Karl Rove Has Been Given A Grant Of Immunity

[KittyWampus]

http://schapira.blogspot.com/

Nolle prosequi

The headline today is, “Rove Won't Be Charged in CIA Leak Case.” As reported by Toni Locy, for AP,

“Presidential adviser Karl Rove won't be a criminal defendant in the CIA leak case, but he could still end up being grilled in court as a witness.”

This story appears to be based on a single source, to wit., Robert Luskin, attorney for Turd Blossom. Fitz is not talking.

There is only one way to put these facts together so that they make sense. Karl Rove has been given a grant of immunity.

Here’s the way it works. There are two kinds of immunity. One is “use immunity,” and people who receive it are forced to testify, but the prosecution is prevented from using their testimony against them.

The other kind of immunity is called “transactional immunity.” It means that the subject testifies, but having received immunity for the entire transaction, he or she is at no risk of prosecution, and therefore, has no Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

In the Federal system, the rule is that to force testimony, the prosecutor must grant transactional immunity. I’m guessing that this is what happened yesterday.

As always, there is a catch. First, obviously, a grant of immunity is not a license to commit perjury. Karl Rove may have breathed a sigh of relief today because he is not going to be indicted, but he also must have soiled his skivvies, because he is going to testify. If he lies, there is going to be heavy pressure to indict him. He has testified five times, and it is hard to feature that he will testify without contradicting something that he has already said.

The other reason that there is not unmitigated joy in Karl Rove’s black and malignant heart* is that the letter that grants immunity usually includes some language to the effect that this grant of immunity is to be null and void if the defendant testifies falsely, or fails to cooperate fully with any interview by the FBI. If the letter Luskin received is typical of similar letters I have seen, it emphasizes that it is entirely up to the U.S. Attorney to determine whether or not he has testified falsely.

If I were Luskin, I would have some real fears that my client would be unable to restrain himself from lying. But he is not the only one nervous because of today’s news.

Usually, an immunity letter such as the one I am supposing was received by Luskin doesn’t just drop out of the sky. It is only given after the recipient has made what is called “a proffer.” Basically, a proffer is an offer of testimony that takes the form: “If granted immunity, I will testify that XYZ.”

Now, Patrick Fitzgerald is what is known in the trade as a “prosecutor.” He is not, generally speaking, called an “immunizer.” He does not pass out the “Get out of jail free” cards for nothing. Whatever XYZ was, it was something that Fitzgerald must have thought was worth something.

The general strategy for a prosecuting attorney is to go up the chain. It can be up the supply chain in a drug prosecution, or it can be up the chain of command in a fraud prosecution. With Karl Rove, the chain does not go very much further up.

And here’s why this is a big bummer for Karl Rove. If he offered XYZ, and XYZ is testimony against one or both of the people up the chain from him, it really cuts down the likelihood that one of them will be in a pardoning mood on January 19, 2009.

As Michelle Malkin said in a different context: “Boo-freakin’-hoo.”

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

*P.S. "Black and malignant heart" is a legal term. Really.

[KittyWampus]

1. Difference between Use Immunity & Transactional Immunity-Defined

717 Transactional Immunity Distinguished

Title 18 U.S.C. § 6002 provides use immunity instead of transactional immunity. The difference between transactional and use immunity is that transactional immunity protects the witness from prosecution for the offense or offenses involved, whereas use immunity only protects the witness against the government's use of his or her immunized testimony in a prosecution of the witness -- except in a subsequent prosecution for perjury or giving a false statement.

[cry baby]

31. I'm feeling less lugubrious because of your post - thanks!

(yes, I learned a new word today and am trying to incorporate it into my everyday vocabulary)

[The Doctor.]

57. And I'm going to ululate about it all day....

-Right after I alleviate my lethargy through the imbibition of caffeinated beverage.

[cry baby]

77. LOL - I have some major homework to do!

[cry baby]

79. I am a bit imbibated today...

My condition isn't quite to the ululatable point.;) This is fun!

