Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Jonathan Turley: Fitz gave Rove assistance in clearing up misstatements

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
 
Halliburton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 09:12 PM
Original message
Jonathan Turley: Fitz gave Rove assistance in clearing up misstatements
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Special_prosecutor_has_no_comment_on_0613.html

<snip>
"I've never seen, frankly, someone involved in an investigation of this kind given so many chances to continually correct and amend prior testimony. There are many prosecutors who would have indicted Rove on his first statement," George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley told CBS. "He was given a great deal of deference and quite frankly, assistance, by the prosecutor."
<snip>

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Doctor_J Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 09:13 PM
Response to Original message
1. Assistance by the prosecutor
kind of like how Starr helped clinton.

Who here still thinks the game's not rigged? Come see me about buying a bridge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 09:15 PM
Response to Original message
2. I just read that statement by Turley on the Washington Post.
He doesn't think too highly of my favorite prosecutor, I guess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nothingshocksmeanymore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 09:16 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Turley is a scholar
I'm glad he's saying it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #5
50. he`s saying nothing
there is no way he knows whay happened in that grand jury room. no one is not off the hook untill the whole investgation is finished.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 09:17 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. Fitzgerald may have gave Rove A Proffer & Subsequently Immunity
'"Usually, an immunity letter such as the one I am supposing was received by Luskin doesnt 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.'

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Halliburton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 09:20 PM
Response to Reply #2
12. I tend to agree with what Turley said
Scooter didn't get this kind of treatment. Scooter testified twice early in the investigation (like Rove) and was never called back again. Rove, however, was called back three times after his first two appearances before the grand jury.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluefish Donating Member (166 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 09:15 PM
Response to Original message
3. deference and assistance?
Oh boy...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marylanddem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 09:15 PM
Response to Original message
4. so the Fitzgerald halo appears to be dimming...
Edited on Tue Jun-13-06 09:16 PM by marylanddem
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. Only if you don't understand what probably happened.
Rove offered testimony against Cheney (or someone) from the get-go. And Fitzgerald probably had Rove testify as often as necessary to clear up the story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 09:27 PM
Response to Reply #4
17. Nope, not in my book of halos.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Patsy Stone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 09:17 PM
Response to Original message
6. I'm of the mind
that Fitz got what he wanted from him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doctor_J Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 09:17 PM
Response to Original message
8. I think the salient point in this, like all other issues these days,
is that the GOP has all the angles covered. They control all the media, all the judges, all the lawyers, all the lawmakers, all the police, sherriffs, FBI, CIA, etc. There's no one on our side in any of these battles. There is no one we can turn to to keep Whitewell from fixing elections in OH. There's no one we can turn to to get someone, ANYONE, prosecuted for leaking Valerie Plame's identity to the press. We're completely devoid of options for redress of grievances.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RagAss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #8
15. Bingo..well said. !.Time for people to wake up.
With Rove free to kill the Dem chances in November, we are about to see one of the greatest comebacks in political history. We are also about to be savaged and made irrelevant !!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #15
19. The Dems already are irrelevant
as per TOJ's post. We are fucked!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robinlynne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 09:30 PM
Response to Reply #8
20. The only options I really believe in are the people fighting election
Edited on Tue Jun-13-06 09:31 PM by robinlynne
fraud: conyers, debra bowen, clint curtis. Leon Sancho
I think it is the issue of all issues right now.

edited for typo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doctor_J Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. But if the media just ignores them, there is no issue
and that's worked well for the GOP to this point. There won't be any election refomr before November, if ever. We're a Banana Republic now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robinlynne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #23
51. you're right, but we're still fighting....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stepnw1f Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 09:19 PM
Response to Original message
10. Oh My Oh My....
Well this gets more interesting everyday.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iconoclastic cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 09:19 PM
Response to Original message
11. And the Sliming of Fitzgerald Version 2: Operation Sucker Dems begins
in earnest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldLeftieLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 09:23 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. Here we go
Hold on - it's going to be a bumpy ride.

What a drag. What a predictable, counteproductive drag this stuff is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldLeftieLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 09:23 PM
Response to Original message
13. I've always been a big fan of Turley's,
for years and years. We've taught in the same building, and I've even sat in on some of his lectures. He's very good.

