What happened to the Rove Grand Jury?

Certain sources...er...wrong again?

:evilgrin:

:popcorn:

no updates there...

http://www.cafepress.com/scarebaby/1430616

the ticket ! Hey, he broke so many laws, it's taking them a long time !!!

NO NEWS IS GOOD NEWS !

favorite:

I believe in our justice system and I also think KKKarl will get his. As Fitz said be patient, right.

No evidence that the cable news nets had reporters staking out the place either.

No one actually said a definite indictment or non-indictment today. Fitzgerald, his staff and the grand jury is all that knows.

sarcasm contributes to a climate of stupid, superficial commentary, that neither addresses the difficulties of the story (secret grand jury proceedings, held tight by the prosecutor for good reasons; and defense lawyers and others doing boffo self-interested leaks) nor the substance of the case, including the Bush junta secrecy and coverup. This is a case involving treasonous skulduggery at the top our government, and pervasive newsstream manipulation. Alternative news sources are up against all that, plus lack of resources. Ridicule is a Freeper tactic. It is thoughtless and counter-productive. Please don't do it!

If they didn't exist and seek out the truth, we would never know anything true.

n/t

Unless you strive to resemble the anonymous vicious snarkers on most soap opera lists who attack any non-perfect spoiler for miles of bandwidth. Is that your goal?

Reporting for Duty!

(Hey, remember when Kerry did that ridiculous reporting for duty thing at the DNC last time...oy, gewalt)...

;-)

trying to sell sizzling copy to increase the hits at their blogs.

There are many not so hidden confounders to predictions about Fitzgerald's investigation of Rove's involvement in Plamegate.

Who knows how many cases Fitzgerald is involved with?

I don't beyond the obvious...he is involved with the Libby prosecution and the continuing Grand Jury investigation.

Who knows which of this unknown number of cases might have a demand on his time that interferes with his participation and progress in another?

I don't, and it seems obvious at this point that neither do various "professional in the alternate news" and their "sources" who have promoted rather risky predictive speculations.

IMHO those who refuse to acknowledge that things are in reality rather unpredictable are sophomoric and deserve a bit of criticism.

It isn't simply ridicule, it's us consumers stating our dissatisfaction with a constant bombardment of low yield albeit "friendly" speculation.

To be credible as alternate news sources those writers need to manifest rather better judgment in holding back on what are in reality highly speculative reports.

They need to present LESS of what we want to hear, and MORE of what are the facts.

On the otherhand if they simply want to gain a reputation as "fun to read tell me what I want to read" biased observers it makes no difference at all.

Readers are always going to be making judgments. On a place like DU readers are going to share those judgments.

There is no excuse for bad reporting, and if alternative news sources make stuff up and report it as fact, they're just adding to the problem of "pervasive newstream manipulation" as you call it.

To Raw Story's credit, I think they gave a fair report - the best they (or anybody) could given the information available. The Grand Jury is scheduled to meet every Wednesday and Friday - whether they do or not is another matter. The MSM is in the same position, just waiting. I believe Tweety was the first to say the GJ would be meeting on Rove yesterday.

However, recently Jason Leopold repeatedly said Rove specifically received a target letter over a month ago, but we have yet to see anything to substantiate this as fact. This is a substantial moment in history we're talking about! This is important stuff that shouldn't be recklessly thrown around in an attempt to drive traffic to a website.

We need to hold ourselves to the same standards we do with others. Change isn't going to happen using the same mentality that causes the issues in the first place.

Surely someone who has visited with the grand jury five times is a target.

All well and good, I suppose.

Officially he's been known as a "Subject" but of course, in Fitz's documents, he's known as "Official A" which based on Fitz's history would say Rove has a big X on him and will be indicted any time.

From what I've heard, a target letter is a notice advising a person of their rights and that they are to be indicted imminently (not a month or two later).