[Hepburn]

76. How it comes down practically:

Under one, use immunity, a witness can get on the stand and admit he shot and killed 100 people and it was murder ~~ and that cannot be used againt him/her ~~ unless he/she gave a false statement/perjured testimony. On the other, only events related to the immediate prosecution can be used against him/her on the prosecution of a substantive crime.

I always got those confused in law school...and hope I did better this time!

[bleever]

2. Up to the Greatest before the first reply!

I think your analysis provides the reason that Luskin has not produced the letter for public display, and why we are not likely to see him do so anytime soon.

:thumbsup:

[KittyWampus]

4. It is not my analysis. Please visit blog linked in Opening Post

[bleever]

11. I thought it was your blog, but in any case, I appreciate the post!

A nice ray of sunshine after today's dunderstorms.

:)

[madokie]

26. makes me want to give her a cyberhug

a nice ray of sunshine it is. I hit the ground running this morning reading that KKKarl is above the law.

[Cha]

60. Thanks for posting..

Big Mitch Schapira's analysis..very Interesting!

[Patsy Stone]

5. Hmm.

Ya think?

Seemed to me something was up, I was close, but I missed it by thaaat much.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1415401&mesg_id=1415450

K&R

ed: link.

[bleever]

12. That "anticipate" word is pretty loaded.

Remember, no one could have anticipated the breach of the levees!

And that post was insightful as always. If you get smarter, I know you'll share it here.

Patsy Stone: A DU treasure.

:thumbsup:

[Patsy Stone]

17. You know what they say:

:hi:

[Raster]

15. Patsy, honey, what happened to Eddie?

[Patsy Stone]

18. She's right here, sweetie.

[Raster]

21. she looks like hell. But you, my sweet, look as deliciously decedant

as usual...ching, ching!

[KittyWampus]

3. Nolle Prosequi- defined

NOLLE PROSEQUI - An entry made on the record, by which the prosecutor or plaintiff declares that he will proceed no further.

A nolle prosequi may be entered either in a criminal or a civil case. In criminal cases, a nolle prosequi may be entered at any time before the finding of the grand jury, by the attorney general, and generally after a true bill has been found; in Pennsylvania, in consequence of a statutory provision, no nolle prosequi can be entered after a bill has been found, without leave of the court, except in cases of assault and battery, fornication and bastardy, on agreement between the parties, or in prosecutions for keeping tippling houses.

A nolle prosequi may be entered as to one or several defendants. The effect of a nolle prosequi, when obtained, is to put the defendant without day, but it does not operate as an acquittal; for he may be afterwards reindicted, and even upon the same indictment, fresh process may be awarded.

[spanone]

6. K & R

Black & Malignant Heart...right on the money.

[Seabiscuit]

7. Thank you. Very well and cogently stated.

[lonestarnot]

8. KKKarl Red Ass Rover. I hope he hangs by his own silk web strand.

Grease little pig him.... Oink Oink Oink

Black and malignant heart, mind and mouth! Hands too!

[hootinholler]

9. Very plausable.

I don't think that Rove reports to anyone but POTUS. Other than that It's as good a hypothesis as I've seen.

That would tie up a lot of loose ends.

-Hoot

[MADem]

10. Another theory

http://www.sethabramson.blogspot.com/

Easy, Three-Step Explanation Shows How Prosecutorial Trial Strategy--Not Rove's Innocence--Was the Reason "Turd Blossom" Escaped a Federal Felony-Level Prosecution

Step One. Independent Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald is already prosecuting Scooter Libby, Vice President Cheney's former Chief-of-Staff, and Fitzgerald believes the case against Libby is air-tight. Fitzgerald has a reputation for only indicting when he knows he can win. Fitzgerald believes Karl Rove is one of the necessary witnesses in the prosecution against Scooter Libby.