But, on this one, his academician comes out, and he betrays his ignorance of the actual practice of law. It's not uncommon for people to be called back more than once, twice, thrice, and even to ask to return when they discover that something's not accurate, to appear before the grand jury.

Unless Turley was in the grand jury room - he wasn't - he's blowing smoke here, and that makes me uncomfortable, because, as I said, I'm a fan, but there are a lot of lawyers who think he's quite the starfucker. I don't think he is, but he sure doesn't understand what Patrick Fitzgerald is doing, and how he's doing it. He's also trying to diminish Fitzgerald in a subtle, competitive way, and, given Fitzgerald's immaculate and admirable history, that also makes me sad.

But, Turley's got this dead wrong. Damn.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim Sagle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 09:28 PM
Response to Reply #13
18. Turley is a worthless piece of shit, and I'm not surprised at you
defending him.

He was the scumbag who insisted Clinton could be indicted as a sitting President over Monicagate. Just another Joe Klein liberal: "I'm a Democrat every day except today - on every issue but this one."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 09:38 PM
Response to Reply #18
25. uh oh, you're goanna get put in Ignoreland
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim Sagle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. You say that like it's a BAD thing.
:7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fooj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. heh, true dat!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TomInTib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 09:26 PM
Response to Original message
16. J Edgar Hoover redux
Karl has the shit on everybody and there families.

Everything.

Think about it.

There is no one that any of us knows who does not have something in either their or a loved one's past
that they wouldn't go to almost any length to conceal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AuntiBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 11:12 PM
Response to Reply #16
35. Agreed, Tom but
Edited on Tue Jun-13-06 11:12 PM by AuntiBush
Wouldn't it works both ways. Rove is only (grrr) human. He has a past, too, right! You mean no one has the stamina or guts to stand up to this so called architect? It's unbelievable and so surreal.

edited for typos
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hubert Flottz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:24 AM
Response to Reply #35
44. Karl has the best spy ring in the world to use to look at Fitz's past
with. You can bet your ass that the neocons/NSA knows everything there is to know about Fitz by now. On the other hand Fitz has no such tools to dig into Karl's past with. I believe that Gonzales got to Fitz though, if anyone did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
originalpckelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 09:31 PM
Response to Original message
21. I trust Turley's opinion...
he has a long history of good credibility. I think he has hit the nail on the head. We know that Rove has been called back many times. That is weird.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
keopeli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 09:32 PM
Response to Original message
22. Amen! Let's not forget that Fitz is a Repub.
All of our fondness for Fitz is, I think, misplaced. He's a salve for the dissenters.

Would Ken Starr have ever offered such extraordinary latitude to Clinton?

Fitz is a Repub.

Let's say it again.

Fitzgerald is a Republican! And a loyal one, at that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinnie From Indy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 10:00 PM
Response to Reply #22
31. That must have been cold comfort to all the Illinois GOP members he
put in the slammer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim Sagle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #22
32. He just wrecked the Republican machine of an entire state government.
It's called Illinois. Check into it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
troubleinwinter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 10:59 PM
Response to Reply #22
34. No, he is not a republican.
Neither is he a democrat. He happens to have been appointed by an Illinois republican.

He is not a republican.

If you can show that he is, kindly produce your proof.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tiptoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 12:53 AM
Response to Reply #22
37. "I'm not partisan; I'm not registered as part of a party..."
Oct 28, 2005 Press Conference p.11-12
QUESTION: Mr. Fitzgerald, your critics are charging that you are a partisan who is conducting
what that considered -- (inaudible) --
(Laughter.)
MR. FITZGERALD: What's that mean?
QUESTION: You tell us.
MR. FITZGERALD: You tell me.
QUESTION: It's like a political witch-hunt. I mean, how do you respond to these, since you
are in Washington?
MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. I don't know, you know, sort of when you stop beating your wife.
I have read -- one day I read that I was a Republican hack, another day I read I was a Democratic
hack, and the only thing I did between those two nights was sleep. I'm not partisan; I'm not
registered as part of a party and I'll leave it there...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemReadingDU Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 05:45 AM
Response to Reply #22
42. Fitzgerald is careful to be apolitical
Fitzgerald is careful to be apolitical in his targets and his public life alike. He registered to vote as an Independent in New York, only to discover, when he began receiving fundraising calls, that Independent was a political party. He re-registered with no affiliation, as he did later in Chicago. "I am not running for an election. I'm not part of a political party," Fitzgerald said at the time.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A55560-2005Feb1


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cuthbert J Twillie Donating Member (6 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:00 AM
Response to Reply #42
43. The WAPO article is playing games with Fitz's IL voter registration.
Just a small point, but in IL we no longer check a party affiliation when registering to vote. In fact it's impossible as there are no check boxes for Dem, Repub or Indi. It's been that way for over a decade at the least. Long before Fitz came to Chicago, so the only way he COULD register is with "no affiliation".

