eight years and many people thought what you are saying. But he won the case on all charges, every single one. I would not want to be Libby or Rove or anyone else who is charged by this prosecutor.

Oh, and the jury will not be 'people like' you. The jury will be made up of people who understand the facts of the case.

[elehhhhna]

66. I thought we laid that Freep argument to rest LONG ago.

[Scoody Boo]

83. I have not been here that long.

I will admit, this has been an education.

[DoYouEverWonder]

139. Some freeps

Never give up. Especially ones with an agenda.

[hang a left]

35. Puleeze.....

Libby is looking at 15 years. And he will not get out of it. Fitz has him by the short hairs. You know not of what you speak.

[Garbo 2004]

89. Actually max sentence for Libby if found guilty on all charges: 30 years.

"If convicted, the crimes charged in the indictment carry the following maximum penalties on each count: obstruction of justice -- 10 years in prison, and making false statements and perjury --5 years in prison, and each count carries a maximum fine of $250,000, making the maximum penalty for conviction on all counts 30 years in prison and a $1.25 million fine. Note, however, that the Court would determine the appropriate sentence to be imposed." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801056.html

[hang a left]

111. Thank you.

I read so much I get my facts crossed up sometimes.

[Seabiscuit]

43. If Clinton had been prosecuted and tried for perjury as a result

of lying in his deposition in the Paula Jones case about a "sexual relationship" with Monica Lewinsky, would you say he'd be popping champagne corks because there was "no underlying crime"? I don't think so.

Perjury is a crime in itself. There need be no underlying crime to obtain a serious conviction.

Perhaps you're confusing perjury with conspiracy. There must be an underlying crime where conspiracy is concerned. In Libby's case it's the crime of obstruction of justice. Thus he was also charged with conspiracy to obstruct justice in addition to perjury.

Therefore you're way off base when you say: "Libby's lawyers are going to do nothing but harp on the fact that there was no crime commited. There wasn't if no one is indicted for Plame. They will baffle them with bullshit and the jury will wonder what the big deal was." Libby's lawyers won't waste one nanosecond of their time indulging that misconceived fantasy.

[Usrename]

52. I think the Martha Stewart case is a better analogy.

Clinton's comments about Monica were ruled immaterial by the trial judge. Hardly perjury.

[Seabiscuit]

97. True. But I was just attempting to illustrate with a hypo.

The Clinton thingy is just so well known. Many people don't even know what Martha Stewart was charged with.

[Usrename]

104. It wasn't perjury.

She just lied to investigators and was never under oath. She did jail time.

[Catrina]

62. You're right and Libby's lawyers have already tried that in court and

have been reminded over and over again that this trial is not about Plame, the War or anything else, it's about Libby lying.

I can now why some people are so flippant about the Rove indictment. They know nothing at all about this case, it seems except the talking points that 'Plame was not undercover' therefore 'there was no crime'. Rove's talking points.

[Fovea]

55. Consider Watergate

it wasn't the break-in that forced Nixon to resign, it was the cover up.

Further, I imagine that Fitz is trying to nail the Veep with the outing charge. Hell, there is even a minute possibility that the Veep even told the decideror.

I hate Rove with a white hot passion, but I would let him go free to force Dead-eye and Commander Codpiece out of office. He is a toxic bauble, and all a candidate needs to be trounced is the suspicion that KKKarl was a KKKonsultant.

[coalition_unwilling]

74. "It wasn't the break-in ... it was the cover up" . . .

To which I would add a qualified yes, except that begs the question of why the need for the Watergate cover up. I would argue that Nixon and his henchpeople engaged in the "cover up" because they were afraid that earlier revelations about the Plumber's activities in breaking into Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office (Dr Fielding) would come out. In a broader sense, Vietnam (and Ellsberg's leak of the Pentagon papers) forced Nixon to resign.

[Fovea]

96. Your point is valid

as is my analogy, because a scylla of high crimes and misdemeanors is swirlling in the wake behind this titanic administration.

