Booman Tribune ~ A Progressive Community

yes, but you are taking one set of facts as fact and dismissing another set of facts.

Rove's lawyer categorically denies that Rove has received a target letter. That must mean that he was told that he might be indicted orally, not formally as would be in keeping with Justice Dept. protocol. He waived the right to the target letter.

by BooMan on Thu Oct 6th, 2005 at 04:56:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

These are two different things. One is a target letter one receives prior to indictments -- the other is a notification that a person receives prior to testifying. It is common practice for the prosecutor to "notify" a person prior to testifying that they could be a target of the investigation. This allows the person to "take the fifth". Fitz failed to do this for Rove the prior three times.

The "letter" is something that is given the lawyers to tell them "heads up, your client is being indicted". As far as I know, no one has received one of those yet.

--- A (former) member of the dreaded MSM, so be kind.

by numediaman on Thu Oct 6th, 2005 at 05:02:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More Rove Speculation (4.00 / 3)

Q: What is a federal grand jury "target letter"? Why and when would a target of the federal grand jury receive one? Does this mean that a person who receives such a letter is likely to get indicted?

A: Federal grand juries conduct investigations into possible violations of federal criminal law. They have the power to subpoena witnesses to appear before them to testify and produce information.

The Department of Justice has special policies when the subpoenaed person is either a "target" or a "subject" of the grand jury investigation. A "target" is someone the prosecutor or grand jury has substantial evidence to link to a crime, and who, in the judgment of the prosecutor, is likely to be indicted. A "subject" of a grand jury investigation is someone whose conduct is within the scope of the grand jury's investigation.

Due to the potential for unfairness and misunderstanding in making a person who is likely to be indicted testify or produce documents before a grand jury, prosecutors must first attempt to get the target to voluntarily appear. If that doesn't work, the prosecutor must get the approval of the grand jury and the United States Attorney or the responsible Assistant Attorney General in order to issue a subpoena.

In deciding whether to subpoena a target, prosecutors will consider the importance of the testimony or information sought, whether the prosecutor can get the testimony or information from other witnesses, and whether the answers to the questions the prosecutors and grand jurors intend to ask would be privileged.

If the target of a grand jury investigation is subpoenaed, it's the policy of the Department of Justice to advise the witness of his or her rights, either by attaching an "advice of rights" form to the subpoena or in a letter than accompanies the subpoena. In the case of a witness who's the target or subject of the investigation, the following advice is provided: "The grand jury is conducting an investigation of possible violations of Federal criminal laws involving: [the general subject matter of inquiry, for example `conducting an illegal gambling business in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1955']. You may refuse to answer any question if a truthful answer to the question would tend to incriminate you. Anything that you do say may be used against you by the grand jury or in a subsequent legal proceeding. If you have retained counsel, the grand jury will permit you a reasonable opportunity to step outside the grand jury room to consult with counsel if you so desire."

Targets are also advised that their conduct is being investigated for possible violation of federal criminal law.

link

by BooMan on Thu Oct 6th, 2005 at 05:06:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So it appears he has avoided the target letter because the target letter is only issued with a subpoena. The press sucks because they cannot explain these things clearly.

by BooMan on Thu Oct 6th, 2005 at 05:10:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Procedurally, this still leaves me with this question:

Does a witness who agrees to testify voluntarily still receive a subpoena (a court order to appear)?

In state practice, grand juries aside, as a prosecutor, I send a person a subpoena -- a court order -- to appear. Even friendly witnesses who are happy to point out their accusers.

So I just can't say about Federal practice in this situation. Subpoeana versus voluntary appearance. Could make a difference with respect to this target notification. But I can't say that with any authority.

"Have you no sense of decency, sir. At long last, have you left no sense of decency?" -- Boston Attorney Joseph Welch, taking down Sen. Joseph McCarthy.

by BostonJoe on Thu Oct 6th, 2005 at 05:28:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Last year, I learned that I'd likely be called as a witness for a federal trial. I was contacted by the defense team and interviewed. They then served me with a subpoena to testify at the trial in the federal courthouse in Tacoma, Wash.

