Information Sharing on the Rove Indictment Story--TruthOut

[Demeter]

http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2006/5/21/115826/135


Information Sharing on the Rove Indictment Story

By Marc Ash,

Sun May 21st, 2006 at 11:58:26 AM EDT :: Fitzgerald Investigation


I'd like to break this posting into two categories: What we know, and what we believe. They will be clearly marked.

We know that we have now three independent sources confirming that attorneys for Karl Rove were handed an indictment either late in the night of May 12 or early in the morning of May 13. We know that each source was in a position to know what they were talking about. We know that the office of Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald will not confirm, will not deny, will not comment on its investigation or on our report. We know that both Rove's attorney Robert Luskin and Rove's spokesman Mark Corallo have categorically denied all key facts we have set forth. We know we have information that directly contradicts Luskin and Corallo's denials. We know that there were two network news crews outside of the building in Washington, DC that houses the offices of Patton Boggs, the law firm that represents Karl Rove. We know that the 4th floor of that building (where the Patton Boggs offices are located) was locked down all day Friday and into Saturday night. We know that we have not received a request for a retraction from anyone. And we know that White House spokesman Tony Snow now refuses to discuss Karl Rove - at all.

Further, we know - and we want our readers to know - that we are dependent on confidential sources. We know that a report based solely on information obtained from confidential sources bears some inherent risks. We know that this is - by far - the biggest story we have ever covered, and that we are learning some things as we go along. Finally, we know that we have the support of those who have always supported us, and that must now earn the support of those who have joined us as of late.

We now move on to what we believe. (If you are looking for any guarantees, please turn back now.)

We believe that we hit a nerve with our report. When I get calls on my cell phone from Karl Rove's attorney and spokesman, I have to wonder what's up. "I" believe - but cannot confirm - that Mark Corallo, Karl Rove's spokesman gave Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post my phone number. I believe Howard Kurtz contacted me with the intention of writing a piece critical of our organization. I know that Anne Marie Squeo of the Wall Street Journal attacked us and independent journalism as a whole in her piece titled, "Rove's Camp Takes Center of Web Storm / Bloggers Underscore How Net's Reporting, Dynamics Provide Grist for the Rumor Mill." We believe that rolling out that much conservative journalistic muscle to rebut this story is telling. And we believe that Rove's camp is making a concerted effort to discredit our story and our organization.

Further - and again this is "What We Believe" - Rove may be turning state's evidence. We suspect that the scope of Fitzgerald's investigation may have broadened - clearly to Cheney - and according to one "off the record source" to individuals and events not directly related to the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame. We believe that the indictment which does exist against Karl Rove is sealed. Finally, we believe that there is currently a great deal of activity in the Plame investigation.

We know that this story is of vital interest to the community, and that providing as much information as we can is very important to our readers. We want you to know that this is challenging territory and that we are proceeding with as much speed as the terrain will allow.

Marc Ash, Executive Director - t r u t h o u t
[e-mail]

[Demeter]

1. Anybody Know Anything About Sealed Indictments?

When do they get opened, for instance?

[Kagemusha]

2. I know a bit but, all I've learned comes from ReddHedd at FDL

Now known as Christy Hardin Smith but that wasn't gonna fit in the subject line :)

See, Fitzgerald has used sealed indictments as a tool against organized crime. A sealed indictment is essentially legal blackmail by a prosecutor holding a sword above the head of a cooperating witness without the need to expose that cooperating witness. In this way, a mafia figure can be made to cooperate with the legal equivalent of a loaded gun pointed at him without the mafia family he is part of having public court filings to alert it to the danger of a mole. Cooperation does not result in an annulling of the indictment. However, a prosecutor is in a very powerful position to be offering generous considerations during sentencing. While such deals must be approved by a judge, so long as a prosecutor is vigorous about showing the greater interests of justice to be served by deals like this, judges tend to play along.

Now, if a prospective witness turns down cooperation flat, I don't think that a prosecutor can ignore that. First of all, an indictment comes from a grand jury, not a prosecutor per se. The prosecutor can't just turn around and say too bad, so sad, we're un-indicting this person. Uh, no. It'd take, at minimum, a judge's involvement. At any rate, the target of a grand jury indictment has a constitutional right to free speech and has to be informed of the charges, even if the rest of us don't rate such notice. Bottom line: Unless there's a wild situation of a prosecutor asking for the indictment he personally requested from a grand jury to be thrown out, that indictment is going to become public. And even in the wild case I describe, Rove would know and would be able to claim exonoration, best to my knowledge.

At any rate, the point is, indictments are sealed to prevent them from being filed in open court, NOT to be secret from the defendant indicted. See, they exist to protect the defendant from other potential defendants he may provide evidence against in return for consideration. (This is what Christy refers to as a "Come to Jesus" moment.) Presumably Rove has had a lot of chances to "Come to Jesus" already.

Now, in the other wild situation, the idea of Rove actually turning state's evidence against say, Vice President Dick Cheney, the indictment can remain sealed until the prosecutor is ready to go to court against whoever Rove would have to testify against in court (i.e. Cheney) or reaches the end of his investigation (example: When he worked his way to Defendant #40, Gov. Ryan, in the corruption probe involving that man). That can be a long time, but only if Rove is cooperating.

In other words, barring extenuating circumstances like Rove accepting a deal, there is no cause that a judge will respect that will justify keeping an indictment under seal. When such circumstances run out, a judge will unseal an indictment and expose the matter to the world in the interests of justice, a fair trial, etc etc.

[Demeter]

4. Thank You So Much! It Is Now Clear

[BlueInPhilly]

8. Rove has a plan

At this point, Cheney really is "expendable" since he is not running in 2008, his popularity is WAY LOW, and he already has more money than the GDP of small countries. By exposing Cheney, Fatboy would be forced to resign, this will be good for Bush's number, and whoever the replacement VP (Condi?) will be well-placed for 2008.

Genius - 3 birds with one stone.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. Thanks for this information

I really think Rove is cooperating to save his own skin.

[Kagemusha]

5. We'll see.

I don't, but I'm entitled to my opinion.

[complain jane]

6. I think so too.

Such a Rovian thing to do, isn't it? Save his own hide at the expense of others- and with the added bonus of possibly discrediting his critics in the process.

Maybe he'll get disappeared. We can only hope.

[katty]

7. alot more to the story...and Cheney is a big part of it-posted

this in some other rover thread-this investigation has probably grown exponentially-wouldn't surprise me considering all the players that we know and don't know.