[coalition_unwilling]

109. Indeed, one could argue that the "outing" of Valerie Plame

and subsequent alleged perjury and obstruction of justice by various parties, themselves grievous crimes, were the result of *'s desperate attempt to keep Americans in the dark as to the real reasons we invaded Iraq. Just as Vietnam ultimately did in Nixon, I'm hoping that Iraq (one way or another) will ultimately do in *.

[Catrina]

58. I think you need to start following the pre-trial motions in the Libby

case ~ it's clear from the proceedings that Libby's lawyers don't agree with you. Their client is facing serious jail time, and perjury and obstruction are separate crimes from the 'underlying crime'. In fact it's even more serious in this case because of the seriousness of the underlying crime. Those who lie to prevent the government from solving this crime, as the prosecutor will show the jury, are committing serious crimes themselves.

I don't think the prosecutor views the crime of outing an undercover agent as an 'underlying' crime. It is a crime, and as one of the judges already said, 'a crime of such magnitude' that he was willing to jail reporter to get to the truth, something he himself would rather not do.

I think the jury will see that perjury in this case is even more serious than say, lying about sex, since it involves national security. But watching the pre-trial motions, most people think Libby will be convicted IF he goes to trial, which he knows, and will most likely make a deal which include some jail time.

[Just Me]

129. FALSE. There is an "underlying crime" of the worst variety.

The security of this nation was sacrificed, the constitution ignored, the laws of the land broken, inter/national contracts breached based on a goddamned lie to engage a profiteering war.

It is called "treason". T-R-E-A-S-0-N!!!

The most egregious and traitorous abuse of power has taken place.

That is the damned truth!!!

So, your assertion that there is no underlying crime is false. Stop softening up reality.

[PaganPreacher]

33. Fitzgerald can't indict anyone (not even a ham sandwich).

He is the prosecutor. He presents the Federal government's case to the Grand Jury, who vote to indict (true bill) or to not indict (no true bill). There is no defense at a Grand Jury proceeding, so the members of the Grand Jury hear what the prosecutor wants them to hear, and vote "true bill" or "no true bill" based on an unchallenged version of the prosecutor's case.

The burden of proof for an indictment is lower than for a conviction.

The people on the Grand Jury are not attorneys, and are not people who can get out of jury duty; they are ordinary schmoes like you and me. There is no connection between the validity of an indictment and the chances of a conviction.

The words "indict" and "ham sandwich" can be found close together in most legal dictionaries.



The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

[Scoody Boo]

34. Whatever comes down...

perjury alone is not going to scare anyone in the Administration into talking.

[Seabiscuit]

44. You keep saying that because you haven't read posts 35 & 43 yet.

You have misconceived the charge of perjury.

[Catrina]

63. Wrong again ~ it seems just the threat of perjury has provided the

prosecutor with several witnesses. You really need to read more about this case.

[DoYouEverWonder]

38. Except that Fitzgerald has an exceptional track record

and unlike Ken Starr takes the rule of law very seriously and does not waste time prosecuting people on frivolous charges.

[PaganPreacher]

132. Fitz' track record has nothing to do with it.

A prosecutor cannot indict anyone. Only the Grand Jury can do it. Therefor, the statement "(Fitz) wouldn't indict if he didn't think he had a good case" is false.

The Grand Jury is made up of poeple who couldn't get out of jury duty, or who have nothing better to do for three months. They would indict a ham sandwich.

The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

[Just Me]

131. Well, if not bought, bribed, pr/icked and manipulated, justice may,...

,...happen.

Did you know, people are hired (by the powerful) to help PICK perfect juries?

When "winning" is a priority over truth and justice, IMO, there is no truth or justice.

Our system requires reform but nobody wants it 'cause they're scared of truth, equality and justice. It might just bite them in the ass.

[Alamom]

41. It's not over....

:kick:

[Gregorian]

16. But there is no Sealed v Sealed on the 2006 records.

Posts on DKos indicated they had searched law records and come up empty on that. I wish I could digest everything I read, because it seemed that the very notion of Sealed v Sealed had something to do with....oh fuck. I can't post what I don't understand. Waaaa!