I wasn't keen on it, but didn't protest.

Finally, the FBI called me to interview me on behalf of the U.S. Attorney prosecuting the case. I talked at length with the FBI special agent, and also indicated that I'd be interested in testifying for the prosecution.

I was served with a subpoena by the FBI agent at my home.

The defense never called on me, but the prosecution did, and I testified during the trial for the prosecution. The defense cross-examined me, in a very non-confrontational manner (for which I was relieved).

I HAVE NO CLUE if this is relevant to federal GRAND JURIES, however.

Hickok: "You know the sound of thunder. Can you imagine that sound if I ask you to? Ma'am, listen to the thunder."

by susanhu (susanhuatearthlinkdotnet) on Thu Oct 6th, 2005 at 05:40:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You have as much idea as I do. :)

These are very basic questions, that anyone who practices federal criminal law could dispense with in like two seconds. If I wanted to trip down to the library, I could probably dispense with them in two hours or so.

Let's see if we get basic answers soon. If not, I will go.

"Have you no sense of decency, sir. At long last, have you left no sense of decency?" -- Boston Attorney Joseph Welch, taking down Sen. Joseph McCarthy.

by BostonJoe on Thu Oct 6th, 2005 at 05:42:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/
federal rules of criminal procedure

maybe this'll help though I don'thave time to investigate further at the moment

ITMFA!

by librarylil (librarylil at g mail etc.) on Thu Oct 6th, 2005 at 05:47:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Fuck no. Not reading the FRCP.

That is the worst reading in the world. Like reading stock reports for meaning.

Not unless it becomes super important.

Thanks for link though. A kind offer.

"Have you no sense of decency, sir. At long last, have you left no sense of decency?" -- Boston Attorney Joseph Welch, taking down Sen. Joseph McCarthy.

by BostonJoe on Thu Oct 6th, 2005 at 05:49:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

BJ, if you don't mind doing the extra footwork, I think it'd mean a lot to many of us!

p.s. e-mail me if you diary it. and you can always call me.

Hickok: "You know the sound of thunder. Can you imagine that sound if I ask you to? Ma'am, listen to the thunder."

by susanhu (susanhuatearthlinkdotnet) on Thu Oct 6th, 2005 at 05:52:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Looking quickly through FRCP, I don't think subpoena question in addressed.

ITMFA!

by librarylil (librarylil at g mail etc.) on Thu Oct 6th, 2005 at 05:57:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are a brave person, to venture there. It is often the case that the most basic points of procedure are the hardest to answer when there is a question. Also, very hard to answer questions from the outside reading tea leaves, as we are. A wise person would wait and see. I am just so wanting to know something.

"Have you no sense of decency, sir. At long last, have you left no sense of decency?" -- Boston Attorney Joseph Welch, taking down Sen. Joseph McCarthy.

by BostonJoe on Thu Oct 6th, 2005 at 06:00:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I've done more than my share of legal research in my day though it was mostly civil not criminal. I had to look! The guessing, the waiting is just about killing me. We want this so badly.

ITMFA!

by librarylil (librarylil at g mail etc.) on Thu Oct 6th, 2005 at 07:10:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm not an attorney either -- but this is the way I understand it . . . .

A person can take the fifth in front of both a grand jury as well as a regular jury.

The difference is this: in front of a regular jury you have already been indicted and therefore are automatically protected against self-incrimination -- that is, the prosecutor can not call you up to testify without your own attorney having you testify first. For example, OJ Simpson did not get called to the witness box at any time in his trial -- his only involvement was putting on that damn glove.

That is why, when no one has been indicted, it is important for a client to be notified, before testifying in front of a grand jury, that they could be indicted down the road. This allows them to take the fifth.

Remember though, you have to take the fifth for all of your testimony, not just part of it. Take this case, for instance. Now that Rove has been informed that he could be indicted, he could choose to not cooperate -- his lawyer might even ask that all previous testimony be inadmissable in court. That may be why Miller's testimony was so important to Fitzgerald. But remember, its all or nothing. You can not agree to answer some questions but not others.

