Um... When Was Fitzgerald's Announcement, And Where Is The Letter ???

No press conference? No copy of the letter?

Did I miss something? Do tell!

:shrug:

the Free... I mean, the Rove apolo... I mean... well... Trolls pretending to be Liberal Duers might beat you up if you don't attack TO and company with them.

This is all based on the word of Rove's attorney. Some sources say a letter arrived, others report it was via phone. There has been NOTHING OFFICIAL from any source.

I am beginning to suspect this is nothing more than GOP Propaganda, to take our attention off the real story. What are we missing?

Delivery method number 3.

I think the chances are less than zero that Luskin is making this up since that'd be practically daring Patrick Fitzgerald to indict his client. Rove is going nowhere and the sooner people get through the 5 stages of grief the sooner they can move on.

For those who don't know, here they are:

· Denial
· Anger
· Bargaining
· Depression
· Acceptance

"Have you seen the document I sent you?"

Attorney: "No, I have not seen it."

Even though he knows exactly what it says, because his partner opened it up and read it to him earlier. But he, personally, has not yet seen the document, so he is telling the truth.

I live with an attorney, I know how some of them work, I've heard the stories. There are a lot of "respectable" attorneys who are nothing more than snakes.

The all clear may have been sounded today, but that doesn't necessarily mean that Rove is off the hook, there are too many ways to manipulate the facts.

That's not something any sane lawyer would do, let alone one at his hourly rate.

at that particular point in time, those were the facts.

From what I've seen of the communication, there were lots of disclaimers in it. The door is definitely still open for an indictment if more evidence is uncovered. I doubt Fitz would guarantee no indictment, period.

Prosecutors don't work that way unless they are getting something out of it as well.

I think everyone should just chill out, take today's news at face value, and see what happens. The investigation is not over, who knows what tomorrow may reveal.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

there. I know personally of one case where a lawyer filed a bogus lawsuit against the noncustodial parent for failure to pay medical bills for the minor child. I say bogus because, although the insurance company balked at first, they did eventually pay up and the amount the lawyer was claiming was far higher than the medical bills were.

After he filed the lawsuit, he had the defendant served with a subpoena to appear in one Judge's chambers at the same time the suit in question was to be heard in another Judge's chambers.

The Judge, whose chambers the defendant was supposed to appear according to the subpoena had always recused himself in any case regarding the defendant because they'd had lawyer/client relationship in the past, the defendant called his lawyer to find out what was going on.

I'm sure you know that had the defendant gone to the wrong Judge's chambers while the hearing regarding the case was being held in another Judge's chambers, he would have been considered in default and would have lost the case, regardless of its merit. And had to pay the filing lawyer's not inconsiderable fees.

And that was a well-respected member of the legal community.

Most lawyers are on the up and up, some are good, some are great, and some are not ones I'd ever hire, but not all are honest and ethical.

(On edit: The defendant prevailed in that case, but his lawyer refused to file an ethics complaint against that lawyer despite the clients request... The attitude was, "You won, let it go.")

And there are other professions where NO PRACTITIONER EVER DID ANYTHING SLEAZY, right?

Tell me about them.

Everyone has a story. Patrick Fitzgerald doesn't, and neither does Mr. Luskin, and if people would stop gossiping about spurious stories about lawyers 'they knew of,' maybe they'd take some time to learn something about how government and our judicial system works, and then they wouldn't have to fall back on these old chestnuts about old lawyers who did something wrong - as if it were somehow relevant to anything having to do with what's going on here today.

Who ever said any group is 'all honest and ethical'?

Right now, I'd say you're suffering a bad case of fiction. You're seeing things that aren't there and writing as if they were real. That was never a line uttered, certainly not by me, and if you don't understand what "sanctions" are, then I can't help you.

Pearls before swine, I swear.

on TO and Rove and indictments about Fitzgerald or Luskin or whether or not I believed TO. In truth, I had no opinion either way. I'll wait to see what comes as it comes. I don't think we have the story, the whole story and nothing but the story just yet.

(It does make me feel ill, though, to see all the vitriol from both sides of the issue, that has caused a rift among DU members. It isn't that important, one way or another.)

Your posts were pretty much saying that because a man/woman is a lawyer, s/he is above any kind of less than absolutely professional and ethical. I'm sure that you, in your years of practicing law, have run across a few shady ones yourself.

But just as their are unethical lawyers practicing, I believe there are righteous, upstanding, ethical, law abiding lawyers too. I know a few.

That's your gloss that you're putting on whatever I've written here, and if you read anything even remotely resembling that sort of insipid and worthless statement, you've confused me with someone else.

