Fitzergerald, Plame, Rove GJ analysis from Citizenspook

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Fitzergerald, Plame, Rove GJ analysis from Citizenspook

Postby isachar » Thu Jun 15, 2006 11:56 am

latest insight from Citizenspook on the status of the Fitzgerald grand jury investigation. CS os back to doing what he does best. Hopefully his Hopsicker speculations were a distraction.<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://citizenspook.blogspot.com/">citizenspook.blogspot.com/</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>RANDALL SAMBORN INDICATES FITZGERALD’S PLAME INVESTIGATION MAY HAVE BEEN SHUT DOWN <br>While yesterday’s Citizenspook headline was clearly labeled as conjecture -- citing no sources -- today’s headline carries an impeccable, unimpeachable source --Randall Samborn -- Fitzgerald’s notoriously tight lipped press officer.<br><br><br>In a political atmosphere run amok with pundits in constant chatter mode, Samborn has become infamous for his pat phrase “no comment.” But as you will soon see, some “no comments” are much bigger than others, especially when the same question asked yesterday of Samborn in a CBS News report elicited a complete reversal by the Special Counsel’s Office. <br><br>This is rare history. Randall Samborn has issued a statement which tells us something we did not already know before he opened his unusually tight lips.<br><br>Before we address that Samborn comment, we’ll examine his other comment from yesterday:<br><br>“Mr. Fitzgerald's spokesman, Randall Samborn, said he would not comment on Mr. Rove's status.” <br><br>That’s not the big one, but it does raise questions many bloggers and reporters have begun asking today. If Rove is no longer a “target” or “subject” in the Plame leak case, why doesn’t Samborn or Fitzgerald just tell the people the simple truth? It appears that the truth is not simple.<br><br><br>The lack of confirmation from the Special Counsel’s Office regarding Luskin and Corallo’s statements certainly keeps us all in the dark about what the hell is really going down here. But that analysis is not the main topic of this report. <br><br><br>Still, we all recall that quote from yesterday, yet tracking it down online has proven a difficult task. Here is the link I found through Google’s news search engine<br><br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=">news.google.com/news?hl=e...fox-a&rls=</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br>org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;ie=<br>UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&tab=wn&q=samborn+rove+status+june+13&btnG=Search+News<br><br><br>When you click it, you will see the quote I highlighted above as a caption for the actual New York Times report by David Johnston and Jim Rutenberg, published: June 13, 2006. But when you click through to the actual New York Times article, you will not find that quote. It appears to have been edited out. And this will be a recurring theme in this article. <br><br><br>RANDAL SAMBORN DOES AN ABOUT FACE<br><br><br>OK, here it is, and most of you have probably come across it, so please suspend judgment until we go back a few months for the punchline:<br><br><br>Fitzgerald met with chief U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan before he notified Rove. Hogan has been overseeing the grand juries in the CIA leak case. Fitzgerald's spokesman, <br><br>Randall Samborn, declined comment. Asked if the CIA leak investigation is still continuing, Samborn said, "I'm not commenting on that as well at this time."<br><br><br><br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/13/ap/politics/mainD8I7C7N00.shtml">www.cbsnews.com/stories/2...7N00.shtml</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><br>This is a blockbuster quote. You would think that if Fitzgerald were still investigating the Plame leak, his press officer would tell the public this is an ongoing investigation. And if Fitz had completed his investigation, one would expect Samborn to say that the investigation is complete. <br><br><br>After all, the investigation must be open or closed, right? I’ve never heard of an investigation that’s neither open nor closed. Have you?<br><br><br>That quote by Samborn certainly seemed strange to me and I mentioned it in my speculative report yesterday (more on that below). But yesterday, I downplayed it in my mind because it’s Samborn’s standard pat response, “No comment.” <br><br><br>NOT!<br><br><br>Today, Samborn’s refusal to confirm or deny whether the investigation remained open haunted me.