People do not like to take the fifth in front of GJs -- the burden of proof is very low at this stage and it makes them look very guilty. There is no "beyond a reasonable" doubt at this stage. In fact, its the opposite -- when in doubt, indict.

--- A (former) member of the dreaded MSM, so be kind.

by numediaman on Thu Oct 6th, 2005 at 05:54:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That is all true (none / 0)

but...

First question: why would Rove agree to testify voluntarily? Normally he wouldn't. But he must have been threatened with a subpoena. Once subpoenaed, he would have (almost definitely) received an official target letter which his lawyer could not deny.

This way, he can still deny he is a target for a few more days.

But, more importantly, why not just clam up if he is going to be indicted anyway? He must be trying to atone for prior perjury, or to cut a deal. Any other theory?

by BooMan on Thu Oct 6th, 2005 at 06:01:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That is all true (none / 0)

I agree. We'll see tomorrow -- if he clams up I'm sure word will leak out that he wouldn't cooperate.

--- A (former) member of the dreaded MSM, so be kind.

by numediaman on Thu Oct 6th, 2005 at 06:22:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Good Analysis (none / 0)

Headed to law library. Have to know. Talk to you later.

"Have you no sense of decency, sir. At long last, have you left no sense of decency?" -- Boston Attorney Joseph Welch, taking down Sen. Joseph McCarthy.

by BostonJoe on Thu Oct 6th, 2005 at 06:24:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Remember though, you have to take the fifth for all of your testimony, not just part of it.

Not true. The Fifth is taken on a question-by-question basis.

by Brementown Musician on Thu Oct 6th, 2005 at 06:16:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

As federal grand juries have the power to subpoena the defendant and force them to take the witness stand, defendants in such proceedings invariably refuse to answer any questions put to them, citing their Fifth Amendment rights. However, it should be noted that if the defendant does answer any question put by the prosecutor during the proceeding, the right to invoke the Fifth Amendment is lost.

If you answer any question you lose your Fifth Amendment rights.

--- A (former) member of the dreaded MSM, so be kind.

by numediaman on Thu Oct 6th, 2005 at 06:24:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The only way the Fifth Amendment can be asserted as to testimony is on a question-by-question basis. Rendahl, 746 F.2d at 555, citing with approval U.S. v. Bell, 448 F.2d 40, 42 (9th Cir.'71)

by Brementown Musician on Thu Oct 6th, 2005 at 07:04:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You site an appeals court ruling concerning testimony to the IRS -- completely irrrelevant to grand jury, or indeed, open court testimony.

The case you sited involves the IRS interview process and whether there is a reasonable expectation of prosecution. So, when the IRS agents asks you a few questions about your return, you do not have to invoke Fifth Amendment rights at that point simply because there is no expectation at that point that you are "on trial", so to speak. But if the questioning leads to areas where you feel you may "self-incriminate" you can then invoke the Fifth.

In the case where you are on trial, or in front of a grand jury, and you already know you are a target of the investigation, you must decide immediately whether you will cooperate. Rove can not pick and choose what questions he will answer.

--- A (former) member of the dreaded MSM, so be kind.

by numediaman on Thu Oct 6th, 2005 at 07:36:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sorry you don't think the case that I cited is relevant. It is.

In my work as a court reporter, I frequently take testimony where the witness asserts the Fifth Amendment privilege. It is done on a question-by-question basis.

Now, it's true that a witness can waive the privilege on certain questions by having answered other questions on the same issue (you don't get to cherry-pick and tell three-quarters of a story that makes you look good and then leave out the one-quarter that's incriminating). But it's still on a question-by-question basis. Always.

Oh, and with respect to your previous post, the Fifth Amendment privilege is never, ever applied retroactively.

by Brementown Musician on Thu Oct 6th, 2005 at 10:16:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Other than the use of the specific word "target" I fail to see the difference between that verbage and that being reported in the papers where Fitzgerald warned Rove/Luskin that whatever he said today might be used against him.

The 10,000 Things

by Andrew C White (acwhite.nospam.@taconic.net) on Thu Oct 6th, 2005 at 05:12:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The target letters everyone is talking about are really notifications give just prior to the announcement of an indictment.