"Subject" and "target" are two specific legal statuses in an investigation and they are treated differently. Found this on ThinkProgress:



We've seen reports from Luskin saying Fitz hadn't decided whether to seek charges on Rove yet and that Rove had not received a target letter. At this point, there is no Rove indictment nor anything to suggest Luskin was lying (nor, given the situation, I doubt Luskin would jeopardize his client by lying publicly about what is going on with the investigation).

target letter issue:



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. (I suspect this is why Rove appeared before the Grand Jury for yet a FIFTH time, if he had not "volunteered", he would have been subpoenaed.

If you’re a “target” (loosely defined as a person against whom the government has evidence of an involvement in a crime for which you may be charged) or a subject of a grand jury investigation, the government may want to question you about your involvement in the crime under investigation. In that case, the United States Attorney’s Manual requires federal prosecutors to advise you in writing of your right to counsel and to use your privilege not to incriminate yourself if you so choose.


If you think you’re the target or subject of a grand jury investigation, you might consider getting a lawyer to open communications with the prosecutor. Sometimes the prosecutor will confirm her intention to indict you, engage in plea negotiations before the indictment, or agree to surrender instead of arrest when the indictment is returned. Other times, the prosecutor will request that the indictment be sealed by the court until your arrest, to reduce the chance you’ll flee to avoid prosecution.

http://www.lawyers.com/lawyers/A~1001633~LDS/FAQ+CRIME+FEDERAL.html#one

Edited to add:

9-11.153 Notification of Targets

When a target is not called to testify pursuant to USAM 9-11.150, and does not request to testify on his or her own motion (see USAM 9-11.152), the prosecutor, in appropriate cases, is encouraged to notify such person a reasonable time before seeking an indictment in order to afford him or her an opportunity to testify before the grand jury, subject to the conditions set forth in USAM 9-11.152. Notification would not be appropriate in routine clear cases or when such action might jeopardize the investigation or prosecution because of the likelihood of flight, destruction or fabrication of evidence, endangerment of other witnesses, undue delay or otherwise would be inconsistent with the ends of justice.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/11mcrm.htm#9-11.153

I have little doubt Mr. Rove received such notification from Mr. Fitzgerald regardless of what Mr. Luskin may say.

I agree - this site should maintain a solid line on opinion vs. facts.
Virtually everyone (except trolls) that comes here wants an indictment against Rove, but the case is leak-proof and it's time for everyone to accept and understand that simple fact.
What bothers me is the wave of groupthink that occurs whenever a post appears from the truthout guys.
Read everything with some objectivity. Just because someone bylines it doesn't make it a fact.
Hey, I hope those guys are right, but until I see facts, it's all just opinion.

The Last Hurrah posted a PDF of Wilson's op-ed with handwritten notations by Dick Cheney himself! It is a must read:

http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2006/05/fitzgerald_coll.html

This is the kind of stuff I want to see more of - interesting this wasn't on Truthout or that Leopold's "sources" didn't bother to let him know about this.

I never believe anything until it's confirmed by a second source.

You get two named sources, and then you can pretty much tell if what the reporter is saying is credible.

However, Jason Leopold has EIGHT Anonymous sources, all Republicans, who - IF they actually exist, likely would gain politically if their corrupt bosses are out of the picture - or by discrediting some of the left's bigger internet info sources.

This is why we need names, documents - anything other than "we were told"...

Fitzgerald's main priority is justice not keeping to a timetable. And really, Tweety has been hopping with this. He hinted yesterday and today. He knows something is up. It's the when we are waiting for, the other shoe dropping. As far as network news staking out the place goes..they are often given a heads up hours and even as much as a day before an event happens or, we hear about it. Who knows what went on in there today? Did the GJ talk longer than expected, was the paperwork in place, did KKK, try to work out a deal? So many variables to contend with....