<br><br><br>The question involves the status of a very public case where people in high Government positions are being accused of treasonous activity, espionage even. Recall that at Fitzgerald’s press conference after Libby’s indictment, Fitz indicated he was considering the Espionage Act to prosecute anybody found responsible for the Plame leak. <br><br><br>[Citizenspook was out in front of the MSM and the blogosphere in our detailed analysis of the Espionage Act -- not the Intelligence Identities Protection Act – as the controlling law for the Plame leak investigation.]<br><br><br>The standard Samborn “no comment” was not appropriate at all for the question asked. Do we have an investigation into who leaked Plame’s name or not? Even for Samborn, “no comment” seems far too elusive and incendiary. This is the kind of “no comment” which raises more questions and problems for the public than a simple answer to the question.<br><br><br>So I looked back in time to see if Samborn had ever been asked this question before to see what his response had been in the past. And what I found blew my mind. <br><br><br>Samborn was asked this question in the past, and his answer yesterday signifies a complete change, an about face has been documented. It now appears -- based upon a thorough review of Samborn’s prior statements -- that the Special Prosecutor’s Office does not know if the investigation will continue. The incredible questions this raises will be addressed below, but first we will examine Samborn’s prior official answers.<br><br>From a CBS News Report on October 28, 2005:<br><br>Rove’s lawyer said he was told by the prosecutor’s office that investigators had “made no decision about whether or not to bring charges” and would continue their probe into Rove’s conduct.<br><br>Fitzgerald’s spokesman, Randall Samborn, said the investigation will continue but with a new grand jury. The term of the current grand jury cannot be extended beyond today.<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.politicalforecast.net/2005/10/28/rove-still-under-investigation-by-fitzgerald/#comments">www.politicalforecast.net.../#comments</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><br>There you have it, back in October 2005, Samborn and Fitzgerald (at the Libby Indictment press conference) both unequivocally stated that the investigation was ongoing.<br><br><br>As of yesterday, the official word from Fitzgerald’s office – via Samborn -- is: <br><br><br>Asked if the CIA leak investigation is still continuing, Samborn said, "I'm not commenting on that as well at this time."<br><br><br>Samborn -- and by proxy Fitzgerald -- have made an official about face. The status of the investigation is now officially in limbo. And I submit to you that neither Samborn nor Fitzgerald are ignorant to the significance of this carefully worded reversal of stated policy pertaining to the status of the investigation.<br><br><br>It just gets stranger and stranger, doesn’t it. You have no idea.<br><br><br>Notice that the above quote taken from October 28, 2005 is attributed to CBS News but the link I’ve provided is to politicalforecast.net . I would love to have provided you a link to the actual CBS news quote. It was originally attributed to CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen. <br><br><br>The link provided for the original CBS New report by politicalforecast.net is<br><br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/28/politics/main990068_page2.shtml">www.cbsnews.com/stories/2...age2.shtml</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><br>But when you click through to it, you come to a two part article about the Libby indictment which does not include the quote by Samborn stating that “the investigation will continue”. That quote has been edited out of the article. Click through and you’ll see that the link to the second part of the two part article, dated October 29, 2005, does not contain the Samborn quote, “the investigation will continue”. When you click the link at the bottom of that page, it brings you to -- not part one of the article you were reading -- but rather a different article dated October 30, 2005.<br><br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/28/politics/main990068.shtml">www.cbsnews.com/stories/2...0068.shtml</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><br>Neither link includes the quote by Samborn, “the investigation will continue.”<br><br><br>It wasn’t just politicalforecast.net who quoted that Samborn statement. You can find reference to it at Think Progress…<br><br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2005/10/28/new-grand-jury-will-continue-investigation/">thinkprogress.org/2005/10...stigation/</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><br>as well as Democratic Underground.<br><br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1884715">www.democraticunderground...02x1884715</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <br><br><br>The quote was also carried by WTKR, but the page has now been removed.<br><br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.wtkr.com/global/story.asp?s=4042769&ClientType=Printable">www.wtkr.com/global/story...