The word "target" is what is confusing everyone. A person can be the target of an investigation -- but never get a "target" letter because no charges are filed.

What people are waiting for are "target" letters being faxed to the attorneys -- you'll know they are out because you will start seeing a lot of lawyers on TV accusing Fitzgerald of being a partisan hack. You've seen that from some right-wing surrogates, but not from the lawyers. They'll do that after they know they have prevented indictments being handed to their clients.

--- A (former) member of the dreaded MSM, so be kind.

by numediaman on Thu Oct 6th, 2005 at 05:23:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That was a waste of space, Booman.

Read the following from the AP story:

The U.S. attorney's manual requires that prosecutors not bring witnesses before a grand jury if there is a possibility of future criminal charges unless the witnesses are notified in advance that their testimony can be used against them in a later indictment.

Rove has already made at least three grand jury appearances and his return at this late stage in the investigation is unusual.

The prosecutor did not give Rove similar warnings before his earlier grand jury appearances.

Rove offered in July to return to the grand jury for additional testimony, and Fitzgerald accepted that offer last Friday after taking grand jury testimony from the formerly jailed New York Times reporter Judith Miller.

Before accepting the offer, Fitzgerald sent correspondence to Rove's legal team making clear that there was no guarantee he wouldn't be indicted at a later point, as required by the rules.

You see until today, Rove was never informed that he could be indicted -- therefore, by bringing Rove back one more time, this time with a gun to his head, he hopes to either wring out more information, force Rove to confront contradictory testimony, or get Rove to cave (which I doubt he would).

My guess is that Rove's testimony will be short: "I wish to invoke my Fifth Amendment rights . . ."

--- A (former) member of the dreaded MSM, so be kind.

by numediaman on Thu Oct 6th, 2005 at 05:18:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

right. he has been notified of his vulnerability but not in a 'target letter'. So, his lawyer can still deny he is a target, even though it isn't true.

by BooMan on Thu Oct 6th, 2005 at 05:22:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think we are on the same page now.

--- A (former) member of the dreaded MSM, so be kind.

by numediaman on Thu Oct 6th, 2005 at 05:24:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

close but...

you are wrong about what a target letter means. It doesn't mean that indictments are imminent, in means that a subject is being compelled to testify and they may be indicted.

Rove isn't being compelled to testify so he he hasn't received a target letter. It's irrelevent to whether is a target or not.

My theory still stands. Rove is volunteering to avoid getting subpoened, which would lead to a 'target letter'.

by BooMan on Thu Oct 6th, 2005 at 05:35:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Legally, a target letter goes out to inform someone that they are 'a target of investigation' -- but in practice, it is the last step before indictments. No one likes to put out a target letter to someone who does not get indicted. It makes the prosecutor look like an idiot.

If Rove gets an actual target letter, he is toast. I don't think there is any way in hell that Fitzgerald sends a target letter to Rove without indicting. Maybe he'd do this to some small fry as a way of getting them to shake in their boots.

--- A (former) member of the dreaded MSM, so be kind.

by numediaman on Thu Oct 6th, 2005 at 06:00:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He has not been informed orally or in written form (none / 0)

What I have read is that Rove's lawyer he has not been been informed orally or in written form that Rove is a target. Now, this investigation is 2 years old.

I would like to know what it means that he is not a target.

by Stu Piddy on Thu Oct 6th, 2005 at 05:05:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

When did Luskin say Rove had not received a target letter? I'm seeing conflicting reports on that.

What I've seen:

Last week Luskin said not target.
Yesterday Luskin said no comment.

Todays a report says Luskin says catagorically no target letter but no linkage to when he said that. If he said it today then it confuses things. If this is sloppy reporting (we've never seen that have we) then it may be drawing from a statement he made last week.

Also, catagorically no target letter does not mean that he has not been informed that he is not a subject.

Can a subject go directly to being indicted without being a target inbetween?

Can a defense lawyer waive a "right" to a target letter when in fact the target letter is simply a justice department procedural rule? Is it even an option available to Luskin?