[Sydnie]

50. As for the sealed vs sealed, TalkLeft posted this

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.

She says there is one. Don't know how she knows that, but I would assume that she did some checking into it ... :shrug:

[onenote]

71. well, that's too much assuming for me

The claim that there is a case entitled "sealed v. sealed" needs more to back up than that.

[survivor999]

18. If it's sealed...

When is it going to be unsealed? :shrug:

[DoYouEverWonder]

39. When the judge feels like it

The only one who can seal an indictment is a judge and the only one who can unseal it a judge.

They can keep an indictment sealed for as long as they want.

[coalition_unwilling]

76. I thought I remember reading somewhere that back when the

Libby indictment was announced, Fitz had also filed at least one other incictment "under seal." At the time, I thought Cheney was being named as a co-conspirator.

Does anyone else remember that, or am I merely engaging in selective memory?

[DoYouEverWonder]

78. No

He was ready to indict Rove but didn't because Rove came forward at the last minute with new information. Rove got himself out of the spotlight for the moment but in the end it will probably turn out that all he did was to prolong the inevitable.

[corbett]

113. No, I Remember That, Too (n/t)

[TheFarseer]

22. I'm not going to buy that

as much as Rove being indicted wouldn't piss me off, that sounds like wishful thinking.

[MarchDancer]

24. Rove - Indicted or Not?

I'm kinda thinkin', the way this is playing out over the past few days, that TruthOut got beamed by the game playing Rove and Company, including Cheney. Spread a rumor, deny the truth of it all, soon find out it's not true, and we all look soooo inept! The Repubs are already using their radio guys to laugh and ask why the story wasn't vetted MORE than the three times the author says it was. I'm just wonderin' here.

Anyone agree it's a possibility or am I just paranoid and giving them all credit for more than they're capable of? Nah, except for their figure head, Bush, they're all pretty clever and quite vicious. So...yea or nay?

[Garbo 2004]

25. For background you might want to look at this thread. The famed

JiggyFlunknut post at Kos: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1253266

I offered my theory based on Madsen's reporting, but alas there were no takers. Perhaps if I changed my nick to PunkyFuzzButt and posted at Kos I'd have some real credibility.

hee. ;)

[H2O Man]

40. I would suggest

"PunkiFuzzButt." By substituting the "i" for the "y," I think your credibility would increase at a more rapid pace when spreading rumors about Condi Rice killing the deliveryman, thus quashing the Rove indictment. I've gotta come up with something similar.

[Zorra]

65. Here's mine:

"It's like this, Fitz, my good friend, - you indict and....how should I put this.....Mr. Blackbridge would like you to think long and hard about the people you love before you do anything drastic. Think about it, OK? We'll get back to you real soon."

Of course, this is completely out of the realm of possibility in a country that has an administration so well known for its shining record of transparency, honesty, and integrity. And there's simply no way that they could get away with pulling something like that anyway.

And besides, Karl Rove would never lie, no way.

[Garbo 2004]

88. 1. Grand jury indicts not Fitz. 2. The Kos "theory" claims Rove indicted.

In which case it comes under the jurisdiction of the court, not Fitz or the DOJ.

3. Libby's already been indicted and in regards to the WMD/Iraq fraud has a whole lot more dirty laundry on the Bush Administration than Rover. Libby and Cheney were instrumental in the scheme to go to war, the selective use of dubious intel and the outing of Valerie Wilson. Even Joe Wilson appeared to be of the opinion, as of the publication of his book at least, that Rover didn't know that Valerie was a NOC and was furious with Cheney/Libby when he realized the implications of her outing. People fixate on Rove, but in this investigation arguably Libby's the bigger catch. (And people seem to forget that Libby in addition to being Cheney's Chief of Staff also had another title, Assistant to the President.)