*shadow government*

...haven't even seen fit to tell us whether Fitz actually met with the grand jury, for how long, and how late in the day a major announcement could conceivably come. Perhaps the major media were willing to stake out the court again, but I can understand their not wanting to get worked up for nothing.

Would have been nice to hear them complaining, at least, about the amount of nothing.

in the apology thread.

Don't worry. I won't actually expect you to show up.

I have standing bets that Rove won't be indicted, and I've pledged to wear my shame in my signature for three months if he is (and no, I won't pull a trumad and disappear for three months). You think I won't show up for an apology thread? Oi.

Care to take the other side of the bet, Big?

One never knows and Rove's leaky side has gone mute. Hmmmm.

a plea bargain is always to get someone higher up. there's not much higher to go, other than the monkey and the devil themselves. as a spectator, I'd take it.

He would be honor bound to listen and determine whether he is cutting off more information from the investigation. A "deal" would be devastating to Bush if Rove deals up AND has a lengthy jail sentence. Fitz has many options and I trust him to use the best ones. ;)

:-)

implicate Bush or Cheney. there is no other way.

and/or more investigating.

So not quite sure why you would think anyone got anything wrong.

kept posted on their site most of the day a story that suggested the mainstream cable news was doing extraordinary surveillance today on the federal courthouse where the grand jury meets.

The not so subtly hidden implied story was something was up.

The media was staking it out in case something happened. Rawstory NEVER said something WAS going to happen today, only that something MIGHT.

Threads like this are just plain stupid, immature and unproductive.

An innocent person does not have need to go before a grand jury that many times. There could be a deal in the works. But I have not read anywhere a date specified for the actual indictment. Have you?

:shrug:

could be a media alert out about. I also appreciate speculation--especially if it comes from people knowledgeable about the case and its filings. Speculation is not just about whether Rove or someone else might be indicted. It also involves what was REALLY going with Traitorgate--who is responsible, who did what, who broke the law, who is indictable for it, the vast implications with regard to our government and the corporate news monopolies, and what Traitorgate might have been a cover up for. (Why were Valerie Plame and the entire CIA WMD counter-proliferation network she headed, outed, put in danger and disabled? Was it really just over an ex-diplomat's dissenting article?)

Also, a Rove indictment is not an easy thumbs up/thumbs down matter. For one thing, his indictment for perjury and obstruction might mean a solid Libby/Rove wall against Fitzgerald's ability to see what happened and who did it. I would rather hear that Rove is squealing than that Rove is being indicted for perjury/obstruction. And if Rove is squealing, that will take time--to sort through and judge his information. And the story of this would naturally be difficult to report, with great uncertainties about what is going on and how to interpret it.

The "pins and needles" of waiting for a Rove indictment are a necessary part of what is going on--and are particularly vulnerable to false alerts, false leads, misleading leaks, defense playing games in the media, a real roller-coaster for anyone trying to report on it. And if we had to choose between the "black hole" that the corporate news monopolies would LIKE to throw this story into, with its meager information, and the more nervous, anxious, and maybe alluring posts of the alternative media, I would certainly choose the latter. *I* can sort through the good and the bad of the latter. And I don't at all mind giving a web site like Rawstory hits. They have a lot of good information on their site. They deserve hits--whereas the war profiteering corporate news monopolies deserve warts on the ends of their noses. Know what I mean? Rawstory wrong is a lot better than the news monopolies getting the color of Bush's tie right. Any day.

...and that turned out to be incorrect speculation and outright lies.

But it's okay for blogs we like to publish pure hype and speculation and make stuff up we want to hear.

Tell me again how this works?

The terms of the bet are in my post above. I believe I agreed to place "I'm the dimbulb who thought Rove wouldn't be indicted" in my sig line for 3 months.

I'm sure you could come up with an equally shameful signature should he not be indicted, si?

:)

...why?

What personal jollies are you getting from your behavior on DU?

How about you attend to your own personal jollies and I'll attend to mine, eh?

:toast: