Reply #33: The substance of his report was not the "3 business days" part, imo, [View All]

[Spazito]

it was the report of a sealed indictment. Here is an interesting tidbit from Marcy Wheeler (emptywheel) at firedoglake, a site that was not too friendly re Jason Leopold either:

What is most interesting, though is what remains redacted, Tatel's argument for why Rove was suspected of perjuring himself on the Cooper conversation. The passage directly follows the long Armitage passage above, consists of about two pages, and ends with the point that Cooper's testimony will provide key evidence as to whether or not Rove perjured himself. I'm going to come back to this redaction in a separate post.

http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2007/06/wsj-and-theap-f.html

I need to go back to my timeline but I think Rove went back to the Grand Jury either during or after the Appeals Court hearing on the matter of Miller and Cooper.


Edited to add this info on the subject of sealed indictments, it relates to NY but, wrt appearing before Grand Juries, it is also a federal right:

But what if the defendant on his own, perhaps suspecting that a case is being introduced against him at grand jury, requests to testify? Does an as-yet-uncharged defendant have any statutory right to testify before the grand jury?

CPL 190.50(5)(a) addresses the issue. The right to testify at grand jury is not limited to defendants who have been charged below. A defendant who learns of an investigation against him or her and also provides written notice to the prosecutor of the intent to testify has the right to do so.

http://www.mcacp.org/issue5.html