WP: Case Presented to Leak Grand Jury

[CatWoman]

The prosecutor in the CIA leak investigation presented a summary of his case to a federal grand jury yesterday and is expected to announce a final decision on charges in the two-year-long probe tomorrow, according to people familiar with the case.

Even as Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald wrapped up his case, the legal team of White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove has been engaged in a furious effort to convince the prosecutor that Rove did not commit perjury during the course of the investigation, according to people close to the aide. The sources, who indicated that the effort intensified in recent weeks, said Rove still did not know last night whether he would be indicted.

Fitzgerald is completing his probe of whether senior administration officials broke the law by disclosing the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame to the media in the summer of 2003 to discredit her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, an administration critic. The grand jury's term will expire Friday.

But after grand jurors left the federal courthouse before noon yesterday, it was unclear whether Fitzgerald had spelled out the criminal charges he might ask them to consider, or whether he had asked them to vote on any proposed indictments. Fitzgerald's legal team did not present the results of a grand jury vote to the court yesterday, which he is required to do within days of such a vote.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/26/AR2005102600532.html

[David Dunham]

1. We need both Rove and Libby to be indicted.

[tk2kewl]

4. at a minimim

[complain jane]

2. Watch Rove get off the hook on this.

:puke:

[Roy]

24. I don't think so..

Based on the last ditch efforts of his lawyer at this late stage as implied by this article. It doesn't seem as if much progress is being made on Rove's behalf.

[wheresthemind]

3. this is new information....

I like

[Ravenseye]

5. This is why Bush and Cheney didn't talk under oath

They knew they'd be lying and that if caught in perjury they'd be done. Just shows what kind of pricks they area. A real leader interested in accountability would have gone under oath. Only reason they wouldn't is so they could lie.

[For PaisAn]

10. exactly

They should have been forced to testify under oath. The repugs thought it was necessary for Clinton to testify under oath for some bullshit charges. Hypocrites.

[Rose Siding]

13. I can't vouch for the veracity of this comment, but...

snip>
According to the NYT, they made a mistake, Cheney was not under oath when he answered questions for Fitzgerald in June of 2004. However, as Jeralyn noted in the comments:

I don't think the oath matters. If he wasn't under oath, it's a false statement charge. If he was, it's a perjury charge. But both have the same penalty - 5 years.

Perjury in this kind of case, if it does not occur before the grand jury, requires two witnesses. Perjury before the grand jury, or a false statement charge, does not have that requirement.

Also, a putative defendant may be able to cure a perjurious statement before the grand jury by going back and 'fessing up, if it was not particularly material to the crime, as Rove may have done with his Matthew Cooper conversation, but that option does not appear in the false statement or general perjury statute.

http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/2005/10/on-tom-toms-today.html

[CatWoman]

15. people need to remember

that in the early days of this investigation, it was led by Ashcroft -- a good friend of Rove's.

It's no telling how many lies/evasions/untruths he uttered.

My understanding is, also, that Rove indeed lie before the Grand Jury.

Why else did he have to return four times?

[Roy]

25. BINGO!!!!!

Thinking they had a ringer investigating they thought they could say anything they wanted, and it would be sanitized and spun later by the investigator.
No need to turn over damaging documents if the investigator is our friend.

But, then along comes Fitz and spoils the fun.

:rofl:

[kurth]

28. Looks like Rove might walk

Rove probably lied like a dog to the jury, but he was smart enough to know that he could just return to them and say "Yep, what I told you last time wasn't true". An admission like that would instantly immunize him from perjury charges under the rules.

Furthermore, Rove is famous for not leaving a paper trail or fingerprints...

Henceforth, "Bush's Brain" is going to be known as "Bush's Rat".

[converted_democrat]

33. I don't think so.....

I could be wrong, but I don't think so. I don't think he going to get away with it. I've read a couple of articles that suggest Rove's lawyer tried to do some 11th hour maneuvering, but the talks broke down. That's a good sign for us. I really think the only way Rove could skate is if he delivers someone even bigger than himself.

BTW, Fitz just rented more office space in D.C....Looks like he plans to stay there for awhile.

[kurth]

38. See (d):

18 U.S.C. § 1623. False declarations before grand jury or court
(a) Whoever under oath (or in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code) in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States knowingly makes any false material declaration or makes or uses any other information, including any book, paper, document, record, recording, or other material, knowing the same to contain any false material declaration, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
(b) This section is applicable whether the conduct occurred within or without the United States.
(c) An indictment or information for violation of this section alleging that, in any proceedings before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States, the defendant under oath has knowingly made two or more declarations, which are inconsistent to the degree that one of them is necessarily false, need not specify which declaration is false if—
(1) each declaration was material to the point in question, and
(2) each declaration was made within the period of the statute of limitations for the offense charged under this section.
In any prosecution under this section, the falsity of a declaration set forth in the indictment or information shall be established sufficient for conviction by proof that the defendant while under oath made irreconcilably contradictory declarations material to the point in question in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury. It shall be a defense to an indictment or information made pursuant to the first sentence of this subsection that the defendant at the time he made each declaration believed the declaration was true.
(d) Where, in the same continuous court or grand jury proceeding in which a declaration is made, the person making the declaration admits such declaration to be false, such admission shall bar prosecution under this section if, at the time the admission is made, the declaration has not substantially affected the proceeding, or it has not become manifest that such falsity has been or will be exposed.
(e) Proof beyond a reasonable doubt under this section is sufficient for conviction. It shall not be necessary that such proof be made by any particular number of witnesses or by documentary or other type of evidence.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course, (d) applies only to those falsities Rove has explicitly corrected - and not to those he wasn't aware of. The prosecutor has ZERO obligation to tell any witness that he or she lied.

[goforit]

37. Thats all Rove can do.....is lie. Truth is not part of his vocabulary.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

23. I did some reading on that and I do believe it's true.

This is from findlaw.com

Did you know that it is a crime to tell a lie to the federal government? Even if your lie is oral and not under oath? Even if you have received no warnings of any kind? Even if you are not trying to cheat the government out of money? Even if the government is not actually misled by your falsehood? Well it is.

Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001 makes it a crime to: 1) knowingly and willfully; 2) make any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation; 3) in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative or judicial branch of the United States. Your lie does not even have to be made directly to an employee of the national government as long as it is "within the jurisdiction" of the ever expanding federal bureaucracy. Though the falsehood must be "material" this requirement is met if the statement has the "natural tendency to influence or capable of influencing, the decision of the decisionmaking body to which it is addressed." United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506, 510 (1995). (In other words, it is not necessary to show that your particular lie ever really influenced anyone.) Although you must know that your statement is false at the time you make it in order to be guilty of this crime, you do not have to know that lying to the government is a crime or even that the matter you are lying about is "within the jurisdiction" of a government agency. United States v. Yermian, 468 U.S. 63, 69 (1984). For example, if you lie to your employer on your time and attendance records and, unbeknownst to you, he submits your records, along with those of other employees, to the federal government pursuant to some regulatory duty, you could be criminally liable.
http://library.findlaw.com/2004/May/11/147945.html

Link to US code, section 1001
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001001----000-.html
§ 1001. Statements or entries generally
Release date: 2005-08-03

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.
(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to—
(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or
(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.

[reprobate]

44. Under this definition both Bush and Cheney will go to prison. About time.

[mod mom]

39. WONKETTE: "these slimy thugs are turning on each other like runner-up

beauty queens.

Great quote and great read. firedoglake is one of my favorite blogs.

[Francine Frensky]

34. And this shows where Fitz's heart is -- he's a republican

after all and appointed by Bush, so of course this investigation will fall short of finding any real wrong doing.

[mod mom]

40. I think the gravity of the situation is playing on Fitz. I believe he

is a fair and honorable man-mountains above these thugs he is de-throning!

[Rose Siding]

42. I don't see these rules as any kind of reflection of Fitz's motives

In fact, this just explains that even though Cheney wasn't under oath he can still be guilty of false statements. (surely there were 2 prosecutors present during his interviews) -And the penalty for that is the same as for perjury.

[yodermon]

43. But if they lied to Fitz..

they can still be nailed on Obstruction, or "False Statements".

Was Martha under oath? (<-- not rhetorical, I'm actually asking)

[are_we_united_yet]

6. OK

Somebody cheer me up.

I'm starting to worry. I'm afraid I'll be let down again and the scoundrels will get off with a slap on the wrist.

Sorry to bring you down.

:(

[Beetwasher]

8. The Only Way Rove Gets Off Would Be If He Offers Up Someone BIGGER

On a silver platter, and even then I doubt Fitz would let him off the hook scott free.

[are_we_united_yet]

12. OK. That makes me feel a bit better

thanks.

:)

[Beetwasher]

7. Ha! Rove; What A Whiny, Snivelling, Porcine Piece of Shit

I hope Fitz tells him to go fuck himself.

[shockingelk]

9. GJ term can't be extended?

The term of the current grand jury has been extended once and cannot be lengthened again, according to federal rules.

Another WP mistake or are reports of a possible extension wrong?

[Demobrat]

11. This one can't be extended.

These people have been on jury duty for two years!!!!!
If he wants to continue he has to get a new GJ.

[Zensea]

14. If he continues, methinks it will be a new set of charges entirely

and not to jinx, things, but I'm fairly sure he's got a set of charges this time too.
I seriously doubt that he would be sending agents out doing further questioning in the hopes of suddenly discovering a case he doesn't already have.
That move indicates to me that he's got a case that he's putting the finishing touches on.

This is no Ken Starr fishing expedition here after all.

At least that's the way I'm reading it. I certainly hope I'm right.
This thing continues to smell to me like Watergate and above level stuff.

[Demobrat]

17. Bush knew.

He had to know.
That means he lied to Fitzgerald.
I know I shouldn't...but I just can't help hoping that Fitzgerald won't let him get away with it.
I will be very disappointed if W manages to finish out his term.
Extremely disappointed.
I want Nixon Redux.
But...I've been crushed before....

[Scout1071]

21. What did the President know and when did he know it?

We need to be shouting this from the rooftops. What did the President know and when did he know it? We deserve to know because either he has been lying to the American people for years now or he is so incompetent that he allowed all of his top people to feed him false information which resulted in the deaths of 2,000 American soldiers, tens of thousands of wounded American soldiers and who knows how many tens of thousands of dead, innocent Iraqi's.

So, which is it George? Are you incompetent and not fit to serve or did you knowingly lie to Congress and the American people resulting in so much death?

Either way, we must get this message out there. The media must start asking - what did the President know and when did he know it? I am not content to have Cheney and Co take the proverbial bullet.

[rateyes]

41. I vote that he's both incompetent and a liar...

and this case will show that he's even incompetent at lying.

[Garbo 2004]

27. Actually since it's a special Fed grand jury, yes it can be extended. n/t

[EmmaP]

45. I think it can

Grand jury's term
Federal grand juries are of two types--regular and special. Regular grand juries sit for a basic term of 18 months, but that term can be extended up to another 6 months, which means their total possible term is 24 months. Special grand juries sit for 18 months, but their term can be extended for up to another 18 months; a court can extend a special grand jury's term for 6 months, and can enter up to three such extensions, totaling 18 months.

http://www.udayton.edu/~grandjur/fedj/fedj.htm#Grand%20jurys%20term

[MADem]

16. I thought an extension this time required judicial permission

but I do not know for sure.

[WinkyDink]

19. Didn't Fitz meet with a judge today?

Curious......

[Garbo 2004]

26. Depends on whether it's a regular Fed grand jury or a special Fed grand

jury as to how long it can be extended:

"Grand jury's term
Federal grand juries are of two types--regular and special. Regular grand juries sit for a basic term of 18 months, but that term can be extended up to another 6 months, which means their total possible term is 24 months. Special grand juries sit for 18 months, but their term can be extended for up to another 18 months; a court can extend a special grand jury's term for 6 months, and can enter up to three such extensions, totaling 18 months."
http://www.udayton.edu/~grandjur/fedj/fedj.htm

And from that same site:

"There are two kinds of federal grand juries: Regular federal grand juries and special federal grand juries. Regular federal grand juries tend to spend their time hearing evidence and considering indictments submitted to them by a prosecutor. They spend the bulk of their time deciding, therefore, whether probable cause exists to return a set of proposed charges against the defendants names therein. Special federal grand juries were created in 1970 specifically to investigate organized crime. They, too, consider whether indictments should be returned against certain persons, but special grand juries also devote a great deal of their time to investigating possible criminal activity."

And more on the juries' functions from http://www.udayton.edu/~grandjur/faq/faq3.htm :

Grand juries also investigate, either as part of bringing criminal charges or as a purely separate function.

In the federal system, there are two kinds of grand juries: "Regular grand juries" primarily decide whether to bring charges. But a different kind of grand jury--a "special grand jury"--is called into existence to investigate whether organized crime is occurring in the community in which it sits. "Organized crime" is defined very broadly--it is not limited to the "Godfather"-style image of the Magia or La Cosa Nostra. Instead, a special grand jury can investigate, for example, organized drug activity or organized corruption in government. If a special federal grand jury investigates and establishes that organized crime is, or has been, occurring in the area, the grand jury can charge the individuals responsible for the organized crime and/or can issue a report describing what has been going on. If the grand jury issues a report, it has to submit the report to the court that supervises the grand jury; the court then decides whether the report can be made public.

And from the US Courts site:

Special grand juries are called to investigate a particular crime, usually one that is of some importance. Special grand juries are convened for a period of 18 months, and may be extended for six month intervals for a total of an additional 18 months...

...Grand Juries and the Matthew Cooper/Judith Miller Case
Time Magazine reporter Matthew Cooper and The New York Times journalist Judith Miller were subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury investigating the leak of a CIA operative's identity to the press in violation of federal law. Since this grand jury was called to investigate a particular crime, it is a special grand jury. http://www.uscourts.gov/outreach/topics/journalistgrandjury.html

Looks like the WaPo got it wrong again? Good Grief!

As for the relevant law regarding special grand juries: http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_II_20_216.html

[Demeter]

32. I Think Fitz WiILL Ask To Extend the Grand Jury--Here's Why

I think Fitz is on the verge of nailing Cheney to the wall. He needs a little more time to put more pressure on the smaller fish.

What would be even sweeter is if he then can nail Bush to the wall. Too bad stupidity isn't a crime!

[DoYouEverWonder]

29. Yes, Fitzgerald already extended the Grand Jury once

and is very unlikely to ask for another extension even if he could. You can only push people so far before they get po'd at you.

[goforit]

18. Why is he being so tippy-toe quiet at this point.

announce it and get it over with.

[AlCzervik]

20. because he's not Ken Starr, he is what a real prosecutor at that level

should be no matter what the outcome.

[baby_bear]

22. Grand Jurors Hear Counsel on Leak Case- NYTimes

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/27/politics/27leak.html?hp&ex=1130472000&en=90849918e6792fa8&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Some interesting bits on the grand jury process here.

<snip>
A series of interviews by F.B.I. agents on Monday revived the possibility that Mr. Fitzgerald might be considering such a charge . Several neighbors of Ms. Wilson and her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former ambassador, were asked whether they knew that Ms. Wilson, also known by her unmarried name, Valerie Plame, had covert status. Several neighbors, some who have known her for years, said they did not know before Mr. Novak's column that she worked for the C.I.A.
...
Federal grand juries, made up of 23 people, meet in secret. Former prosecutors said the process of presenting possible charges to a grand jury followed a pattern in which grand jurors, without prosecutors present, voted on whether to return an indictment. A simple majority is required for an indictment.

In some instances, a prosecutor may present the panel with a list of charges and ask for a vote. Or, a prosecutor may engage in sometimes lengthy and detailed discussions with grand jurors about evidence and witnesses and even take straw polls on charges in the case. The jurors may want evidence read back or ask for more information and in some cases, more testimony.

In cases like this one, in which central charges are believed to focus on whether false statements were made by witnesses in their grand jury testimony, a prosecutor may sound out the grand jurors on whether they feel they were deceived. If grand jurors seem to resist the assertion that they were misled, a prosecutor may take it as a sign that a jury might be similarly hard to convince.
</snip>

more to read there.

b_b

[OKNancy]

30. kick

[DoYouEverWonder]

31. Grand Jury Hears Summary of Case On CIA Leak Probe

Decision on Charges May Come Friday

October 27, 2005

The prosecutor in the CIA leak investigation presented a summary of his case to a federal grand jury yesterday and is expected to announce a final decision on charges in the two-year-long probe tomorrow, according to people familiar with the case.

Even as Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald wrapped up his case, the legal team of White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove has been engaged in a furious effort to convince the prosecutor that Rove did not commit perjury during the course of the investigation, according to people close to the aide. The sources, who indicated that the effort intensified in recent weeks, said Rove still did not know last night whether he would be indicted.

<snip>

Yesterday's three-hour grand jury session came after agents and prosecutors this week conducted last-minute interviews with Adam Levine, a member of the White House communications team at the time of the leak, about his conversations with Rove, and with Plame's neighbors in the District.

Should he need more time to finish the investigation, Fitzgerald could seek to empanel a new group of grand jurors to consider the case. But sources familiar with the prosecutor's work said he has indicated he is eager to avoid that route. The term of the current grand jury has been extended once and cannot be lengthened again, according to federal rules.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/26/AR2005102600532.html?sub=AR

[Halliburton]

35. I hope Rove doesn't get away with this

but it sure is looking that way. :mad:

[janx]

47. Nah. If he walks away with only a perjury charge, he will have

talked first. Count on it. ;-)

[jayfish]

36. Who Approves These Atrocious Headlines?

What is a "leak grand jury"? All they needed to do was move one word. Do they think it's clever or something? Sorry for the hi-jack, but I see more of this unintelligible screed everyday.

Jay

[janx]

46. They're definitely getting worse and worse.

It's enough to make you feel dyslexic!

[jayfish]

48. Exactly!!!

Sometimes I catch myself having to read a headline, or a specific sentence, over and over again just to make any sense of it.

Jay