Mistakes happen, and you made one here. Who one earth who ever make such a sweeping generalization about any profession? Not I.

Let's not forget that this is billable time, dammit.

Oh, this stuff is funny.

...the big question would be what was in the letter that would make him not release it to the press?

Possibly nothing.

Possibly something like "we have received the additional testimony from your client concerning Vice President Cheney's role in the case -- assuming your client continues his cooperation with the ongoing investigation, he will not face criminal charges."

Possibly somewhere in between (like Rove walking if he clinches the case against Libbey).

Who knows? :shrug:

and, as such, is privileged and confidential.

Ever consider that?

Yeah, as I've been saying, there are protocols, and Luskin/Fitzgerald did this one just perfect.

So, with the news of this everywhere - it's on Countdown right now - how come people are so hard up for something or other that they have to fixate on some letter that they MUST see in order to believe?

How pathetic is this obsession, and now that the Rove matter is over, what will happen to these people? I wonder.

simply because he isn't required to. He doesn't care one way or the other about whether we're happy about it or not, and I doubt he'd release it just to satisfy us.

perception.

Well, that explains everything about AndyA.

HAHAHAHAHAHHA!!!!!

Poor thing.

it's one of the rules of the Law Society that every time a document is sent from one solicitor to another, the receiving solicitor has to reply to the effect that it has been received, and when. Once a solicitor has admitted to receiving a document, then there's no real excuse for not being aware of its contents.

I used to think it was silly and time-consuming for UK lawyers having to send letters saying nothing more than "yes, I've received what you sent", but now I'll have to have a rethink of my attitude.

so they like to make up stories that have no basis in fact, and, in reality, fly in the face of the truth. That's why it's so easy for anonymous keyboarders to accuse someone's defense counsel of lying, when, in fact, such an act in a situation like this would result in disbarment and, most likely, a criminal charge followed by a prison sentence.

Naw, these delusionals need to hold onto their fantasies because, well, I guess there's just something wrong with them, and reality is too complicated.

They'll rant, and they'll believe Jason Leopold's story (now, THAT's funny - lawyers lie but Leopold tells the truth), and then, gradually, they'll figure out that they've just sodomized themselves with their misapprehensions, and they'll be quiet.

It's not like they haven't been down this delusional trail before, I suspect.

sorry, I couldn't resist.

bullshit. Like Fitz doesn't 'anticipate indicting Rove' cause Rove agreed to cooperate.

And it's likely that letter Luskin got was a RESPONSE to a letter Luskin sent.

Fitzgerald sent Rove's counsel a letter telling him that he was not indicted, and that the grand jury did not foresee indicting Rove.

That's it.

At that point, there was permission given by Fitzgerald for the defense counsel to make the contents of that letter public via a statement to the press, which defense counsel promptly did.

That's how it works. That's the protocol. It could not come from Fitzgerald because it had to go to Rove's counsel first. That's the way things are done in these matters.

So, it's over. Rove's not been indicted by the grand jury, which obviously had no problem with his testimony.

And there it ends.

You don't get to see the letter under ordinary circumstances. Maybe a copy will show up somewhere. Try smokinggun.com. Or maybe you could call Fitzgerald and ask him to send you a copy. Stranger things have happened.

I wish I could say I was surprised.

Whadda country...

:wtf:

And Joe Wilson, and Chuck Schumer, and the entire TV and Print media, then I guess I will too. They must know there isn't a reason in the world for Luskin to lie about it.

Leopold blew it. Sometimes the most obvious answer to a question is also the right one.

The unmitigated GALL of that man!

:rofl:

I'd like to at least see the goddamned letter. You?

:shrug:

would you?

:hi:

Just think . . . Rove's lawyer comes out, says "No indictment".

No statement from Fitz.

What happens if the lawyer lied, and Fitz does indict Rove Friday . . . all of a sudden, "Fitz reneged on the deal! Them sneaky liberals! You can't trust them!"

Positively Rovian.

The letter was Fitzgerald speaking, and he gave Rove's defense counsel permission to make the information in the letter public.

That's how it works. From F----->DC--------->press.

That's the protocol and doesn't disrupt the chain of representation.

Rovian?

You're paranoid. It's how our legal system works. Go read up on it. Any high school civics book will soothe your anxieties and clear up your misunderstanding of the situation.

and what leftie wouldn't be justifiably paranoid these days?

Did I miss Fitzgerald making the letter public? Did I miss Luskin producing the evidence? If so, I apologize.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

basement . . .

