Citizen spook weighs in on Rove & Fitz

more: http://citizenspook.blogspot.com/

Friday, June 16, 2006
JUNE TALKING POINTS FOR CITIZEN SPOOKS

In yesterday's report I was perhaps guilty of cramming too much information into one essay. After seeing the various arguments floating around discussion forums, I noticed that the trolls are trying to focus attention away from the most important aspects of this report. So I'm putting up two talking points today which, if argued properly, will expose trolls from the wrong side of the tracks.

CS talking point # 1. Fitzgerald and Samborn have done an about face.

In October 2005, after the Libby indictment was announced both Fitz and Samborn unequivocally stated that the investigation would continue. As of June 13, 2006 their official position on whether the investigation is ongoing has shifted to "no comment at this time." This particular "no comment" changes the status of the investigation based upon prior direct answers by Samborn.

The big question you need to get out is why Samborn has shifted the official response from

the investigation wll continue

to

no comment on that at this time

C'mon people, something very starange is happening here with this Luskin fax situation. My theory that a run away grand jury may have taken the reins from Fitz is certainly speculation, but SOMETHING has happened which caused Samborn to change his response to questions regarding the ongoing status of the investigation.

People should be examining the tight lipped Samborn's comments because they indicate that something is going on behind the scenes of this investigation which has now caused Samborn to release a very intriguing "no comment" where there "no comment" did not exist before.

At the press conference you give a progress report about what is happening.

At other times you say "no comment". The investigation is ongoing at this point. Rove won't be indicted, but someone else may or may not be.

I just wish Rover was indicted ;)

and turns and plots.. Better than any soap I have seen.. I am keeping tuned in.. Same time, Same Channel......:shrug:

"No comment" is pretty standard procedure for Fitz & Co. Perhaps that is exactly what they meant: no comment. Because, in THESE CURRENT CIRCUMSTANCE, further discussion of their investigation would lead straight to the question: Who are you targeting now*? That could be the reason for the changed response. Also, what does "have done an about face" mean?

I'm not saying that Fitz & Co. couldn't have been bought off, or stopped cold by a behind-the-scenes "Saturday Night Massacre." Anything's possible with this criminal junta. But I don't think 'no comment" tells us anything much. I think their "no comment" on Luskin's assertion that Rove won't be indicted was more intriguing. If Rove is truly in the clear, why hasn't Fitz publicly cleared him? I think they've probably got him on a short leash for the Libby trial.

-----------

*(Who are you targeting, now that you've succeeded in pressuring Rove to testify under oath, in the Libby trial? This could be the reason for the Zarqawi bombing--trying to smother the news of a Rove deal with Fitzgerald. This may be what Leopold/TO's sources were onto (if they weren't just burning Leopold/TO)--act one of the showdown with Rove and possibly other White House witnesses (threat of indictment on perjury--perhaps even to writing up papers)--and part two, Rove finally agreed to cooperate at trial. Trial of Libby may be the means to the rest of the conspiracy--above Rove, a mere political operative of it, to the real perps with reasons to destroy the CIA WMD counter-proliferation network, Cheney and (my opinion) Rumsfeld. See
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1442947 )

an article.

Approach occurred to me too
And probably tens of thousands of others

If Fitz or anyone close to the investigation was threatened, what could they
do?
The suck-up media in this country would just make them look positively silly.
At least as silly as
Hillary looked when she first came out saying that their was a vast right wing conspiracy

From http://citizenspook.blogspot.com (emphases mine, incl a little reformatting):

the amount of information to win a prosecution at this time. That is all.

i think it's because from the moment I read about the leak in VandenHeuvel's editorial in The Nation, about a week after the leak, I didn't have much faith that justice would be done, and I haven't been let down yet.

swiftboating of Valerie Plame and CIA agents in general if Rove ever did stand trial. They offered up Libby early in the game to Fitz and that was the only deal here.."Take Libby ....we don't like the little bastard anyway...."

And the pig is still oiking his way around the barnyard slurping up shit.

:kick:

What does everyone think of this?

http://citizenspook.blogspot.com/2006/06/strong-indications-rove-has-been.html

I found an article from 9/98 in the Washington Post, which appears to be some congressional hearing:

SEN. ASHCROFT: That may well be for murder. But I'm talking about serious state offenses. There are a lot of serious state offenses that aren't covered in the federal codes. And I'm not arguing that they should be. But it seems to me that to reference only the federal statutes, makes it a little bit difficult to really think clearly about whether or not the statutes are relevant in this setting.

Mr. Rient, as an alternative to indictment, grand juries have traditionally had the power to issue presentments, or reports. What's the justification for issuing a presentment, rather than an indictment, and what role have presentments played historically?

MR. RIENT: Senator, I didn't catch the last part of the question. But as to the first part, the justification for issuing a presentment would really boil down to the proposition that it does not subject the subject of the presentment to the requirements of a trial, and the possibility of a punishment, in the event of a conviction. I mean, the presentment is simply a bald charge, or set of charges by the grand jury that certain things happened, and that in this case, if one were talking about the president, that the president participated in activities that the grand jury considers to have been criminal.

But it doesn't require that the mechanism of the criminal justice process then spring into action with an arraignment, and a setting of trial date, and motions, and trial, and all of the rest of that. It's just out there, the accusation.

And some have argued that that is, in a sense, unfair, because it doesn't allow the object of the presentment an opportunity to be publicly vindicated, and that might well be so, with respect to ordinary citizens, who don't share the access to the public media that a president does. But I think that in the case if a presentment were issued against a sitting president, it would be quite extraordinary that the president would not find it in his power to be able to respond quite effectively, even though it weren't in the context of a trial in a courtroom, which he probably would prefer to avoid in any event.

SEN. ASHCROFT: Is it your view that if there is no authority -- for instance, say that Professor Teurkheimer is correct, there's no capacity to indict a sitting president. Is it your view that it's inappropriate for an independent prosecutor to expend the resources and develop the case against a sitting president, if there is no potential for prosecution?

MR. RIENT: I'm not sure I would agree with that, Senator. The problem is that when you start a federal investigation, or a criminal investigation, federal or stat for that matter, you're not always clear about who is going to be involved in the thing. And even in this investigation by the special counsel, there have been suggestions, I think, that there may have been criminal acts committed by others than the president. And certainly the investigation should be allowed to continue, with respect to determining whether or not that is so.

SEN. ASHCROFT: Mr. Cox, I believe you addressed the so-called inferior officer argument. Is it your understanding that if you're going to categorize the independent counsel as an inferior officer, by virtue of the fact that he was not confirmed by the Senate of the United States, that that inferior officer would be inferior to other officers who might be subject to impeachment, who indeed were confirmed by the Senate of the United States?

MR. COX: Yes, Senator. He certainly would be, in the constitutional sense, inferior, and so, for example, you could imagine a situation in which an independent counsel, properly invoked under the independent counsel statute, uncovers a crime committed by the secretary of a cabinet agency, someone who has been confirmed, someone who, in that sense, is his constitutional superior, as a principal officer of the United States, and there would be no constitutional problem with that.

And indeed, again, that goes back to the very reason why Congress has seen fit to enact the independent counsel statute. It is to have these types of prosecutions brought against people who are prominent in the government, and who do tend to be, though are not exclusively, principal officers.