The 10,000 Things

by Andrew C White (acwhite.nospam.@taconic.net) on Thu Oct 6th, 2005 at 05:07:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's on Yahoo News.

"I can say categorically that Karl has not received a target letter from the special counsel. The special counsel has confirmed that he has not made any charging decisions in respect to Karl," Luskin said.

by Stu Piddy on Thu Oct 6th, 2005 at 05:08:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

But the question is... when did he say it.

The 10,000 Things

by Andrew C White (acwhite.nospam.@taconic.net) on Thu Oct 6th, 2005 at 05:13:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Today. He said it today.

by Stu Piddy on Thu Oct 6th, 2005 at 05:15:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sneaky wording (none / 1)

...Karl has not received a target letter...- Luskin has it?

...not made any charging decisions...- Decisions will likely be made after Rove's new testimony.

Slippery slippery

by Primordial Ooze on Thu Oct 6th, 2005 at 05:31:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Making a "charging decision" (deciding whether to ask the Grand Jury to indict on probable cause) and being a "target" (prosecutor has substantial evidence you commited a crime) are technically different things as well.

Rove's lawyers, who are talking, are spinning a bit, I think. Fitz has been pretty silent and leak free. I just don't know what the fuck is really going on.

"Have you no sense of decency, sir. At long last, have you left no sense of decency?" -- Boston Attorney Joseph Welch, taking down Sen. Joseph McCarthy.

by BostonJoe on Thu Oct 6th, 2005 at 05:31:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

A Second Take on Scooter-gate. It's all about treason

For all we know, Rove plead the 5th. Amendment at all three previous sessions and this is Fitzgerald giving him one last chance to present his story...or to clarify/rectify it in regards to other information and testimony.

As to his offer to testify, he really has no choice but to appear "voluntarily" or be subpoenaed, at which point we adjourn to the realm of "Judy-land", and I doubt Karl wants that kind of press. The level of secrecy that has been maintained during this investigation is quite impressive, imho. To date that has served in everyone's interest.

My suspicion is that this is T-Crossing and i-Dotting time and that the GJ will not be extended and indictments will be forthcoming.

Peace

lTMF'sA...the revolution will not be televised...Peace

by dada on Thu Oct 6th, 2005 at 05:18:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I Just Noticed (4.00 / 2)

In background on CNN -- NYC Subway bomb threat. Who would have thought it?

"Have you no sense of decency, sir. At long last, have you left no sense of decency?" -- Boston Attorney Joseph Welch, taking down Sen. Joseph McCarthy.

by BostonJoe on Thu Oct 6th, 2005 at 05:13:58 PM EST

Re: I Just Noticed (none / 1)

Timing is everything.

Hickok: "You know the sound of thunder. Can you imagine that sound if I ask you to? Ma'am, listen to the thunder."

by susanhu (susanhuatearthlinkdotnet) on Thu Oct 6th, 2005 at 05:14:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Just Noticed (none / 0)

Isn't this a coincidence - right after Bush's big speech on the WoT this morning? Hmmm...

by catnip (llamg88 at hotmail.com) on Thu Oct 6th, 2005 at 05:36:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Even Wolf (4.00 / 2)

Just said. If this was a problem, why would they wait for a 5:30 press conference to tell everyone? To keep you from talking about Rove, you idiot.

"Have you no sense of decency, sir. At long last, have you left no sense of decency?" -- Boston Attorney Joseph Welch, taking down Sen. Joseph McCarthy.

by BostonJoe on Thu Oct 6th, 2005 at 05:38:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Even Wolf (4.00 / 2)

reminiscent of Tom Ridge raising the threat level whenever the Repubs were in trouble...

by catnip (llamg88 at hotmail.com) on Thu Oct 6th, 2005 at 05:49:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

EXTRA HIGHLIGHT :: A 2nd Take ... (4.00 / 4)

.
«« click on pic for article

I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff --
It isn't about Karl Rove, as I said months ago; it isn't about a possible violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, as I maintained from the beginning. It's about how a small group of government officials, in tandem with their overseas allies, engaged in a criminal conspiracy to falsify "intelligence" - and, in the process, lie the nation into war.

