Theory: Leopold was right. Dead on. And then circumstances changed.

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

Let's say Rove was told he was indicted on six or seven counts of perjury and/or obstruction of justice on Friday. Let's say he was told he had twenty-four hours (of whatever sort) to take a plea deal or face the louder music. Let's say he came back with a counter offer that seemed worthy of thoughtful contemplation by Fitz. Let's say there's the typical Rovian analysis at work here. He weighs being emasculated for the midterms, or possibly taking a lighter, later, post-midterm hit in exchange for testimony that brings him reduced charges/lighter sentence/ability to walk with swagger until after the midterms. Wouldn't the White House be behind him, including anyone he'd "testify" against, knowing they'd have his full expertise in play for the midterms and that they're all going to be pardoned anyway?
That would leave us where we are now, with Fitz weighing his options carefully.
It's all speculation. Of course, Leopold could have been dead wrong, too. But he could've been right. Exactly right. And then circumstances changed.
Worth considering?

[Goblinmonger]

1. If there was an indictment

then there is a paper trail that will bear Leopold's story out.

I think it is pretty obvious that Leopold is wrong. If there was an indictment, things move forward.

[insane_cratic_gal]

2. What if it were sealed?

[Sammy Pepys]

3. I can't figure out why it would be....

I did some quick google research on sealed indictments last night, and the only reason they really seal them is if they don't want the person being indicted to know about it right away. That just doesn't strike me as the way Fitz works, and I can't see what purpose it would serve. For the most part, this whole thing has been very public.

[stop the bleeding]

16. unless

it has been sealed from the time of the 1st GJ - I am just guessing like everyone else, but I wouldn't put it past Fitz do have done this. He only goes through defendants usually one at a time, this method works really well for him because it allows more info to be exposed while each defendant is on the hot seat per se'. See how much we have learned just in the Pre-trial motions in the Libby trial for example. Like I said I would not be the least bit surprised IF there is a sealed indictment to see a date ending in 2005 on it.

Just to stir the pot even more


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1221712&mesg_id=1221830

WilliamPitt (1000+ posts) Wed May-17-06 04:02 PM
Original message

"When the documents come out

they will have dates on the top.

Those dates will be Friday May 12, 2006.

Just as we said. "

[insane_cratic_gal]

28. Sealed indictments can be used in other cases

Judge. Sealed indictments are often used in cases where there is an ongoing investigation (Such as drug cases, where you work up the chain from the small dealers to the bigger ones, but you don't want to tip anyone off that you are investigating their network if, say, you've flipped a few low level people and are using them to do controlled buys up the chain.) and/or you have defendants that you are afraid will flee your jurisdiction before they are apprehended. But they may also be used for other reasons, including security and other considerations, if approved by the presiding judge.

Given the scope of this, even using words like defendant A isn't going to protect the identity of the subject. We all know who it is. So we know it's not a case of being a flight risk, but could Luskin request if an indictment be handed down it remain sealed given the nature of Rove's stature and visibility?

Just an idea, I don't know if it's even possible

OR

The 5th Amendment requires no one can be put to trial for a federal felony unless they've been charged by Indictment, however, a defendant may waive that right in Federal court and plead to a felony charged by prosecutor's Information. So, unless there is already a deal-- a signed, sealed and delivered deal-- anyone charged in this case will first be in an Indictment, which may later be dismissed in favor of a plea to a reduced charge in an Information, or, more likely, a flipper will be allowed to plead to a lesser liabilty count originally included in the indictment, and the rest will be dismissed. Salient point-it is always possible that there are deals (plea agreements) struck and signed and filed under seal. Cooperators or flippers can be useful at trial against anyone who still hasn't caved and is going to trial, not just for testimony in the GJ. After the GJ is finished, there will still be flippers getting deals.

[Goblinmonger]

9. Whatever

Why would it be sealed? Wouldn't the fantastically accurate sources of TO and Leopold have told him that? Couldn't he have passed this tidbit out to the public?

He was wrong. His sources were crap. If this were ANY source on the MSM, we would be bitching about journalistic integrity. But since it is TO, far too many people are being sheeple.

[insane_cratic_gal]

21. Right and this Administration is a lame duck too I suppose

It has no clout or power, The news media is a free entity and Rove couldn't keep an indictment under seal for a week.

Bush's #2 in command, the guy at the helm! But it would be impossible to suggest that Rove couldn't barter to keep an indictment under seal for a week. :crazy:

[bryant69]

17. I think you are right

That we will see a paper trail. However, I don't think it's obvious that Leopold was wrong.

Not obvious at all.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[HereSince1628]

4. Circumstances changed all right, the story went from target letter

to indicted in less than 24 hours.

I can't even tell what the real story is anymore, is it Leopold's sans any radio announcements? Without all the Will Pitt supplementals?

The obvious reality is that a really good story doesn't require post hoc repairs to all its insuffiencies. The story may be true, I'm skeptical of that but I am very sure the story wasn't handled very well.

[symbolman]

5. I don't find it worth considering

because I've never believed in his sloppy writing. There's a REASON he's on the web instead of working for real publications - he's been shitcanned or walked away when caught with no real sources.

