Grand Jury extended six months past October?

[brettdale]

Did I read this wrong?

Raw story has reported the grand jury may be extended by six months, I cant wait that long, the country cant wait that long, I could hang out and wait till October, but not another six months past October.

[JDPriestly]

1. Just relax.

The longer the better.

Focus on getting Democrats elected to the House and Senate. That's what is really important.

[Blasphemer]

2. Yep - i want the indictments in '06

Just in time for the elections.

[4MoreYearsOfHell]

3. Does this mean that Judith Miller

stays in jail past October as well?

[Lochloosa]

6. As long as the GJ is in session they can petition for her to remain in

jail. I Think:toast:

[hlthe2b]

4. RS got it from Wall Street Journal, which poo poos the entire

thing anyway....

WSJ, is not a source I'd take too seriously. Besides, I'd heard Fitz has another trial starting in OCT. It could be extended, but I don't think quoting from Rove's lying lawyer (as WSJ) did, is too indicative of any such knowledge. :eyes:

[ispeculate]

5. My thoughts are they want to make sure they have a quarum later...

down the road but will it really last another 6 months? Probably not.

[WCGreen]

8. Remember, the WSJ's editorial pge poo poo

the story....

That doesn't mean the news editor does as well.....

[hang a left]

7. If they are this could be a reason....just speculation but

This article came out at the very beginning of the investigation. It is possible we have some leagal wrangling going on behind the scenes with possible appeals.


Executive privilege seen as leak-case option
Shielding material is not ruled out; Democrats protest
By Wayne Washington, Globe Staff, 10/8/2003

WASHINGTON -- Despite President Bush's repeated pledges of full cooperation, administration officials yesterday refused to rule out invoking executive privilege to shield some documents from Justice Department investigators looking into whether someone in the White House illegally leaked the name of a CIA operative.

Democrats who have complained that the investigation should be handled by a special counsel instead of the Justice Department because of its connections to the White House said the prospect of executive privilege being used shows that more independence is needed.

"Asserting executive privilege would make a farce of the investigation," said US Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts. "That's why we need a special prosecutor, so that we can challenge any coverup."

The very words "executive privilege" evoke memories of scandal-plagued presidents trying to use the power of their office to hide from public view politically damaging information, and White House press secretary Scott McClellan was careful not to use the term. Still, he would not rule out the use of executive privilege, saying: "I think it's premature to even speculate about such matters."http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/10/08/e...

Presidents can invoke executive privilege to shield from public view some aspects of their internal decision-making process. "It's used to shroud advice that's sometimes inflammatory or has been rejected," said Thomas Sargentich, a law professor at American University in Washington, D.C. "Executive privilege is not supposed to be a shield in criminal investigations."
snippy-----------------------------------------------------

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/10/08/e...
lots more at link

[H2O Man]

9. That's correct.

Executive privilege can actually be a stumbling block to any investigation but one: when the House begins impeachment hearings. And a president refusing to cooperate with Fitzgerald could create a climate change on the Hill.

[hang a left]

10. ...........