NEW DIARY ::
Israel and AIPAC Accused in Spy Case of Franklin, Pentagon Analyst
In Alexandria, Va. District Court yesterday.

▼ ▼ ▼

by Oui on Thu Oct 6th, 2005 at 05:14:06 PM EST

Re: EXTRA HIGHLIGHT :: A 2nd Take ... (4.00 / 2)

Powell's link: The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies That Led to War and Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity-A Diplomat's Memoir -- and it's about 30% off.

Hickok: "You know the sound of thunder. Can you imagine that sound if I ask you to? Ma'am, listen to the thunder."

by susanhu (susanhuatearthlinkdotnet) on Thu Oct 6th, 2005 at 05:26:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

cartoon time (4.00 / 3)

This is all so confusing, so I'm putting this up for your entertainment: Rove "target"or "subject" cartoon.

by catnip (llamg88 at hotmail.com) on Thu Oct 6th, 2005 at 05:28:02 PM EST

Re: cartoon time (none / 0)

That's great -- and explains the word games better than anything else.

--- A (former) member of the dreaded MSM, so be kind.

by numediaman on Thu Oct 6th, 2005 at 05:40:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I've Even Broken Down (4.00 / 5)

To the point of calling DOJ to ask to speak to someone on background for BMT freelance story. To explain Federal Procedure. No one available. I told them I didn't want a call back. They had patched me through to the Washington office, and I don't want to be on Alberto's shit list.

Then, I checked with Federal Defender I haven't spoken to in ten years. He wasn't in. He's never in. I couldn't bring myself to leave message on this topic. Not that it is not important to know. It is just a poor reason to call someone out of the blue ten years past.

Man. I am pathetic.

I can't get over the Terror alert. I joke sometimes about the media controlling us. But this is like a farce or something.

"Have you no sense of decency, sir. At long last, have you left no sense of decency?" -- Boston Attorney Joseph Welch, taking down Sen. Joseph McCarthy.

by BostonJoe on Thu Oct 6th, 2005 at 05:36:36 PM EST

Re: I've Even Broken Down (none / 1)

You're not pathetic! :)

Far from it.

by catnip (llamg88 at hotmail.com) on Thu Oct 6th, 2005 at 05:58:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Clips from a Salon.com story via Raw Story:

"So Karl Rove is returning to testify before the grand jury investigating the outing of Valerie Plame, and he's doing so without any guarantee that Patrick Fitzgerald won't prosecute him. How big of a development is this?" asks SALON.COM's Tim Grieve. "Stunning," a former federal prosecutor told SALON.COM. "There is no reason for Rove to make this appearance unless he and his counsel believe he is at serious risk of indictment. None."

"It's always risky to go before a grand jury," Grieve adds. "You can't take your lawyer into the room with you. It's especially risky if you've already testified once -- or, in the case of Rove, three times -- before: The odds of introducing inconsistencies into your testimony increase each time you give it. That's why, the former prosecutor tells us, a defense lawyer would advise his client to make a return appearance before the grand jury 'only in extremis.'"

So many lawyers - so many opinions.

by catnip (llamg88 at hotmail.com) on Thu Oct 6th, 2005 at 05:47:39 PM EST

Hey. The former federal prosecutor has best take on it. But that was my first instinct as a state criminal defense attorney. You must tell your client to shut up. Only reason to talk is if it assists you in making a deal, or on some other agenda not related to the case. Or Rove is just egomaniacal, ignoring advice, thinking he can talk way clear.

That was the most comforting thing I've read so far. Federal prosecutor saying "no reason... unless at serious risk." I'll buy it.

"Have you no sense of decency, sir. At long last, have you left no sense of decency?" -- Boston Attorney Joseph Welch, taking down Sen. Joseph McCarthy.

by BostonJoe on Thu Oct 6th, 2005 at 05:56:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Maybe this is all just a careful parsing of words. The Salon article goes on to say this.