I want Fitz's statement.

And how could you accept my apology if the terms of said apology have not been met? You didn't say the letter was produced. Has Fitz verified the story? Are you taking silence as acknowledgement?

Rove came out and declared that his opponent had bugged his office. Photo-op trumps reality. Truth gets buried. Later, truth comes out. "Bug" couldn't have lasted more than a couple of hours.

(Can't tell how much of your post is sarcasm . . .)

No, I'm no lawyer. But you have millions of people convinced that Al Gore claimed he invented the internet, that he claimed to be the inspiration for Love Story, that Bill Clinton murdered a bunch of people in Arkansas, that we found WMDs in Iraq, that Bush is honest, etc. etc. etc.

So, I come out and sit here and say, "I'm not buying the 'official story' yet . . ." (especially when you consider how many of Repukes' "official stories" have had to undergo several revisions.

Wasn't the Whitewater investigation riddled with "leaks" (even stuff that wasn't true)? Fitz has held his cards close to the vest all this time . . . if he is not announcing it, I hope it's for something truly big. If (when?) Fitz confirms the story, then you may accept my apology.

that's the part you're not understanding.

When he sent that letter to Rove's counsel, he also gave implicit permission for it to be made public by said defense counsel, and that was Fitzgerald speaking.

Can you understand that, because I can't figure out a simpler way to explain it to you. It's a protocol, and if you find it political, well, there's no explaining to you how it's not political.

This is how these things are done. That's all. It's that simple.

And, if you choose not to believe it, that's always your right. Ignorance is, I hope for your sake, blissful.

Oh, and you could not possible be serious in comparing Ken Starr with Patrick Fitzgerald. You cannot be serious about that. It's too absurd.

Boy, I'd love to see a Repuke take that stance from a lawyer for a lib.

Oh, and your comment about ignorance? You so funny. (bad grammar intended). I am indeed not blissed. It makes MY head explode when I have to deal with the ignorant. I even ranted on my own mother for her ignorance, and she's a lot more left than my Brother. I've been paying attention, and getting shit on by righties for it. Including phone calls at 3 am.

Let's see - how many times in a day do you believe what someone tells you?

Never?

Ah, well, then your first comment makes sense.

In the meantime, I urge you to investigate what sanctions may be brought against a lawyer who knowingly and deliberately makes false statements. You need to know what's going on. Clearly, right now, you're stuck in a fog of confusion.

Sorry about your personal travails, but that's WAY too much information about someone I don't know.

That said, you don't have to believe anything anyone says ever. Don't. You already know what's what, so be cool and just don't answer that phone. Oh, and your mother is probably a really awful person, as is everyone who doesn't see things your way.

And, I'm sure Luskin made up that stuff about the Fitzgerald letter, and he's just being mean, not showing it to you. He's probably the one calling at 3 a.m.

<click>

Please keep bringing the facts, the rationality and especially the understated snarkiness.

All three are music to my eyes... err, poetry to my nose... um, the sound of perfume? Which is my obtuse way of saying that really I appreciate your efforts. I have two ears that aren't deaf to your words (although that perfume is making a ghastly gurgling sound).

We have to keep it up, don't we? We can't let them get off track for a moment. We owe the truth to them, if only to save their poor benighted and blighted souls.

There's hope, and truth is a sweet dish.

Get your nose out of there.

Thanks for your kind words. Much appreciated.

provide a link which has Fitz or any spokesperson for Fitz saying anything other than "No Comment" about the Rove "non-indictment".

I have had it up to here on having to be a person who has to provide at least three unimpeachable independent sources to prove my point (to even my family) when all a freepturd has to say is "nuh-huh, ain't true" and the media says "Oh, okay . . ."

And I'll leave this thread.

Otherwise, quit thinking of me as a delusional reality-impaired freepturd. My history at DU suggests otherwise . . .

Has Fitgerald actually made a statement on this? I've not seen any from him or his office, so forgive me if he has. Or is Rove's attorney the only one who has publicly spoken on this subject?


For the record, I think that a letter probably was sent, as Rove's attorney would have to be an idiot to make such a public proclomation without some sort of assurance from the Prosecutor and/or his office. But I think that you are being very imprecise in your language when you claim that Fitgerald actually made this announcement, and that is all the poster wioth whom you are sparring has been asking. :shrug:


And how is the letter from Fitzgerald privileged (you mentioned work product upthread)? There is of course no attorney-client privilege covering the letter, it shouldn't be work product because it has already been shared with opposing counsel, and there is no joint prosecution privilege because they can't legitimately be considered to be on the same side of the prosecution. I don't practice criminal law, so maybe the privilege rules really are that different?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Doesn't that leave the door open for a change in circumstances?