=Printable</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><br>The full WTKR story with the Samborn quote can be found here…<br><br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.republicans/browse_thread/thread/6e64d332b62cc65c/fcc732b9a1e98d0b?lnk=st&q=samborn+fitzgerald+%22investigation+will%22&rnum=1&hl=en#fcc732b9a1e98d0b">groups.google.com/group/a...b9a1e98d0b</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><br>Why have these quotes been edited out of these major media publications? It will be interesting to see how fast those quotes return to the stories quoted above.<br><br><br><br><br><br>WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN?<br><br><br>It means something very strange went down in May, 2006. <br><br><br>Let’s see what we know:<br><br><br>We know Fitzgerald’s Office has done an about face with regards to the ongoing status of this investigation.<br><br>We know that Fitzgerald has not confirmed or denied Luskin and Corallo’s statements concerning Rove being cleared.<br><br>We know Fitzgerald cannot comment about any activity by the Grand Jury which has been sealed by the court.<br><br>We know that within three business days of Friday, May 12th 2006 the “Sealed vs. Sealed” entry was added to the District Court’s Pacer system by Judge Reggie Walton who is presiding over the Libby indictment. According to some excellent detective work by Marie26 at the Democratic Underground discussion board, we know that Case No. 06-CR-128 was probably entered on May 16 or 17th. Since the 17th was a Wed. and the Grand Jury meets on Wed., that date is more likely than the 16th.<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1406622#1410652">www.democraticunderground...22#1410652</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><br><br>5. We know that Rove’s spokesperson, Mark Corallo, when he worked as a press officer for Ashcroft at DOJ, was no stranger to the use of “Sealed vs Sealed”. See <br><br><br>Link<br><br><br><br><br><br><br>WHAT WE DON’T KNOW<br><br><br>We don’t’ know if “Sealed vs. Sealed” is a charge against Rove. <br><br><br>Truthout.org claims to have a reliable source informing them that “Sealed vs. Sealed” was an indictment returned by the Fitzgerald Grand Jury. I have no way of verifying that because there is no official information available about that case. It is completely sealed.<br><br><br>Since it carries the “CR” designation, it must be a criminal case, not a civil case or a motion regarding news sources like Cooper and Miller. Those carry different designations than “CR”.<br><br><br>CONCLUSIONS<br><br><br>If Luskin and Corallo can quote the fax sent by Fitzgerald, than that document is not sealed and they are legally free to show it to the world. If that fax completely exonerated Rove with no legal implications against the story they have told the world, then one would expect them to print that important exculpatory document. The have refused to show the world and until they do, the entire scenario DESERVES to be examined.<br><br><br>We must examine it in light of Randal Samborn’s strange statements regarding the status of Rove and the entire investigation. If Rove’s people and Fitzgerald are on the same pages, we expect a communication from Fitzgerald to that effect. If Luskin has a document from Fitzgerald that he is legally allowed to quote from, then he is also allowed to show that document.<br><br><br>But he won’t. And Fitz won’t back up those statements.<br><br><br>And Samborn won’t even tell us if the investigation is ongoing. Adding this strange behavior to the existence of “Sealed vs Sealed”, we must assume there is something very unusual about the Plame investigation now that wasn’t strange before May 2006.<br><br><br>For the sake of argument, let’s assume now that Jason Leopold was not lying and was not being lied to. I am not saying I believe him. I have no way of knowing if his claims are true. But for the sake of argument, I want to assume Leopold, Samborn and Luskin are all telling the truth.<br><br><br>What scenario would allow them all to be telling the truth? There may be others, but the scenario I speculated upon yesterday -- a runaway Grand Jury may have returned charges without Fitzgerald having sought them or signed them -- allows all of the parties to be telling the truth. <br><br><br>If that were the case then charges may actually exist and may be the “pending case” Luskin referred to. <br><br><br>These might be the same charges Leopold became aware of. The investigation may have been put on hold due to the unique Constitutional issue such charges would cause. And that might also explain Samborn’s inability to confirm whether the investigation is ongoing.