But isn't Rove's lawyer still insisting that his client hasn't been told he's a target? Not exactly. Back in July, Robert Luskin told the Los Angeles Times that prosecutors had told him previously that Rove was not a target and that he had been "advised recently that his status has not changed." But when the AP asked Luskin about Rove's status today, he answered the question more narrowly. "I can say categorically that Karl has not received a target letter from the special counsel," he said.
Got that? "Karl has not received a target letter." Has his attorney received such a letter -- or has Rove or his attorney been informed in some other way that Rove is now a target? Luskin's previous statements on the matter would have swept away such possibilities. His narrow words today do not.

by Brementown Musician on Thu Oct 6th, 2005 at 06:11:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

good point n/t (none / 0)

by catnip (llamg88 at hotmail.com) on Thu Oct 6th, 2005 at 06:22:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What is with this terror warning (4.00 / 3)

I am only half listening. But it sounds like FBI told locals about a kind of a threat. But threat wasn't sufficient to warn anyone immediately according to locals. And then they hold a news conference right before prime time news.

Timed on day of Bush speech about terror. And on day when people are trying to figure out whether Rove is going to prison, or going to roll.

Is this not an incredible coincidence?

"Have you no sense of decency, sir. At long last, have you left no sense of decency?" -- Boston Attorney Joseph Welch, taking down Sen. Joseph McCarthy.

by BostonJoe on Thu Oct 6th, 2005 at 05:52:21 PM EST

Re: What is with this terror warning (none / 0)

CNN's Jamie Mcintyre is saying that this is connected to info they rcv'd from a raid in Baghdad last nite, but Bloomberg said that some media outlet had the warning two days ago. Hmmm... Regardless, what was the point of all of this if there was no credible threat? Geez. Taking the heat off of Washington indeed.

by catnip (llamg88 at hotmail.com) on Thu Oct 6th, 2005 at 06:02:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Chris Matthews is on now ... just said that this could be the "eve" of the indictments... he has Isikoff on NOW.

He says Rove's atty offered for opportunity for Rove to appear.

Hickok: "You know the sound of thunder. Can you imagine that sound if I ask you to? Ma'am, listen to the thunder."

by susanhu (susanhuatearthlinkdotnet) on Thu Oct 6th, 2005 at 05:03:51 PM EST

John Harris of WaPo ALSO said that tomorrow may be the day.

Okay, i'll set my alarm for 3:30 am.... try to go to sleep early.

Hickok: "You know the sound of thunder. Can you imagine that sound if I ask you to? Ma'am, listen to the thunder."

by susanhu (susanhuatearthlinkdotnet) on Thu Oct 6th, 2005 at 05:06:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Matthews just asked -- if you've committed perjury in earlier testimony -- you can go back before the GJ and clear up the mess.

John Harris, an expert, just said you can do that, but it doesn't remove the perjury charge.

Hickok: "You know the sound of thunder. Can you imagine that sound if I ask you to? Ma'am, listen to the thunder."

by susanhu (susanhuatearthlinkdotnet) on Thu Oct 6th, 2005 at 05:07:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Lawrence O'Donnell: Plamegate: The Next Step

I'm wrong on the 2nd quote -- that guy's name is Stephen Hayes, not Harris -- he's with the Weekly Standard ...

John Harris of WaPo is also being interviewed by Matthews.

Hickok: "You know the sound of thunder. Can you imagine that sound if I ask you to? Ma'am, listen to the thunder."

by susanhu (susanhuatearthlinkdotnet) on Thu Oct 6th, 2005 at 05:13:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

BooMan (none / 0)

I just posted on old thread. I've been pouring over the Justice Department Manuals, not being familiar with federal grand jury process.

My take -- I believe Rove's attorney's statement that he has not been notified he is a "target" is significant. Under U.S. Justice Department guidelines, Fitz should give this notice if he has substantial evidence linking Rove to a crime. No letter = not a target = no evidence.

I can't discount your idea that Rove's lawyer has waived this requirement, in order to facilitate this testimony, though I've seen no evidence of that yet.