4. Fitz's previous experience includes a small matter involving those notorious nice guys, the Gambino family.

[Swamp Rat]

28. I hope so

But I will not be surprised if the NeoCon Space Nazis just simply throw out the indictment and render a few people.

[MuseRider]

30. My exact thoughts.

:hi: SwampRat!

Hope you are well and things are looking a little better.

[0007]

53. I absolutely believe that Rove has been indicted. I also have

my :tinfoilhat: on with the belief that they have muzzled Fitzgerald in the name of national security to protect the administration from the wolf pack. Rove leads to Cheney and Cheney to junior.

[Sammy Pepys]

57. Ugh.....

I've given up on this. When and if Rove is indicted publicly, and it turns out that Truthout had it right (the date of the indictment being the major factor), I will issue a public mea culpa.

But now we're just starting to look more and more ridiculous.

[ContraBass Black]

61. Indictments don't have dates on them.

The dates are when they're filed in court, which is when they become public.

[Sammy Pepys]

64. Well, truthout has been claiming...

..they'll all say May 12 when it happens.

[Catrina]

80. Indictments when they are unsealed do show the date they were filed

and the date of the indictment. A DUer posted the Libby indictment yesterday and both dates were on it.

But TO only needs the court filing date to be May 12 and they will be vindicated.

[Snivi Yllom]

84. 2 points

1. Libby's indictment was not sealed. The GJ voted to indicte him 10/28/05 and the announcemnt was made a few hours later ina rpess conference.

2. Libby's idictment only has one date, the date it was filed.

[onenote]

91. yep. Here's an example of a sealed indictment

http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/uskourani111903ind.pdf

The indictment against Kourani was returned (as per the date stamp) on Nov. 19, 2003 and sealed at that time. The indictment was unsealed in January 2004 -- roughly two months later. That date doesn't appear on the document. http://www.pressandguide.com/stories/011804/loc_20040118013.shtml

[Jazz2006]

116. Good find, onenote.

I have been trying for ages to explain that an indictment has to be filed in court shortly after the GJ votes to indict, and that until it is so filed, it does not have the force of law.

And that that is the case for all indictments, whether they are subsequently sealed by the judge or not.

And that the filing date is stamped on the document by the court clerk, etc.

I am starting to feel like a broken record, though.

:hi:

[Dunedain]

136. Once an indictment is filed.....

Is the force of law then prosecuted in due course?
Can an indictment be filed and then served on a later date?
When an indictment is filed, does it always become registered on a record that is then accessible to the public?
What purpose would a prosecutor have for filing an indictment with the government assuming a pseudonym?

[Jazz2006]

137. To answer those four questions in order....

1) Yes.

2) Yes. (in fact, it cannot be served before it is filed)

3) Yes/No since that was two questions in one. (Yes, it always becomes "registered" - using your word and assuming that you mean by that it goes into the system and does not just disappear from the face of the earth - but it can be subsequently sealed once filed and thus not be accessible to the public until it is unsealed.)

4) An indictment is never filed with the gov't assuming a pseudonym. (can't be done. but I'm guessing by the nature of the question that you might be confusing this with some of the other posts flying around here about subsequent court proceedings being dealt with using pseudonyms)

[Dunedain]

148. Thanks

You were corrct in your assumptions in the incorrect terms I may have used.

[Norquist Nemesis]

59. It's really odd that Luskin isn't chatting away with reporters anymore

Since Rove's fifth and last time before the GJ, Luskin suddenly became silent. Prior to that, we heard "sources close to the investigation" quite a bit. Now...nada.

That tends to make me suspicious and leaning toward that he has been indicted. Otherwise, Luskin would be in front of every camera and microphone he could locate keeping up a PR offensive to taint a potential jury pool.

[sendero]

85. This is exactly why..

.. I'm not buying the "Rove plot" line. If it were, 5,000 talking heads would be tut-tuting in unison, using the same phrases, to ridicule the report.

They are not, and there is a reason.

[Freddie Stubbs]

67. To be unsealed on June 7?

:shrug:

[Snivi Yllom]

69. if the indictment was sealed, Rove would not know he was indicted

I read that typically you seal indictments when you are trying to prevent a suspect from fleeing.

If the indictement was sealed, Rove and his lawyers would not now. Also, if Rove was told he was notified, he would be free to do pre-emptive damage control and claim he was innocent.

[Catrina]

75. Not necessarily. The prosecutor can get permission to tell the target

of an indictment that the GJ has indicted him. He can do that if he wants to give the person a chance to make a deal in order to get him/her to cooperate with the investigation ~ I think there is a link to that information, posted by Dogday, in one of the threads on this.

[Snivi Yllom]

77. but then the indictement is no longer sealed

Fitz has leaked his own GJ's indictement to Rive and his attorneys.

Rove would be free to discuss the indictment as would anyone else.


This makes no sense.

[Catrina]

79. True, but why would Rove do that? The benefit of telling the target

about a sealed indictment is to use it as an incentive to maybe, make it go away, if the prosecutor gets what he wants. This way, there is no record that the he, Rove, was ever charged with a crime. That's a big incentive for someone to talk. The prosecutor can also tell him that he may add more charges depending on what other 'witnesses' have to say and Rove remains a target rather than a cooperating witness ~ it's a big incentive to become part of the 'team' of cooperating witnesses rather than a target.

However, I doubt Fitzgerald is willing to let Rove off completely, as he was not willing to do with Libby. He probably wants some charges to remain, and that may be the reason for the delays ~ Rove keeps trying, and Fitz keeps insisting on some charges. That's must my opinion, based on what happened with Libby ~

So, I doubt anyone would leak the information that they are under indictment while trying to negotiate to get out of it. Especially Rove ~

[Snivi Yllom]

82. you miss the point, if you tell the target he's indicted, it's not sealed

it's public

[Catrina]

86. No, the indictment remains sealed ~ all the prosecutor does is tell

the target that it exists, according to what I have read. If Rove decides to let the world know that there is an indictment against him, he can, but no one will be able to find out what the charges are ~ if they reach an agreement, the indictment will remain sealed and no one will know about it ~ if they don't, then the judge will unseal it in court.

[Snivi Yllom]

90. It's not sealed if Rove knows about it

Period. You seal an indictment typically before you arrest someone with a flight risk. You would never disclose to a target of the indictment he was indicted and then seal the indictement.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/Rule6.htm

(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.

[dogday]

92. How about this

(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.

Fitzgerald could use the indictment as a means to gain ground in the investigation.. He does not have to tell them what the charges are, only that there are charges. Obviously nobody can comment on this at all to anyone according to the law...



http://www4.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/Rule6.htm

[Catrina]

99. Thanks dogday ~ so even if Fitzgerald has told Rove about any

sealed indictment, he (Rove) or anyone else, cannot reveal the information. I didn't know that but it makes sense ~

[dogday]

102. Why make it sealed

if not to keep it as such... There are many aspects of what can be done with them... To protect the Prosecutors office in the conviction and prosecution of others involved in this case.. There might be information in the indictment that Fitz does not want the Libby team to know about, or there could be information that may even involve another target not yet even named....

It does make sense...

[Jazz2006]

110. You have to read the Rule and the exceptions more carefully...

The exception you cite is Rule 6(e)(3)(B), which is an exception to Rule 6(e)(3)(A)(ii).

It applies only to Rule 6(e)(3)(A)(ii).

6(e)(3)(A)(ii) is as follows:

(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:

...
(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


Rove's lawyer is not "government personnel". Thus the exception does not apply in the circumstances to allow Fitz to give such information to Luskin.

[Garbo 2004]

94. My understanding is that an indictment, whether sealed or not, can't

simply be pocketed as if it never happened. It still has to be dealt with in court and becomes a matter of record.

Arguably an existing indictment might be used to encourage the accused to deal if there is a possiblity that additional charges might subsequently be brought. Say someone's been charged with false statements and perjury but not obstruction of justice, for example. The accused might then cop a plea, agree to turn state's evidence, whatever to avoid additional charges. But the original indictment doesn't just doesn't get pled away without it ever seeing the light of day, it still has to be dealt with in court and for the record.

[Catrina]

98. You are probably right. Once something is filed in court it does have to

be dealt with. However, a prosecutor can decide not to go ahead with charges as I understand it. If that's what happens it can be dealt with secretly in court and the public may never know about it, according to this report: (Unless someone leaks it as happened in a case further down in the article)

Discovering secret dockets


According to a survey by The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press for this guide, federal courts and many state courts allow for "super-secret" cases, which never appear on the public docket or are hidden using pseudonyms, such as "Sealed v. Sealed" or "John Doe v. Jane Doe." Courts that maintain these secret dockets will neither confirm nor deny the existence of such cases. As a result, these cases proceed through the court system undetected.

http://www.rcfp.org/secretjustice/secretdockets/pg1.html

[Jazz2006]

112. That is correct, Garbo.

I have posted the facts about how indictments work on various threads, but the message doesn't seem to be sinking in.


:hi:

[JuniperLea]

95. No, you miss the point

The indictment is unsealed when the indicted person is in custody... they are still advised with a target letter. If done the way you say, a person could be clueless until they are in custody.

[Jazz2006]

114. Close, but not exactly.

When a person is served with an indictment, even if it is a sealed indictment, the person has to be told what the charges are, and is then promptly arrested on said charges.

The indictment can still remain sealed, but the accused cannot be arrested without being told what the charges are.

[dogday]

115. Indictments don't necessarily mean arrests

A sealed indictment does not mean an arrest must be made though it does provide the prosecutor leverage with potential defendants who believe once their names are public their reputations will be destroyed.

The sealed indictments put the attorneys for the accused in a touchy position because they will be told their client has been indicted but not what the charge is and how many counts, making it difficult to defend.




http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/LegalCenter/story?id=1851817

[Jazz2006]

117. It does when it is served.

And the story at issue says that Rove was served with the indictment.

[dogday]

118. It still does not apply

If the indictment was sealed, it does not mean an arrest will occur.. The prosecutor can use for leverage..

[Jazz2006]

121. In an alternate universe, perhaps.

But in the real world, when you are served with an indictment on serious federal charges, you are arrested.

The act of serving the indictment = formally charging someone with the offences contained therein.

Typically when the indictment is returned to the judge, the judge also issues a warrant (in some instances, a summons, but most commonly a warrant) so that the person can lawfully be arrested once served.

Once you've been charged with offences, something has to follow.

The process does not just hang in limbo.

[dogday]

122. My World is just as real as yours

and this is not my opinion, it is referenced.. It does not hang in limbo but can be dragged out, yes...

[Jazz2006]

125. Well yes, you did reference things... but as noted above

the "exception" reference that you are relying upon does NOT apply in the manner that you cited it.


Edit: see post #110

[dogday]

142. I used more than one reference

and the exception reference can be used in a sealed indictments scenario... Where are yours? All I have seen is opinions...

[Jazz2006]

144. As I said,

the exception you cited can only be used in reference to government officials, not to Luskin.

Care to respond to that?

[dogday]

146. The prosecutor can inform the Attorney

of a sealed indictment, but must first file with the court and receive approval of who they are going to tell.. They must also inform the party they are going to tell of the rules of the sealed indictment and that all parties involved are not allowed to speak of it....

[Jazz2006]

147. I am well aware of what can and cannot be done

with a sealed indictment.

I was referring to your erroneous assertion in #92 and my response at #110.

[Catherine Vincent]

119. I don't mean to butt in but remember Libby was indicted but he wasn't

necessarily arrested. The very special prosecutor said so himself.

[Jazz2006]

124. It's not butting in ~

it's a talkboard!

:hi:

I don't actually recall Fitz saying that, but see my post above. Like I said, something has to follow. Once you have been formally charged with offences, arraignment has to follow etc., the service of the indictment has to be sworn to and filed with the court, whether the process utilized is arrest or summons. And it has to be one of the two.