Step Two. If Fitzgerald indicts Rove on charges of felony Perjury, Rove may become unavailable as a witness for the government in the Scooter Libby case. Why? Because Rove, then under indictment, could plead the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and refuse to testify against Libby. Rove pleading the Fifth wouldn't even necessarily be a career-killer for Bush's Brain, because a) Republicans routinely embrace criminals as political leaders and movement head-liners (Oliver North, Ann Coulter, George W. Bush, Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, Rush Limbaugh, et. al.), and b) Rove would have the "excuse" that the pending prosecution against him technically necessitated him pleading the Fifth Amendment, even if he was presently maintaining his innocence in his own criminal case.

Step Three. Couldn't Fitzgerald give Rove transactional or use immunity and then force him to testify in the Libby case? Yes, of course he could, but there's two obvious reasons he wouldn't: first, why indict Rove just to immunize him? It would counterproductive (an angry Rove is a less compliant State's witness, natch), and it would also be politically, if not professionally, embarassing (albeit that for federal prosecutors, the two are often one and the same). Second, immunizing a witness for a prior perjury destroys that witness' credibility and makes that witness' testimony a farce. It's a suicidal trial strategy, in other words. Fitzgerald would, in that scenario, not only lose a potential Rove prosecution (to possible transactional immunity, or at a minimum the complications of so-called "use" immunity), but would destroy his now-solid case against Libby by putting up an untrustworthy witness whose very presence on the stand as a government stooge would embarrass the government in front of the jury more than aid its case....

[KittyWampus]

38. TalkLeft also believes there was a deal but not official. Rove cooperated

Posted by TalkLeft
June 13, 2006 12:45 PM
<snip>

I still think Rove incriminated Cheney and others in the VP's office -- he's just not getting anything for it officially. That's a big deal, because if he were, Libby's lawyers would have to be told of the deal and could use it in cross-examination if Rove testified at trial. Now, Fitz has preserved Rove's reputation which could make him a star witness."

She later posted this:

"Posted by TalkLeft
June 13, 2006 07:50 PM
<snip>

As to why Fitz would only say he doesn't anticipate indicting Rove rather than saying Rove has been cleared and never will be indicted, consider this. What if he publicly cleared him and Rove then testified for Libby's defense team and said something different than he told the grand jury? Fitz needs to remain free to charge Rove in that event. Also, if the investigation is continuing, new information could develop, particularly if Fitz continues to turn putative defendants. One might convince him Rove lied. Both of these situations are unlikely to occur, but Fitz needs to protect his ability to act against Rove if they did happen. That's what lawyers do, they try to cover all the bases."

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/015080.html#comments

[MADem]

69. Well, it does suggest, at a minimum, that Rover is on the stand in the

Libby trial. If he got the paper now, he'd take the Fifth and be useless.

I think the deal they're working at the WH is this:

1. Stall this out until after the midterms.

2. At trial, Rove dodges and weaves as a witness, but if he has to, he throws Scooter under the bus and plays complete dummy.

3. Scooter appeals; stays free pending appeal, which drags on forever.

4. Monkeyboy pardons him on the way out the door.

[Patsy Stone]

81. Fitz doesn't want to call Rove

From the May 5th hearing transcript:

MR. WELLS: I would submit that if Mr. Rove, for example, who is likely to be a witness –

THE COURT: The government said he won't but maybe you will call him. The government said he will not be a witness for the government.

MR. WELLS: If they don't call him, we're calling him. With respect to Mr. Rove, we believe there is no exception in the case law that says Mr. Libby's discovery rights are diluted because the government has an ongoing investigation. The government controls the timing of its indictment.


If Rove gets on the stand it will be Team Irving trying to get him to help get Cheney. My .02.

[diamondsndust]

13. VERY thought provoking...

Thanks for posting this. It all sounds very plausible to me, but then again, I'm no lawyer or brainiac. I only hope something comes to fruition from all of this. I want nothing more than to see this criminal regime brought down so we can begin fixing and healing all of the wrongs that they have perpetuated and cast upon us as a Nation. I just don't know how much longer I myself can stand idly by and watch us sink even more into fascism and dictatorship.