Also, could that sentence in the letter about not anticipating an indictment have come in the midst of a longer statement -- i.e, could it have been predicated on his continued cooperation?

I'm wondering why Luskin doesn't just release a copy of the letter.

that would be brought against Rove's lawyer if he fabricated such a statement?

For you to make such a statement suggests to me that you need to educate yourself about our legal system, especially the basics.

Yet, I bet you believe Jason Leopold's story. Don't you/

Seriously, you do need to get your Civics knowledge upgraded. Your statement is incredible.

Many here are more interested in soothing themselves with scary lawyer bogeyman fantasies.

Lawyer: "The sky is blue."

Crowd: "Don't believe him, he's a LAWYER!"

Some of these theories are literally on a par with government brain-wave interference.

I have tinfoil in my ears and nose.

;)

weren't the Repukes the ones screaming about "don't trust the lawyers"???

Oh, and Rush was extremely badmouthing his own lawyer for some time before he had to enlist his services to get his fat ass off the hook.

And how many times have Repukes enlisted the aid of the ACLU to save their asses when they feel that their rights are infringed upon?

and as an ACLU volunteer attorney, it gives me great pleasure to know that we helped Rush with his drug problem. I know he'll always be grateful, because I'll always be around to remind anyone who dares bring up anything postiive about that vast waste of life.

We did good.

Suckasses are always the biggest ingrates, but, hey, that's why they're suckasses.

understand how our apparently corrupt system works. C'mon OLL, you have to know that the judiciary is under assault, both politically, and physically. And you would rather sit on your throne of knowledge and condescension, than help the rest of us figure out how we can save the judiciary, the rule of law, and the country itself???

What kind of Left Lawyer were you anyway???

:shrug::wtf::shrug:

who's laughing at your inadequacies right now.

Thanks.

And how did you get your self-portrait as an avatar?

:shrug:

:evilgrin:

But somehow, I doubt it will be. It seems that people above a certain political level are made of teflon.

I have plenty of time.

I doubt he's feeling very non-stick these days, but I'm sure he's betting on Fuckface's Presidential Pardon at just the right time.

Maybe I'm a cynic, but I just don't see justice as being able to reach people at this level. Few and far between, anyway.

and his infamous Christmas Eve pardons of the Iran-Contra fuckers?

The Bush family has this nice history of taking a dump on the Constitution, so why wouldn't the Fuckface son continue to sully the Presidential Pardon part of it?

Not a damn thing we can do about it, either.

I'm holding out hope for the Abramoff/DeLay/Safavian matter, hoping that it will turn out to be so elaborate and far-reaching, even Fuckface won't be able to contain it.

I have to hope.

I always call it "that show where you can win 49,000 dollars and go home disappointed".
We won Scooter Libby and go home feeling like losers. Anyway, the investigation isn't closed yet. Is it?

but that announcement - that the investigation has concluded - will have to come from Fitzgerald.

No one has won anything, alas.

You win the cookie OLL. Should I send that to your firm or your home address?

He was called before the grand jury to testify how many times? Five? Must have been a few problems. I'm no lawyer...just my opinion.

That was unusual, but it's hardly strange for people to be called back over and over to testify before grand juries. Happens all the time, sometimes for reasons as unspectacular as the fact - I've had this happen more than once - that jurors couldn't read their notes from previous testimony.

You don't have to be a lawyer to know about the grand jury system. It's very interesting, very scary, Draconian, powerful, unyielding, and probably the second most powerful tool a prosecutor has. There are some great books about this system out there, and I bet you'd enjoy them. Very eye-opening.

Going to search out some books about the Grand Jury System. While we may not have gotten the outcome we were hoping for with Rove, the whole story with Fitz and Rove and Libby is really interesting and has taught me how little I know about the workings of our judicial system. Thanks Leftie. Interesting thread.

So, whadya think about the big picture? Obviously a crime of treason was committed and someone was the bad guy. Is Fitzgerald obligated to keep digging until he solves it? Any opinion you care to offer on this is appreciated.


:hi:

Hell, I know nothing about treason. Who committed treason? I just know about the outing of a CIA agent case.

I have no idea where Fitzgerald is with his investigation, but the grand jury obviously didn't have any problem with Karl Rove's testimony. Where else Fitzgerald is going with this one - an impossible task, in my opinion, and in the opinion of every other lawyer I know in DC, because it's such a shit law - is impossible to discern. He's kept a tight lid on his operation, as is his wont, and it's been a joy to wait to hear from him.