"Have you no sense of decency, sir. At long last, have you left no sense of decency?" -- Boston Attorney Joseph Welch, taking down Sen. Joseph McCarthy.

by BostonJoe on Thu Oct 6th, 2005 at 05:12:52 PM EST

Re: BooMan (none / 1)

linl

Check my update and tell me what you think.

by BooMan on Thu Oct 6th, 2005 at 05:14:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yeah (none / 1)

Thank you for link. Reading that, I understand your update. Reading the manuals, I've been struggling with that queston -- is there a distinction between voluntary testimony and compelled testimony -- in DOJ procedures for issuing the target letter. Honestly, the manuals just aren't clear on this point, from my initial read. The website is better, in that it talks about target letters when "subpoenaed."

And the fact that Fitz has issued "warning" in effect, that you may still be indicted.

I just don't know what the fuck is going on.

Out of my league.

Well... there is the terrorist attack.

"Have you no sense of decency, sir. At long last, have you left no sense of decency?" -- Boston Attorney Joseph Welch, taking down Sen. Joseph McCarthy.

by BostonJoe on Thu Oct 6th, 2005 at 05:21:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Target Letter Rove :: Luskin Refuses to Deny It (none / 0)

Lawrence O'Donnell 

Thu Oct 6, 2:10 PM ET

If Karl Rove's lawyer, Bob Luskin, is still as easy to read as he has been since I broke the story that his client was Matt Cooper's source, then we now know that Rove has received a target letter from Patrick Fitzgerald. How do we know it? Luskin refuses to deny it.

Fitzgerald does not have to send Rove or anyone else a target letter before indicting him. The only reason to send target letters now is that Fitzgerald believes one or more of his targets will flip and become a prosecution witness at the pre-indictment stage. A veteran prosecutor told me, "If Fitzgerald is sending target letters at the end of his investigation, those are just invitations to come in and work out a deal."

Prosecutors prefer pre-indictment plea bargaining to post-indictment because they have more to offer you, like not being indicted at all or downgrading your status to unindicted co-conspirator. Pre-indictment plea bargaining can greatly enrich the indictments that the prosecutor then obtains. If, for example, Fitzgerald has a weak case against, say, Scooter Libby, imagine how much Rove's cooperation might strengthen that case.

If no one RSVPs to Fitzgerald's invitations, look for indictments as early as next week. If anyone does sit down with Fitzgerald, he will probably have to move to extend the grand jury, which now has only thirteen working days left in its term.

▼ ▼ ▼

by Oui on Thu Oct 6th, 2005 at 05:27:49 PM EST

Luskin Refuses to Deny It (none / 0)

I had put up that story in the last thread too but Luskin has issued a denial:

Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, said Thursday he would not comment on any ongoing discussions he has had with Fitzgerald's office, but he said he had been assured no decisions on charges had been made. Rove would first have to receive what is known as a target letter if he is about to be indicted.

He said that Rove "continues to be cooperative voluntarily" with the investigation and "beyond that, any communication I have or may have in the future are going to be treated as completely confidential."

IOW, if Rove's status moves from subject to target, Luskin won't announce it.

by catnip (llamg88 at hotmail.com) on Thu Oct 6th, 2005 at 05:35:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Luskin Refuses to Deny It (none / 1)

If Luskin receives a "target" letter it's too late. It means indictments are coming down.

Luskin is playing the word game -- he knows his client is a "target" -- but not in the sense that his client has received a 'target" letter. He is using legalese to get around the fact that his client is in deep trouble -- but is as yet not indicted.

--- A (former) member of the dreaded MSM, so be kind.

by numediaman on Thu Oct 6th, 2005 at 05:44:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Word games and smokescreens (none / 1)

That could just be a smokescreen. According to the wording of the DOJ manual Booman posted above the "target letter" is issued when someone is subpeoned to testify. Rove wasn't subpeoned. He volunteered and the warning he received ahead of time that his testimony might be used against him is worded just as if it was a target letter.

As far as I can tell Rove is a target whether he received a specific target letter or not.

The 10,000 Things

by Andrew C White (acwhite.nospam.@taconic.net) on Thu Oct 6th, 2005 at 05:49:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Word games and smokescreens (none / 0)

That's the impression I get.

by catnip (llamg88 at hotmail.com) on Thu Oct 6th, 2005 at 05:56:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]