[grytpype]

14. OR, Fitzgerald thought he couldn't prove perjury beyond a reasonable doubt

Sorry, but that's the real reason Rove didn't get indicted.

I don't know why Fitz would have to give Rove immunity when he was TESTIFYING VOLUNTARILY! Rove was not taking the Fifth, which is why granting immunity is useful, it removes the risk of incrimination so the witness can be compelled.

So this is more bullshit, sorry.

[Tin Man]

16. Does this dude look worried to you?

I'd say TurdBlossom is looking like a man who understands he's completely off the hook...

[Clarkie1]

36. He doesn't look like someone about to stab his friends in the back, either

eom

[Cha]

61. he looks like he's been

eating a LOT of turd blossoms and nothing more.

[understandinglife]

19. "#9, p.5: "On or about June 12, 2003, LIBBY was advised by the Vice ..."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=5205585

posted shortly after Libby's indictment announced on 28 Oct 2005

Well, we now know that we've moved a bit past "the beginning" ...

Two people have much to be truly fearful of Mr. Patrick Fitzgerald - one is Cheney and the other is "get Wilson" Bu$h.

Rover took a big hit from Poppy in another scam with his buddy Novak. This time around, I suspect it's "payback" that Rover is going to deliver.

No way that gutless chump is going to take the fall for Cheney and Dubya's violations of the National Security Act of 1947 and a bunch of other Federal statutes in the outing of CIA NOC and the destruction of intelligence assets.

No way.

Oh, and Scooter, if you haven't sung yet, you probably have lost any opportunity to do much more than shave a year or two from a prolonged experience of the hard kind.


Never Forget: George W. Bush willfully violated National Security to cover-up his willful launch of a war of aggression and illegal occupation of Iraq.

[troubleinwinter]

23. I see today

not as closing the door on the Rove subject, but rather, moving the entire issue forward.

Thanks, UL.

[understandinglife]

24. Agreed. As I mentioned in another thread, folk need to spend ...

... a bit of time studying what Mr. Fitzgerald recently accomplished in Illinois based on a case that began as a single count indictment against one person!

:hi:


Peace.

[fooj]

27. It's all in the "subtext", right?

You are a real gem, UL! Thanks for ALWAYS being there.:hug:

[flyarm]

28. yes indeed..how many ended up in ord indicted..60?? ...

i sure hope this is fitz's Hail mary!!

thanks UL been missing your posts!!

fly

[stop the bleeding]

46. I think it was somewhere around 70++ plus indictments

with Gov. Ryan getting convicted in the end, that case took 12 years. We are in a marathon not a sprint

[klook]

55. "Marathon not a sprint"

Excellent perspective. Thanks! :toast:

[Patsy Stone]

30. From Christy's thread at FDL

She points out this post by OtisIsHungry (http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/06/13/dodging-cipa-graymail-bulletsand-other-legal-notes/#comment-140022) in her OP (http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/06/13/some-things-to-contemplate/#comments):

"Anne at 44 (and Jeralyn) are right I think: The language used by Luskin strongly suggests that Rove got immunity in exchange for his cooperation (it is probably the same deal I have been suggesting was offered to Novak way back when...). Otherwise he never would have testified in the Grand Jury to begin with.

"Does not anticipate seeking charges” means that if Rove testifies at Libby’s trial as expected, and as his agreement no doubt provides for him to testify, (lawyers call it providing “ongoing cooperation”), then all will be well for him. But if he “goes sideways” on Fitz and testifies differently from what is now expected, he could be charged–w/perjury certainly, and his deal to avoid criminal liability in the larger conspiracy could be “off” as he could face charges in that as well.