<br><br><br>If the Grand Jury returned charges which were not requested by Fitzgerald, such charges would not be signed by him. In fact, according to Constitutional law, the Grand Jury could eject Fitz from the Court and bring whatever charges they like without him. Such charges might read:<br><br><br>Grand Jury for the District of Washington D.C. vs. Karl Rove<br><br><br>And in that case, the charges may have been sealed until Judge Walton decides how to handle this unique Constitutional exercise of citizen authority. <br><br><br>I have seen various commentary about yesterday’s Citizenspook report alleging that the runaway Grand Jury scenario is not possible since lower courts have held that a prosecution cannot move forward without the signature of a U.S. Attorney. I submit that any lower court ruling which states that is in direct contradiction with the Constitution.<br><br><br>Neither the Supreme Court nor Congress has ever removed the right of Grand Jurors to return charges without a US Attorney’s acquiescence. Far from it. <br><br><br>Please read my previous report on the Constitutional independent authority of Grand Jurors:<br><br><br>TREASONGATE: The Federal Grand Jury, FOURTH BRANCH of the US Government<br>Link<br><br><br>Justice Scalia, delivering the opinion of the court, laid down the law of the land:<br><br>"'[R]ooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history," Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420, 490 (1960) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result), the grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It "`is a constitutional fixture in its own right.'" United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1312 (CA9 1977) (quoting Nixon v. Sirica, 159 U.S. App. D.C. 58, 70, n. 54, 487 F.2d 700, 712, n. 54 (1973)), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 (1977). ' "<br><br><br>Furthermore, <br><br><br>Justice Powell, in United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974), stated:<br><br>"The institution of the grand jury is deeply rooted in Anglo-American history. [n3] …The grand jury's historic functions survive to this day. Its responsibilities continue to include both the determination whether there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed and the protection of citizens against unfounded criminal prosecutions. Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 686-687 (1972)."<br><br><br><br><br><br>Is it possible that Fitzgerald had the patriotic audacity to educate the Grand Jury as to their power to return indictments without his approval? <br><br><br>Is it possible that Fitzgerald anticipated interference by forces in the DOJ loyal to the people he is investigating?<br><br><br>Is it possible that behind the scenes the very fabric of our citizen powers to investigate the Government as Grand Jurors is under the final assault of a Government hell bent on destroying the safeguards of our delicate system of checks and balances?<br><br><br>Is it possible that Fitzgerald has spoken to us through Randall Samborn by sending an S.O.S. hidden in the simple quotation, “No comment”?<br><br><br>There are other possibilities, but none of them allow for all of the players to be telling the truth. I don’t believe Luskin and Corallo would say anything to the public which Fitzgerald could slam them on. Not a chance. Corallo is ex DOJ and Luskin is too skilled to do anything that stupid or unethical. So we MUST assume that Luskin and Corallo have parsed their words within the law and facts.<br><br><br>We don’t have to assume that Leopold and Truthout.org are telling the truth, but all things considered, I believe they have real sources or else they had to know they were committing professional suicide. Their sources could be misleading them, but we have the unique confirmation from major media reporters like David Schuster, and Chris Matthews who also believed Rove had been or was going to be indicted at about the same time Leopold first said that they were.<br><br><br>So if the Grand Jury acted on their own, without the signature of Fitzgerald, then Luskin’s statement that Fitzgerald doesn’t anticipate seeking charges could be true even though charges are pending against Rove. And if the “pending case” Luskin referred to is actually a charge against Rove, then his statement in this regard is also true. <br><br><br>THE PROBLEM WITH MY ANALYSIS<br><br><br>The problem then is what to do with Corallo and Luskin’s insistence that Rove has not been indicted which is a totally different animal then whether or not Fitz “anticipates seeking charges.” If the Grand Jury returned charges against Rove on their own volition, how can team Rove’s direct, unqualified insistence that Rove was never indicted square with my theory? An excellent question. Good thing I have the perfect answer. It’s called<br><br><br>PRESENTMENT<br><br><br>From TENNESSEE v. JEFFREY DWIGHT WHALEY:<br><br><br>“The