[Catherine Vincent]

126. I just didn't want to get yelled at for being a buttinski. :)

Yes, a reporter had asked if Libby would be arrested and Fitz said no, we will not be arresting him. He said something about Libby showing up in front of the judge with his attorney.

[Jazz2006]

128. No worries in that regard from me :)

That makes perfect sense, though.

He could easily have obtained a summons at the time of the indictment instead of a warrant (as I mentioned above).

One or the other has to happen, though. The rules require it.

(See Rule 9)

The typical procedure is a warrant, as mentioned above. If the prosecution wants a summons instead, they have to specifically request it. Makes sense that in a case like this, a summons would be used.

Edit: here's a new theory ~ ~ ~ (I'll regret this, I'm sure)

Rove was served with the indictment and a summons but the summons is for some future date so everyone is keeping quiet about it while ... (fill in the blanks here).

Edit: Just to be perfectly clear, no, I do not believe it for a second. Just throwing out something new for people to run with if they are so inclined.

[Cetacea]

133. Hello Cat_girl25

Good to see you.
Once-banned (thanks freepers) zapped 1.
You too, Swamp rat. Your art work rules.

[Beelzebud]

70. I'm tired of the whole fucking mess..

It's getting hard to give a shit about all of this anymore.

[DemforNagin]

87. Ho boy...

Please let this stop... PLEASE..

There are no straws left! Please stop grasping for them...

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DS1]

101. How pleasant!

[Catrina]

103. *rotfl* ~ cat_girl25

I wish I had the ability to make decisions without doing any research at all that some have exhibited here. Think of all the time and effort that would save! :rofl:

[Catherine Vincent]

106. Yep!

A simple search is all it takes. :hi:

[dogday]

107. That is what I have been trying to do

I try to back up my post with fact, not opinion and not attitude... It doesn't help the cause and it doesn't help DU and it certainly does not help me....:hi:

[DoYouEverWonder]

105. This is a discussion board

and we are just discussing the possiblities.

BTW: Welcome to DU :hi:

[Kingofalldems]

108. Oh boy!

A brand new hall monitor! Welcome. What should we do next?

[sheelz]

127. Welcome to DU!

I just love the "Ho boy" part. :rofl:

Mike Malloy echoed the story, on his program, the night it was published....and on it goes.

[savemefromdumbya]

120. 'No smoke without fire' though

[Rex]

123. Well well

and now the plot thickens!

[garybeck]

135. sealed vs. sealed......

there are various reports on this. one is that it's Fitz vs. Rove, another is it's Fitz vs. Gonzales because Gon. "unindicted" Rove (Madsen reported this)

at this point it's obvious, no one knows what is going on.

[Jazz2006]

138. Neither makes any sense....

Can't imagine any scenario in which it could be "Fitz v. Rove" unless Fitz was suing Rove in a personal civil suit, which is clearly not the case.

And "unindict"?

What is that supposed to mean?

If indicted, you're indicted. You can't be "unindicted". You could be subsequently convicted, acquitted, pardoned, etc. But "unindicted" ~ no.

[DoYouEverWonder]

140. Nixon was unindicted

Nixon was name an unindicted co-conspirator for his involvement in covering up the Watergate burglary.

Since your arguing symantics, I just wanted to clarify that point.

[Jazz2006]

143. Eh?

This particular discussion, however, is about a story that suggests that Rove has already been indicted (and, if one adds in the Leopold story, has already been served with the indictment), and the implication that somebody stepped in to "unindict" him after he has already been indicted.

I am not arguing semantics. You seem not to understand the point that the poster above was making and that I was responding to.

[Freddie Stubbs]

141. How does he know?

:shrug:

[Cetacea]

145. He never said he did know...

...and was just discussing the theories that were ciculating at that time.
My post, which was posted before this increasingly redundant thread, sank like a stone. Too accuarate and not enough spice, I suppose.