All told, a very standard deal and not unexpected. The more interesting issue and the reason for optimism now is that he couldn’t have gotten such a deal without having something important to offer Fitz. The “no prosecution” letter pretty much guarantees that he that he made a good deal. Either he offered up Cheney himself, or he offered up Libby to guarantee a conviction so Fitz can roll up Libby to Cheney. Either way, for me, I see Cheney going down and that’s something I can live with!

BTW: :hi: Nice to see you.

[Sydnie]

49. Patsy, Jeralyn also said this yesterday

"Posted by TalkLeft
June 13, 2006 12:45 PM
<snip>

I still think Rove incriminated Cheney and others in the VP's office -- he's just not getting anything for it officially. That's a big deal, because if he were, Libby's lawyers would have to be told of the deal and could use it in cross-examination if Rove testified at trial. Now, Fitz has preserved Rove's reputation which could make him a star witness."

She later posted this:

"Posted by TalkLeft
June 13, 2006 07:50 PM
<snip>

As to why Fitz would only say he doesn't anticipate indicting Rove rather than saying Rove has been cleared and never will be indicted, consider this. What if he publicly cleared him and Rove then testified for Libby's defense team and said something different than he told the grand jury? Fitz needs to remain free to charge Rove in that event. Also, if the investigation is continuing, new information could develop, particularly if Fitz continues to turn putative defendants. One might convince him Rove lied. Both of these situations are unlikely to occur, but Fitz needs to protect his ability to act against Rove if they did happen. That's what lawyers do, they try to cover all the bases."

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/015080.html#comments

Now today, she has a great blog entry up. It appears that she is revisiting her position from yesterday that the investigation could be over where Rove is concerned. Check it out. http://talkleft.com/new_archives/015083.html

she asks these questions in her new posting -

"Did Karl Rove lie to investigators in the fall of 2003? If so, why is he not being prosecuted for it?


Does Fitz no longer believe Rove and Bob Novak coordinated their stories about their July 9 conversation?


Is Fitzgerald absolving everyone in the White House Iraq Group of criminal culpability?


Who was Robert Novak's source?


Who was Bob Woodward's source? Who was Walter Pincus's source?


Why did mainstream reporters (David Schuster of MSNBC comes to mind) say a few weeks ago they believed Rove would be charged? That seemed to be the consensus of opinion. What changed?"

:hi:

[Patsy Stone]

59. One of the other theories I've read

suggested that while Rove is cleared of perjury and OOJ, at this point, that Fitz may have "steered" the questioning during his last GJ appearance to get what he really wanted. That, with the cooperation, may have got him off the hook. Also, I still don't think Fitz is done investigating the main charge of the outing.

Too much to keep up with. Too many stories and theories. Not to mention I can't remember what I've posted/read where!

Also, from an earlier FDL thread, I liked this opinion of Jane's:

"It’s become ever more apparent as time goes on and Fitzgerald releases bits of information in his filings that this was a Dick Cheney operation. Rove may have gotten involved because smearing people is his idea of a good time, but the Cheney scrawlings on Joe Wilson’s op-ed are the "blue dress" of this case. Look at Conrad Black. Look at George Ryan. I’m sorry, but Fitzgerald had Rove dead to rights if he wanted him, and anyone who thinks he got nothing for something has been following the story of a different prosecutor than I have been."

:hi:, Syd.

[ms liberty]

39. I agree with your analysis of Rover & Scooter here 100% n/t

[Catherine Vincent]

20. Thanks for this.

K&R!

[peacetalksforall]

22. Allt the versions of what could have taken place sound good to me. It

all says that things are moving forward.

[riderinthestorm]

25. I hope this is true BUT

my cynicism prevents me from believing that Rove is ever going to darken another courtroom door in this case.

Machinations of the blackest and most malignant are at work and I'm not convinced that this isn't just another Rove maneuver to stall for time until after the mid-terms.

If Rove can orchestrate R majorities (by fair or foul means) - he knows he's never gonna face any kind of scrutiny. Bush will pardon everyone and anyone since there won't be a single investigation to expose the crimes, and all of this will be stuck in the permanent round file of "classified".

[OzarkDem]

29. Do you have proof? n/t

[Clarkie1]

32. This endless speculation and the threads they spawn are a waste of mental

energy. Go outside and help win an election, everybody.

[upi402]

33. LOL, That's exactly what I just did! Yay for me! Yay!

But I'd still like to think Rove sung to save his butt.

[BlooInBloo]

34. Oh jeez.

[DistressedAmerican]

35. I Am Straw Grasped Out.

The camel back is broken (if I may mix my straw related metaphores).

[The Backlash Cometh]

37. What does oldleftielawyer, think about this?

I consider him the resident legal cynic.

[LeftHander]

42. Here is my best impression of OLL

The OP has no information. This is a waste of time and breath. We need to stop guessing and stick to the facts and start fighting the bigger battle and that is against the Republicans. I've been in the beltway so long I have extra holes punched in me. I've seen it all. I've eaten everything and vomited more in my 523 years in the legal profession that to even entertain the OP's opinion would be akin to eating salted babies at a pro-life fundraiser.

Stick to the facts. Rove is nothing, leopold is a liar.


(Apologies to OLL...but I couldn't resist. My bad.)

[KittyWampus]

43. You channeled her perfectly!

:rofl:

[DoYouEverWonder]

47. I don't think

you used enough insults and putdowns.

[speedoo]

68. Also, you forgot this:

You are now in ignoreland.

PS. Ignoreland is a very happy place. You don't get abused, and you are not subject to the most obnoxious poster on DU.

[The Backlash Cometh]

74. LOL!

If she were a man, I'd leave my husband.

[The Backlash Cometh]

52. My fav OLL line:

You have NOTHING. Now sit down and go to sleep.

(I'm paraphrasing.)

[Tsiyu]

44. cept I think "he's" a "she"

:hi:

[The Backlash Cometh]

53. Oh, dear. Now she'll be called angry instead of assertive.

[Tsiyu]

75. Nah

OLL transcends gender ;)

And who would dare give her any lip? She knows people, you know....:evilgrin:

[MADem]

70. I think HE is a SHE, IIRC NT

[ms liberty]

40. Thanks for posting

there's a lot going on that we're not privy to right now, I think something like this is very likely to be possible.

[LeftHander]

41. kick...!

Excellent post to trancend the LEOPOLD squawking

[stop the bleeding]

45. I have been thinking about this possibility all night.....

This would keep Rover out of the Negative Libby Plame Trial spotlight until after Nov 06, unless some nuggets of information come out of a future court filing in regards/response to Libby's multiple motions and filings.

The hush hush attitude from Luskin and Fitz is speaking volumes about what part Rover may still have to play in this saga.

I don't think Rover is out of this by a long shot, but don't listen to me I am just loony moonbat liberal. ;)

[Norquist Nemesis]

48. One has to wonder if Fitzgerald even asked the GJ to indict

Last night, I heard David Schuster speculating that Fitzgerald didn't indict because it wasn't a "slam dunk" case and that given his record and the high-profile of the case, that would be the only way he'd indict.

BUT, (need a little lawyering help on this) isn't it technically the Grand Jury that brings the indictment? And if so, given Fitzgerald hasn't made any statements, it's looking more and more like Fitzie gave some form of immunity (again speculation).

[Nederland]

50. Confused

There is only one way to put these facts together so that they make sense. Karl Rove has been given a grant of immunity.

What facts are you referring to? I don't see why the fact the Rove won't be charged and the fact that Rove will be a witness in the Libby trial logically leads one to conclude that he has been granted immunity. Lot's of people without immunity get forced to testify in a criminal trials...

[KittyWampus]

51. Do lots of people get forced to testify in criminal trials after appearing

before a Grand Jury 5 times?

How are said people "forced" to testify?

Why are said people even asked to testify, unless Prosecutor knows they're in possession of relevant facts?

Suppose said people are forced to testify and their testimony is at odds with what they've given during their previous appearances before a Grand Jury?

[Nederland]

54. Answers

Do lots of people get forced to testify in criminal trials after appearing before a Grand Jury 5 times?

I have no idea

How are said people "forced" to testify?

It's called a subpoena.

Why are said people even asked to testify, unless Prosecutor knows they're in possession of relevant facts?

They aren't.

Suppose said people are forced to testify and their testimony is at odds with what they've given during their previous appearances before a Grand Jury?

They get charged with perjury.

[mike_c]

56. ah well, hope springs eternal...

...but I'll believe it when I see Cheney's mug shot. This whole affair has become nothing but a confluence of conspiracy theories. The real events are hidden from view and since I have no actual data about them, I think I must refrain from speculating, or from putting too much faith in other peoples' speculations. We'll probably not know anything further unless Rove goes back to the GJ to give further testimony. That would likely indicate that he is a witness against someone else, now that he himself is not in direct jeopardy.

[Kablooie]

58. Problem is the trial probably won't start until all these guys are out.

We will see private citizens convicted, not government officials.

[TahitiNut]

62. I thought the term of art was "depraved and malignant heart"

:shrug: Whatever.

[mvd]

63. I hope you're right

The perpetrator needs to be caught. If not, it would confirm my fears that Fitzgerald isn't strong enough to stand up to these thugs.

[robertpaulsen]

64. This strengthens my hope in this case.

Remember when Libby was indicted, MSM's reaction was that the only reason Fitz was asking for a new grand jury to be created when the old panel expired was because he had unfinished business with Rove. If anything, the events of yesterday prove that rationale to be false. As Schapira says, Fitz is moving "up the chain".

Beware Darth Cheney, beware!

[Big Mitch]

65. The original post has been corrected

Hi. This is my first post to DU. I'm Big Mitch, who wrote the original Nolle Prosequi note on my own blog. Thanks to the first message writer, I have gone back to my own blog and corrected it. Thanks also to all of you who have posted comments.

[stop the bleeding]

66. Welcome to DU Big Mitch

and many thanks on the wonderful insight ;)

on edit: could you summarize what was changed/added/amended etc...

[renate]

80. A big DU welcome to Big Mitch

:hi:

(Imagine that smiley face being a lot bigger.)

[bleever]

82. Welcome to DU, Big Mitch.

Great essay. Glad to have you here!

[garybeck]

67. nice, but pure speculation...

MSNBC reported yesterday that there was "no sign of any kind of a deal" between Rove and Fitzgerald, and Rove's lawyers emphasized there was absolutely no deal. (grain of salt taken).

It seems to me that the most plausible explanation is that Fitz just gave up on Rove thinking he doesn't have enough evidence to convict him of perjury.

It seems like we can all speculate about possible scenarios until the cows come home (or the pigs in this case).

[MADem]

71. Well, there's often no sign of bear poop in the woods near the highway

....but go a few hundred yards in, and ya may find some!

That said, everything IS speculation. The only guy who knows is Fitzgerald, and unlike the White House, he ain't leaking.

[im10ashus]

72. K&R!!!!

:kick:

[dpbrown]

73. So their plan is to indict Cheney then pardon him

This is typical Iran/Contra bullshit.

Fitzgerald never should have given Rove immunity. He should have sent him to prison.

Now they'll all skate.

[DoYouEverWonder]

78. Don't forget

this isn't the only on going scandal. There are a number of other investigations that people have ignored that are heating up. One big one is the Abramoff scandal, where last week his partner Kidan admitted that he knew the hitman who killed Gus Boulis. Oh and while everyone was busy bashing each other, Tom Delay RETIRED from Congress. A huge victory for the Dems, but so what, Jason Leopold got it wrong and that's all that matters.