grand jury has the power to act independentlyof the court and the district attorney<br><br>General by instituting a criminal action by presentment. State v. Superior Oil, Inc., 875 S.W.2d 658, 661 (Tenn. 1994). In practice, the district attorney general is informed of the offense, prepares the appropriate charge, and delivers it to the grand jury where it is signed by all members of the grand jury. State v. Hudson, 487 S.W.2d 672, 675 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1972) (citing State v. Darnal, 20 Tenn. 290 (1839)). A bill of indictment, on the other hand, is sanctioned by the district attorney general and signed only by the foreperson and not the other members of the grand jury. State v. Davidson, 103 S.W.2d 22, 23-24 (Tenn. 1937). “<br><br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:RO7mNaBw1scJ:www.tsc.state.tn.us/OPINIONS/TCCA/PDF/004/whaleyjd.pdf+%22presentment+v+indictment%22&hl=en&gl=us&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a">64.233.161.104/search?q=c...=firefox-a</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><br>Obviously, Tennessee law does not apply. I only cite the case to show the difference between INDICTMENTS and PRESENTMENTS. The Bill of Rights mentions both. And the Grand Jury has the Constitutional authority to return either, but as our system developed certain habits of procedure, charges brought exclusively by the Grand Jury became regularly classified as PRESENTMENTS as opposed to charges brought directly by the U.S. Attorney which are commonly referred to as INDICTMENTS.<br><br><br>Somebody with clout needs to ask Luskin if Rove is the subject of any PRESENTMENTS by the Fitzgerald Grand Jury. Because if the Grand Jury returned charges in the form of PRESENTMENTS, then Luskin and Corallo could steadfastly deny that any INDICTMENTS have been returned against Rove. <br><br><br>These people are professionals. If you give them wiggle room they will use it like a skilled Samba dancer. <br><br><br>Citizenspook<br><br><br>PLEASE COPY LINK AND REPOST EVERYWHERE<br><br><br><br><br><br>posted by citizenspook at 7:36 PM Comment (1) | Trackback 0 comments links to this post <br><br>Tuesday, June 13, 2006<br>STRONG INDICATIONS ROVE HAS BEEN INDICTED BY RUNAWAY GRAND JURY IN "SEALED VS. SEALED" <br>I'll begin by telling you straight up, Citizenspook has no sources for this headline. But I believe it is the most likely explanation for all of the anomolies, strange quotes and secretive actions invoved with the official Special Counsel investigation by Patrick Fitzgerald. The following argument is my analysis of the LAW and FACTS. Unlike previous disserations by this author, the following is short and firmly based upon the evidence. I am attorney so let me argue the case based on the following mysterious indicators:<br><br>1. The "Sealed vs. Sealed" matter.<br>2. Luskin's carefully worded statement from this morning.<br>3. The carefully worded statements of Randal Samborn, Fitzgerald's press officer.<br>4. The strange case of Jason Leopold<br>5. The Constitutitional grant of authority to Grand Jurors to indict on their own volition without requiring a US Attorney "seek charges".<br><br>Yesterday, Jason Leopold, who alleged back in May that Rove had already been indicted, revisited this allegation by examining the strange indictment returned by the same Grand Jury working with Fitzgerald which was sealed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia under the bizarre heading of "Sealed Vs. Sealed,"<br><br>The following is taken from <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/061206Z.shtml">www.truthout.org/docs_2006/061206Z.shtml</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Four weeks ago, during the time when we reported that White House political adviser Karl Rove was indicted for crimes related to his role in the leak of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson, the grand jury empanelled in the case returned an indictment that was filed under seal in US District Court for the District of Columbia under the curious heading of Sealed vs. Sealed. <br>As of Friday afternoon that indictment, returned by the grand jury the week of May 10th, remains under seal - more than a month after it was handed up by the grand jury.<br><br>The case number is "06 cr 128." On the federal court's electronic database, "06 cr 128" is listed along with a succinct summary: "No further information is available."<br><br>We have not seen the contents of the indictment "06 cr 128". But the fact that this indictment was returned by the grand jury hearing evidence in the CIA leak case on a day that Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald met with the grand jury raised a number of questions about the identity of the defendant named in the indictment, whether it relates to the leak case, and why it has been under seal for a month under the heading Sealed vs. Sealed.