Only when you hear it from Fitzgerald, as we did today, via his letter to Rove's defense counsel, can you be sure that it's true.

But, no one's making any guesses as to where his investigation is. No one knows. The guy's amazing. And this isn't even his day job, don't forget.

considered treason, other than the comment made at one time by George Walker Bush who considered it a treasonous act. But it is a felony under the Identities Protection Act. It is hard for me to imagine that such as thing could just be swept under the rug, but I imagine it is more a case of nailing it down, as per your reference to "such a shit law". Oh well...greater crimes have gone by the wayside.

Thanks for your explanation. :)

Could it have said a little more than Luskin's making public . . . such as "we do not anticipate an indictment" provided that you continue to cooperate...?

Would Luskin be subject to disbarrment if he withheld part of the information in the letter?

Perceived as part of the attorney work-product?

Because nothing anywhere says he's obliged to?

Because that's how it's done?

since when does this Administration do anything like anyone else? If they wanted to put the questions to rest, they could.

You're talking about a lawyer in private practice. He's not part of the administration, and neither is the Fizgerald investigation.

You got it all wrong, sorry.

What questions? The party's over. Rove was not indicted.

The End.

could not authorize the release of the letter, if he chose to?

I'm not at all clear on how that letter would be classified. There are far too many possibilities for me to speculate.

And, in fact, it's a big waste of time.

Fitgerald has already produced the correspondence to Rove's counsel, thus there is no work product privilege attached. Fitzgerald waived any such privilege which might have attached to the letter by voluntarily producing it. The details of plea agreement would be public info as well.

Otherwise, yes, Luskin is under no obligation to make the document public.

while people were howling to "see the letter."

It was amusing, mostly, noting the strange sense of entitlement some people have developed regarding this matter. Like they should see the letter so as to - what? - validate its contents?

So I went for the shotgun approach. It was never seriously considered - at this end, anyway - a work-product matter, but, hey, sometimes you just have to feed the thundering hoardes.................

claim and see what sticks? Assume the "thundering hoardes" are too dumb to notice?

Even I, as a lowly client, knew that "attorney work product" wasn't relevant here.

For a second, it made me wonder whether you even were an attorney.

But of course you are. Silly me -- expecting a straight answer from a lawyer.

No wonder people here are doubting Luskin.

Gee.

I thought it was a message board.

Go figure.

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

You're really smart.

I did ask if this is how lawyers normally argue THEIR CASES.

Once again, I'm not surprised. Even though I'm not nearly as smart as you are.

I've often heard that lawyers like to twist people's words.

Thanks for the demonstration.

Sorry but I'm not buying the load of manure the GOP is selling.

He told you that he thought it was inappropiate for a federal prosecutor to announce a decision not to file an indictment. He told the subject's lawyer. That is all he ever will do. This story is OVER. NOW AND FOREVER. GET OVER IT.

in a fantasy world.

My previous posts still stands.

Wonder if that is all paranoia too.

:shrug:

Gold star to whoever gets it first!!!!

It's hidden in his underwear drawer, along with that secret indictment of May 12.

Check there.

I'll wait here.

We can always count on you - you're the snarkiest!

the OldLefties, I bet.

But, hey, it's a gift, and I use it as God wants me to.

Thank you.

You're not looking in that drawer, either, are you?

Didn't think so.

Maybe I'll get some new socks for fathers day!

:beer:

:rofl:

Thank you for putting a smile on this old broad's face. :)

can we?

Besides, we know about them there underwear drawers, don't we?

heh heh heh

one I've been wondering all day. Supposedly, Luskin is an ironclad lawyer, a Dem, who is just as credulous as Fitzgerald. Or at least that is what is supposed to be believed. Who knows if it is true or not.

"Several former prosecutors, as well as two current Justice Department officials, told me that in cases that have received so much media attention, it is in fact "in the public interest" for a brief official statement to be released noting that a target will not be charged."

"This official declared it is "fundamentally unfair" for there not to be an official clearance issued by Fitzgerald or his spokesman. He pointed out that the usual reasons given for secrecy in the grand jury process are to avoid: the perception of unfairness to a target, the possibility of witness intimidation, or interference with the ongoing investigation. In the case of Rove, he maintained, all three points argue for a public clearance."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/13/politics/main1710015.shtml

:yourock:

"One source close to Rove expressed frustration at the lack of public confirmation of the clearance, and worried it could lead to more fevered speculation by bloggers."

Too bad! Rove shouldn't be such a slimeball!