He blew it, he should apologise. His story on TO, You Break it, You Buy it.

Thanks for the speculation, there'll be a lot of it, and I'm willing to bet most all of it will somehow excuse Leopold and TO, even going so far at this point, and I've seen this twice now today alone, to PULL them 24 BIZ hours INTO NEXT WEEK.

C'Mon people. He has no credibility.

[Jayhawk Lib]

20. Agreed 100%...nt

[Sammy Pepys]

6. If the circumstances did change.....

...wouldn't Leopold's numerous sources have come forward with this new info? Al we've heard from Pitt is that they have something like five or six sources and a couple of media guys saying they got the story right. If the circumstances did change, and Pitt and co have as many widely placed sources as they;re claiming they have, why wouldn't these new circumstances have been reported by truthout?

[theboss]

7. An indictment doesn't disappear

If he was indictment, there is a filed document somewhere in a federal courthouse.

[CoffeeCat]

8. Has anyone considered...

...that TO and Leopold were right and that they did have credible sources---but they are being "Ratherized" in an effort to discredit 'liberal blogs?'

I smell something fishy.

Given that Rove is at the epicenter of this story--I really wouldn't be surprised.

[theboss]

10. That's a reach

For one, I doubt Rove has heard of TruthOut.
Secondly, Leopold's reputation was destroyed by his own actions years ago.
Finally, if Rove was going to destroy a blog, he wouldn't do it with his own indictment - which may be coming anyway.

[Spangle]

23. Know your enemy ~ Rule

WIthout a doubt, he has heard of TO. TO would be a political enemy, against his political agenda/buddys, etc. THe more TO is read/known, etc.. the more dangor it is. THAT is the way things go. It is why DU is known and other boards/news blogs, etc. And such places ARE monitored. IT's an easy warning of system of what the 'enemy' is working at figuring out.

IT is also part of the 'game' to encourage disinformation to either get people off track, or to cause persons/group to loose crediblity.

So, even if ROVE doesn't personaly read TO, his 'people' do. It's their JOB to do so.

[Goblinmonger]

11. That still makes TO and Leopold

shitty journalists. He said 24 hours. Then, when that didn't happen, he said 24 BUSINESS hours (which means NOTHING legally). I can only wait to see what the spin will be today.

They need to apologize. They need to change the way they do things. If the don't do that now, they have absolutely no journalistic integrity (not that I think they have much to begin with, but that is just my opinion).

[Buttercup McToots]

12. sorry

Newbie

[DemReadingDU]

13. Oops, W.M is taboo in DU

any threads will get locked

[theboss]

14. May want to delete that lest you kill the thread

Thanks.

[Buttercup McToots]

18. ???

Can I know why?

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

19. That had occurred to me, but I don't know that "liberal blogs" would be an

important enough target at this point to go after. Right now blogs are still kind of a gnat annoying them.

Blogosphere exposed Gannon, and plagiarizers like Domeneche, but haven't netted any really big fish yet to my knowledge.

Even if the Leopold story were true, it wouldn't be an example of a liberal blog causing damage to shrubco, they would have just "scooped" a story that was inevitably coming out. Not like uncovering a story that never would have come to light otherwise...

[CoffeeCat]

22. I think they do care about liberal blogs...

They're desperately attempting to control the Internet. Liberal blogs are the primary reason for that.

Also, if a liberal blog scooped the MSM on the Rove indictment, that would be major news. It would be a significant sidebar to this earth-moving story. The Rove indictment couldn't be discussed on the MSM without them giving credit for the "scoop" to the blogosphere.

I think you are right--the administration isn't up at night worrying about blogs. However, they don't want them elevated to greater importance or credibility. They spend a great deal of effort positioning blogs as "kooky" and unreliable.

This scoop would lend credibility to the blogs in ways that BushCo and the MSM wouldn't like.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

25. No we agree on most points. It's just that I think that to "Ratherize"

Leopold/to.org etc. using HIGH LEVEL administration sources is a major commitment of resources (and assuming some risk) that the target and result don't even come close to warranting at this point. (It may not always be that way, but it sure is now.) 60 Minutes was a completely different story, that show has a lot of cred even with many Repubs.

The biggest concern I see for Roveco re: blogs is, if they are truly e-stealing votes, then blogosphere has been pursuing that much more aggressively than any MSM at this point. Unfortunately the issue has been pursued without much traction with the public at large but I hope this will not always be the case.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

29. I agree with you 100%.

[Coexist]

15. enough already. Please.

[arwalden]

24. I Share Your Sentiments... But...

... I think it's not very realistic to think that the hangers-on will ever give up. Even though most rational people have had enough... I predict that this topic will soon have its own "dungeon" forum --- much like the 9-11 conspiracy forum --- that's filled with people who continually argue Rove was indicted.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

27. "Hanger-on"? "Most rational people have had enough"?......

People with your point of view can't even respond to a post on this issue without being insulting and/or personally abusive, can you?

IMHO, posts like yours don't do much to convince others that you're on the "rational" side.

[dysfunctional press]

26. two words: secret pardon.

to be announced on january 20, 2009.

and all info surrounding kkkarl's involvement is under seal.

[Skinner]

30. Locking

Continue discussion here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1224473