<br><br><br>CR signifies a criminal case.<br><br>I can't speak for anybody else, but I have never seen another case titled "Sealed vs Sealed" so this by itself is VERY strange. Then couple it with the fact that it was the same Grand Jury empanelled for the Fitzgerald investigation. Judge Reggie Walton presided and it was returned -- as Leopold pointed out -- on a day that Fitzgerald also met with those same Grand Jurors.<br><br>All of that raises massive red flags. Some have argued that the case might refer to a war between Fitzgerald and the DOJ. This was specifically floated out by a Daily Kos diary <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/5/21/184052/881">www.dailykos.com/story/20...184052/881</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>as well as here <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://my.opera.com/prosperingbear/blog/show.dml/277182.">my.opera.com/prosperingbe...ml/277182.</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><br>However, this is not possible under the facts reported by Leopold because such a filing would not be the subject of an indictment by the Grand Jurors. If Fitzgerald filed a complaing against DOJ for trying to remove him then no Grand Jurors would have been involved. Judge walton would make that decision not the grnad jurors.<br><br>So what is "Sealed vs. Sealed"?<br><br><br>Now let's review the two ways a Criminal Indictment can come down under the Constitution:<br><br><br>1. A US Attorney may request and indictment be returned by the Grand Jurors which is then signed by the US Attorney.<br><br><br>2. A Grand Jry may return and indictment without the request or signature of a US Attorney.<br><br><br>Under number 2 above, such activity constitutes a "Runaway Grand Jury", although that disparages the true purpose of Grand Jurors as a fourth branch of checks and balances.<br><br><br>For an in depth study of this issue see my previous report<br><br><br>TREASONGATE: The Federal Grand Jury, FOURTH BRANCH of the US Government<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://citizenspook.blogspot.com/2005/08/treasongate-federal-grand-jury-fourth.html">citizenspook.blogspot.com...ourth.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <br><br><br>Now let's examine those statements by Luskin.<br><br><br>To answer that let's look at Luskin's carefully worded commentary:<br><br><br><br>"On June 12, 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove...<br><br><br>In deference to the pending case, we will not make any further public statements about the subject matter of the investigation."<br><br><br><br><br>If the Grand Jurors returned the indictment without Fitzgerald's signature, than it may very well be true that Rove was indicted but Fitzgerald is not the one who indicted him.<br><br>And if Rove was indicted as follows:<br><br><br>"Grand Jury for the District of Columbia vs Karl Rove" than the "pendign indictment" referred to by Luskin is explained. If Luskin was not reffering to an indictment against his client then he shold be able to unequivocally state, "Karl Rove has not been indicted".<br><br><br>Notice that Luskin's letter mentions both:<br><br><br>1. The pending case and<br>2. The investigation<br><br><br>The pending vase might very well be "Sealed vs Sealed". Luskin can clear this up.<br><br><br>Fitzgerald cannot comment on "Sealed vs Sealed" and that may explain why Samborn will not comment on Rove's status according to<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000888.php">www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000888.php</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><br>Furthermore, Samborn will not even comment on whether the investigation is ongoing.<br><br><br>And all of this might indicate that there is a war on to stop Fitzgerald, that he saw the pressure coming and enlightened the Grand Jurors as to their Constitutional ability to indict on their own without him. His hands may have been illegally tied by the Court and his superiors. [Revisit my previous posting on this topic.]<br><br><br>If that happened we are facing a Constitutional challenge to the valdity of the Grand Jury's power and right to bring charges where they see a crime despite the Government's intention to impede them. And if this is what happened, then Fitzgerald and Samborn have no other option but to say, "No comment."<br><br><br>And TPM Muckraker is reporting that Luskin will not comment on how he was "formally advised" Fitzgerald. <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000890.php">www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000890.php</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><br>Citizenspook<br><br><br>Please repost everywhere.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
isachar
 