So I don't know what the article is trying to prove with that comment, but it's totally disingenuous the way it's written and completely misleading.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #43
49. only in the primary do we register party affiliation
welcome-check the illinois forum and introduce your self
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
myrna minx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 08:17 AM
Response to Reply #22
45. Oh good gravy.
:eyes: *sigh* And just how do you know Fitzgerald is a loyal repub? Were you in the grand jury room? Do you know his strategy? That's right. That would be no. Sheesh people, let the man do his job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #22
48. tell that to the republicans in illinois
then tell that to the dems in illinois that are now under investigation, the several street gangs he`s busted,and last but not least tell that to the republican crooks that ran the sun times...ya he`s a real republican..funny he`s not even registered with -any party- in illinois...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
otokogi Donating Member (368 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 09:37 PM
Response to Original message
24. 5x to testify is HIGHLY unusual...
even an old lefty lawyer would admit to that.

why would you require a witness to testify to a grand jury 5 times?

unless he is squeal'n like a stuck pig :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 01:38 AM
Response to Reply #24
40. Yup, that's the point
Why all the fuss if nothing's to come of it? if there's nothing at all there, then two appearances should suffice, right?

And Welcome to DU!
:toast: :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacetalksforall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 09:40 PM
Response to Original message
26. I listen to Turley, but with all antenna up. He was disgusting in the 90's
Edited on Tue Jun-13-06 09:41 PM by higher class
He was Mr Morals Judge throwing in a touch of law here and there. I'll never forget him for his political and partisan punches at Clinton.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #26
30. Same here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sydnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 10:14 PM
Response to Original message
33. Talk Left posted this today - not exactly the same
scenario but goes hand in hand with why Fitz might have "helped" Rove at this point, without a deal or immunity from future prosecution.

"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
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevedeshazer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 12:01 AM
Response to Original message
36. The only thing for sure is, this story ain't over
I'm convinced that much more is here than meets the eye.

What exactly, I'm not sure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 01:28 AM
Response to Original message
38. INteresting
So Fitz is deferring to Rove? Not sure I buy it, but if the shoe fits.... you must acquit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0rganism Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 01:37 AM
Response to Original message
39. Looks like all we got for Fitzmas was a beat-up scooter
Just more proof that the legal system will not help us out of this mess.

No more than the legislative system.

Or the media and communications systems.

Or the electoral system, as the very foundations of democracy have been compromised.

And the economic system... well, don't get me started.

There is not a systemic remedy to our current crisis, which is very unfortunate. Extra-systemic responses tend to be ugly and unpredictable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
upi402 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 01:48 AM
Response to Original message
41. Rove not off the hook, and Cheney may be the target
Rove may not be off the hook.

If nothing else, there are Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame bringing civil suits. That could be a little messy. Will they continue to give Fitz room to maneuver if Fitz is washing the "blue dress"?

Cheney is 2nd in line in the Executive Branch. That's a powerful chess piece, more than a political adviser. I want to have hope still.

Cheney has handwritten notes in the margins of Joe Wilson's op/ed piece.
Rove must have said a lot of words in 5 trips to the GJ. Some may not be good for everyone in this game. I just think the worm is gonna turn.

If not -the plans I made to move to another country will look good again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 11:19 AM
Response to Original message
46. Would I rather see rove indicted and pardoned, or rove forced to testify
in the libby/cheney trial? You betcha.

It ain't over til it's over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 11:54 AM
Response to Original message
47. what the fuck is this guy talking about?
turley is so full of shit he must be going to explode any minute. just how in the hell did turdley get this "information" what i find even more repulsive is that people would actually believe what this fuck head has to say..
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 May 29th 2024, 03:26 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