Posts: 950
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 2:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Fitzergerald, Plame, Rove GJ analysis from Citizenspook

Postby sunny » Thu Jun 15, 2006 12:01 pm

My reply to his most recent:<br><br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>OK CS, how about this scenario?<br><br>The GJ returned indictments, Fitz signed them, and Gonzalez or McNulty immediately requested the Judge quash it. The judge sealed the case until he made his decision. Fitz went before Hogan Monday, whereupon the judge decided against him, in favor of quashing. <br><br>This would allow for the statements by Luskin to be true, as well as Leopold, and explain Sanborns uncertainty.<br><br>What say you?<br>sunny | 06.15.06 - 8:26 am | #<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <br><br>on edit: I should also add that this scenario would explain a lack of any kind of statement coming from Fitz, now or ever. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=sunny@rigorousintuition>sunny</A> at: 6/15/06 10:32 am<br></i>
sunny
 
Posts: 5220
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Alabama
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: Fitzergerald, Plame, Rove GJ analysis from Citizenspook

Postby dugoboy » Thu Jun 15, 2006 12:23 pm

theres 3 possibilities here, citizespooks scanario, sunny's scanario or the one where patrick fitzgerald was put in place to clean things up like he did with the 1993 WTC bombing case of which he was the prosecutor i believe. <p>___________________________________________<br>"BUSHCO aren't incompetent...they are COMPLICIT." -Me<br><br>"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act" -George Orwell</p><i></i>
dugoboy
 
Posts: 619
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 2:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Fitzergerald, Plame, Rove GJ analysis from Citizenspook

Postby sunny » Thu Jun 15, 2006 12:30 pm

dugoboy, do you have links to compelling information that Fitz somehow threw the '93 WTC bombing case? I have heard this charge before, but no credible information to back it up.<br><br>I am cynical enough to consider the possibility, though. In addition, there has been no concerted right-wing effort to discredit Fitz, notwithstanding a few sour comments here and there. Smears and long knives usually come out in force if someone is <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>really</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> a threat to the Republican Criminal Enterprise. Notable lack therof in this case. Bush even praised Fitz during the presser yesterday, which is the kiss of death to me. <p></p><i></i>
sunny
 
Posts: 5220
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Alabama
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: Fitzergerald, Plame, Rove GJ analysis from Citizenspook

Postby dugoboy » Thu Jun 15, 2006 12:33 pm

i don't sorry. but it has to do with the guy who built the bomb was coached by the FBI to build it. and fitsgerald didn't make it known. something like that <p>___________________________________________<br>"BUSHCO aren't incompetent...they are COMPLICIT." -Me<br><br>"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act" -George Orwell</p><i></i>
dugoboy
 
Posts: 619
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 2:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Fitzergerald, Plame, Rove GJ analysis from Citizenspook

Postby chiggerbit » Thu Jun 15, 2006 1:41 pm

If Fitz had been assigned to flush this one out of sight, it would never have gone this far. If he is being hogtied by someone above him, he might want to consider doing a Daniel Ellsberg. Big price to pay for that, though--the possibility of being imprisoned as well as loosing his carrer. However, he strikes me as very bright, very determined, very meticulous, very competitive, and most importantly, able to think outside the box. If he wants, I'm betting he will find another way to skin the cat. Give him time. <p></p><i></i>
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Fitzergerald, Plame, Rove GJ analysis from Citizenspook

Postby Ike Broflovski » Thu Jun 15, 2006 4:32 pm

in re: the 1993 WTC bombing -- Emad Salem testified at Ramzi Yousef's trial about FBI foreknowledge. The NY Times wrote stories about it. That info wasn't exactly covered up.<br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=emad_salem">Cooperative Research page on Emad Salem</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br>For the most part Citizenspook's thesis is the same as Leopold's, with an additional "runaway jury" twist. It may be true or close to the truth, but CS infers far too much from two "no comment" statements.<br><br>The law provides for several types of "runaway" jury, but in practice that almost never happens. Is there any evidence at all that that is going on with this grand jury?<br><br>The "quashed/sealed indictment" scenario may well be the truth, but I don't think Citizenspook's analysis adds much. <p></p><i></i>
Ike Broflovski
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:31 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Fitzergerald, Plame, Rove GJ analysis from Citizenspook

Postby Et in Arcadia ego » Thu Jun 15, 2006 4:39 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>but I don't think Citizenspook's analysis adds much.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>It adds alot to the dangling carrot that almost went bye-bye a few days ago..Sometimes I seriously wonder what the point of all this absolutely usuelss speculation is.<br><br>Then again, no, I don't. <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
Et in Arcadia ego
 
Posts: 4104
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 5:06 pm
Location: The Void
Blog: View Blog (0)


Return to Plame Investigation

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests