Rove MAY have Pled GUILTY Yesterday - Here's one Deal.

[symbolman]

I've been doing some more research on the web and I think I can see a solution that answers ALL the issues and even in a way, bails out Mr Leopold..

Here's the scene. Now a Target Letter may not have to be a "letter" at all, tho some kind of agreement may have been reached on paper before today. As folks may recall Fitz met with Luskin AND Rove BEFORE they went into the Grand Jury and had a discussion. There's a possibility that Fitz gave Rove a "Come to Jesus" speech, which is basically, "Look bud, I OWN YOU.. I've got the goods on you, you may as well fess up, plead guilty and co-operate and we'll see what we can do as far as reducing the sentence.."

Now IF according to Leopold there was an Agreement beforehand (maybe on paper), then that letter would "technically" be a "Target Letter", IE Rove is now a Target, but part of the agreement is that Fitz will allow Luskin to state publicly outside and after the Grand Jury meet that Rove is only a Subject and NOT a Target.. Once Rove has pled GUILTY inside to the COOPER LIES, then he technically is NO LONGER a "Target", BUT he still had to deal with two subjects SINCE those lies, Vivica Novak, and the 250 emails..

So, since he's pled guilty to the one charge on this visit "Obstruction of Justice"? "Lying to a Grand Jury" whichever.. he's STILL open to Indictments on these other counts, part of the agreement being to spill his guts, so Fitz can get to the CENTER of the cookie, Bush or Cheney (who can still be btw, charge with "Obstruction of Justice" whether they were under oath or not).. That's why it's been reported that Rove, "Doesn't know if he'll be Indicted yet.."

He gets to walk out and his lawyer says he's NOT a Target, as per the deal with Fitz.

Which means that the look you saw in one photo, the pucker factor reflecting the other end of this monster's face was about 9.98.. It is possible that Rove Pled GUILTY YESTERDAY and may STILL BE INDICTED on more charges, or bled some more for info.

Hopefully leading to Bush or Cheney. And we may never find out what he copped to, or anything for that matter, a lot of this being done in SECRET, and plenty of conjecture.

Ideas? Thoughts?

[ET Awful]

1. I don't believe you can enter a plea before a grand jury.

You can't plead guilty or not guilty without first being formally charged.

[symbolman]

2. Formally charged

can be a piece of paper and a guy in a Black Robe in a room in the White House if that's what Fitz wants..

Plea Bargain, the GJ was for more info, they're bleeding him, he sings like a canary :)

[ET Awful]

15. No, formally charged requires an indictment first, and it requires that

charges be filed with a court. A "plea" of guilty can not be entered until a charge is filed.

You can't plead guilty if you haven't been charged. You can enter into agreements whereby you testify against others to avoid being charged yourself, but that's a completely different issue.

[Jersey Devil]

66. yes you can plead without indictment

if you agree to the charge in an Accusation, but it (the plea) must be done in open court.

[demobabe]

67. What if Karl Rove was already indicted

and the indictment was sealed by the court? Is this possible?

[ET Awful]

76. It's possible that a sealed indictment was issued, BUT, there has been

no appearance before a court. The Grand Jury is not a court.

[demobabe]

77. Right...

...H2O Man also said there were no sealed indictments from October. I think we would have heard if any sealed indictments existed. I understand your comments about the GD not being a court, thanks for explaining.

[HereHearsay]

5. Clean Slate

You can enter anything you want at HereHearsay.com

[Jersey Devil]

65. You can be charged in an Accusation rather than an indictment

if you agree to it, effectively waiving indictment by a Grand Jury. But any plea would have to be in open court and a grand jury is not a court.

[sendero]

3. I dunno...

... I think your scenario is a bit of a stretch. I don't think there can be a plea before a charge, but I'm pretty sure there can be deals struck.

To me, whether Rove is an official "target" is only of minor importance. He is definitely in trouble, nobody appears before a grand jury 5 times "voluntarily". He is running for his life here, that much is certain.

[symbolman]

8. The GJ

could have made the charges solid since the last meet and greet, Fitz makes a plea bargain, and Rove goes for it, maybe figures Bush is going to bail him out anyway..

Court is not all that complex, they can do it all in 5 minutes once it's all agreed to and printed out.

Rove looks like he's living on the toilet, lost a huge amount of weight.. I wonder if he's thinking he might be a dead man walking, depends on what he says, and to whom.

[sendero]

18. Well one thing is for sure..

... we can all agree that Rove was definitely involved and his other failings notwithstanding, deserves to be punished.

I don't care too much how it is done, I'd prefer an indictment, but then on the other hand actually getting a conviction might be difficult and then there is always the pardon.

Perhaps Fitz realizes he cannot really hold these asses accountable and is just using whatever tools he has at his disposal to extract whatever "justice" he can.

[lonestarnot]

4. me thinks something confused here. Was a direct complaint filed?

If no charges how does one plead anything?

[AndyA]

6. The fact that Rove's duties have been changed recently says it all.

We know Bush loves Karl. Snuggle, snuggle. He likes having his fat little man around. And he's bald, too! Another benefit! Bush would never allow Karl to have his duties diminished unless there was overwhelming reason to do so.

I think they all know Karl's in big trouble. I'm pretty sure Fitzgerald would provide a target notification, simply because he's a gentleman and goes by the accepted procedures and rules. It's only a matter of time before more becomes known, I think it will be within the next 30 days.

Face it, this is another Watergate. It goes all the way to the top: El Presidente. The lies, the coverup, everything. I predict the outcome will be the same as well: Bush will resign in shame under fear of impeachment.

Compared to Bush, Nixon really wasn't so bad.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

7. IMHO, Mr. Leopold doesn't need your help in getting bailed out....

...if Will Pitt has checked out Jason's info and finds in credible, then so do I.

[symbolman]

9. That's nice

then WHERE is the target letter please?

OH, YOU don't need any PROOF, well them what's wrong with other people's conjecture?

You must be one of those people that hate people who disagree with Raw Story, how sad.

[lonestarnot]

10. WTF?

:shrug:

[symbolman]

12. I'm not here to argue with Raw Story fans

who have decided to deride me because I don't agree with their reporting techniques, got no beef with Will Pitt, but I will defend myself if someone is here to give me a kick in the shins..

Do You have any proof that a Target Letter exists, because I heard there was one yesterday.

[lonestarnot]

17. don't know. I'm not part of the grand jury, nor do I know any leakers.

Fitzie had no comment when he left the courthouse.

[mitchtv]

78. I agree

I'm still waiting, and I'm hearing differently on tv.

[HereSince1628]

60. Hmm there is possibly something of a conflict of interest there

Pitt has a lot riding on Truthout and backing Leopold would be congruent with protecting those interests. I'm not saying that Pitt isn't being totally honest and fair, but with respect to criticial thinking it's something to consider if only briefly.

More importantly, the credibility of Leopold's story must ultimately stand on it's own. Because of the story's reliance on Leopold's apparently unique anonymous sources close to the investigation it's hard to get beyond the "extremely interesting if it holds up" category. Who knows what motivates Leopold's sources. At this time it's impossible to know if they are misleading him intentionally or otherwise.

[bowens43]

11. You can't plead until you're charged

and a grand jury isn't a court. You can only plead in a court.

[symbolman]

13. Actually Court in many ways is a formality

the Prosecutor is the one who makes the deals, the defendent and the prosecutor and the Judge all sign the forms..

It can happen quick. A Person CAN agree to NO TRIAL as well.

[ET Awful]

16. Until such time as charges are filed, there is nothing to plead.

A plea is a response to charges. You plead either guilty, not guilty, or no contest. Without charges being filed with a court, there is nothing to plea.

Little hint for you that you appear to be missing, there is no Judge involved until such time as charges are filed with a court.

[symbolman]

21. I've spent plenty of time in court

and I've won every Pro Se case I presented, and I've been involved with plea bargains so I'm not missing all that much, once everyone agrees then it all comes down to people signing pieces of paper and leaving or being locked up.

As I now understand it the GJ can only vote to Indict, that I get.. but there is a LOT that goes on in Judges chambers and this is also a very secretive case.

Are you a lawyer by trade?

[ET Awful]

24. Nope, not a lawyer, but I was a paralegal for 8 years, and have prepared

cases for trial or submission to every court from Municipal Courts in California to the United States Supreme Court.

Once again, without charge, there can't be a plea.

[H2O Man]

23. Actually, there is ....

There is a judge involved in the grand jury process, although not in as "hands on" as in a formal trial. There are two types of grand juries, and this is the type with broader powers. It has the ability to investigate, rather than simply weigh the information provided by Mr. Fitzgerald to see if indictments are justified.

You are correct that Mr. Rove could not have made a plea in the context of the proceedings yesterday. Luskin and Rove met briefly with Mr. Fitzgerald, and then Karl testified in front of the grand jury. Thus, while there is a possibility that in the meeting a plea could have been discussed, it could not have gone further than that.

[symbolman]

28. But I'm assuming that the parties

that is Luskin and Fitz are corresponding between GJ sessions, since Mr Rove is under attack and Mr Fitz has issues he wants to solve - most of the lawyers I've known are on the phone, faxing, emailing, etc all day long between clients and the other client's lawyer..

They must have SOME communication, and during those periods they could make a deal, after all that's what they do in the end isn't it? The dog and pony show for the Clients comes later so they think they've gotten their money's worth.

So they MAY have cut a deal Before meeting that morning, the GJ having already indicted, Rove went before a Judge and then later they all met to make sure it was still on, perhaps with Rove Plea Bargaining long finished before that.. so he could continue he "singing lessons"..

If they aren't in communication then how would Luskin have gotten a "Target Letter"?

thanks for the tips on the GJ..

[stop the bleeding]

30. Interesting n/t

[H2O Man]

41. Oh, you are right.

They are communicating. I note that Mr. Luskin, however, told a reporter last week that Karl has not discussed any deal with Mr. Fitzgerald. In a sense, this is true: any discussion would go through Mr. Luskin.

[rateyes]

35. Not saying I agree with the OP....

but, indictments can be sealed. I do believe, regardless of the specifics, that Fitz has Rove by the balls and he's squeezing hard to get that canary to sing.

[Jersey Devil]

64. Well, you're half right

You can plead guilty before indictment by agreeing to a charge that is drawn up by the prosecutor and called an "Accusation". However, as you said, a plea must be before a court and all criminal courts (with the exception of certain juvenile and family court matters) are public.

[demobabe]

69. Yes, but any documents could be sealed

Supposing Rove pled guilty to an "Accusation" and they sealed that Accusation, would we know about it?

Or what if Rove agrees to plead guilty to the Accusation at a later court date in exchange for testimony to keep them from seeking an indictment?

Is this possible?

[Botany]

14. You do not plead to a G.J.

They vote to indict or not to indict.

But Karl is in really deep shit ...... according to Raw Story (?) about
a month ago Karl is singing like a bird.

[Gman]

19. Sounds plausible and very likely

pleading guilty to a GJ is not the issue as one post above says. All that needed to happen yesterday was an agreement to plead guilty, maybe even to avoid a formal indictment, then go testify before the GJ. The paperwork could be drawn up later then go before a judge to plead. The net effect is to get Rove to cooperate and burn those above him. The indictment comes later, then he formally pleads.

Your theory sounds very plausible and very likely.

[symbolman]

22. At last, people who get what I'm saying

Maybe I wasn't being clear enough, these kinds of deals are cut all the time, and I'm originally a Chicago boy myself, got beat up by Chicago cops all the time after Nam, they didn't like the fact that I thought freedom of speech which I bought so dearly being in the Military during Nam, meant that I could say "NO" to them whenever I wanted :)

Love the Hunter Thompson Quote, my new son's middle name is HUNTER after The Great Gonzo :)

Either of you two lawyers by chance?

[Gman]

75. I guess you could say I'm a shade tree lawyer

but I don't have the shingle on the wall.

[Punkingal]

20. I think your theory is plausible...

And he could have admitted guilt...and threw himself on their mercy by giving them information on other people. I think people in this thread are getting hung up on the word "pled.":hi:

[alcibiades_mystery]

25. You can't plead guilty to a grand jury

You have to plead guilty in open court before a judge.

Basics help, you know?

[symbolman]

31. That's been established

as I indicated above, between all of those sessions there was plenty of time for Rove and Luskin to agree to a Plea Bargain (AFTER THE GRAND JURY INDICTED HIM AT ONE OF THOSE SESSIONS), get before a Judge, and it doesn't have to be open court, sign the papers, THEN the Next time, like Rove, Luskin and Fitz meeting before the last session, Rove gets the leeches applied when he walks in the door of the GJ for more "treatment"..

Courts are very basic, jesus, half the time it's a JOKE in the courtroom, they mill around looking for lunch and golf partners, stand up and spray bullshit cos it's SHOWTIME for the client, while the Judge writes down what he/she wants for lunch, the deal ALREADY MADE before the client walks into the room..

my uncle was a lawyer for 45 years, I grew up sitting on Judges laps, with a Judge asking me, "What should I do with this guy?" (and me thinking, "Jesus Christ, don't put ME in this position, I'm only a little kid, this guy might KILL me.." :)

[alcibiades_mystery]

33. It's absolutely implausible that Rove was indicted and pled out

without somebody knowing about it and reporting it. Stupid, even.

Didn't happen, as will become clear. But you're certainly entitled to your silly speculation.

[symbolman]

36. No soup for you

One year..

[alcibiades_mystery]

38. If you had some decent lobster bisque

I'd be disappointed...;-)

[displacedtexan]

26. I think Luskin gave away the "target" answer yesterday.

Why was Luskin so careful to say "In connection with this appearance,
the Special Counsel has advised Mr. Rove that he is not a target of the investigation."

What about Rove's previous appearances? Maybe he's a target because of one or more
of those lies.

[symbolman]

32. This is interesting

I had not looked at that exact wording..

Reminds me of the Supreme Court saying that the Installation of Bush was a "one time shot" and not to be considered as Precedence (SP?)

[Justice Is Comin]

80. That's what I've been saying

Luskin is a connoseur of verbal manipulation and lawyer speak. He's using very precise lawyer speak to put the best spin on what he knows is almost positively a bill of indictment until the very last moment. He's been a classic proven press manipulator with a record second to none, doing it for years.

If you look at his statements, you will see how they are subtly changing. He knows that Fitzgerald or none of his associates are going to publicly say a word about his statements so he is making them with impunity. Last gasp desperation attempts to keep the media sadists from swarming all over poor Karl.

Your theory is belied by the fact that Rove was in the grand jury room for three and a half hours!! They were grilling him up one side and down the other. Filleting him like a bass. I contend they were putting all the trim on the tree and pulverizing him with his own contradictory contradictory statements. But worse, the under oath testimony of numerous others in direct contradiction to his. And the emails that verify them. Dotting a few I's and crossing a few T's would not have taken nearly that long in a plea to accusation.

I also believe Hadley is in serious jeopardy too. He's the one the "lost" email was sent to and he's been before the grand jury. I think Rove got a serious interrogation on that email as well yesterday. If Hadley had not come forward about that email himself or told the truth during his testimony, he's right in the crosshairs of Fitzgeralds scope too.

And lastly, I keep pointing out there was a mystery envelope paper clipped to Libby's indictment. Ten dollars to a donut that's got something to do with Rove and what we are seeing right now.

[Justice Is Comin]

81. That's what I've been pointing out.

Luskin is a connoisseur of verbal manipulation and lawyer speak. He's using very precise lawyer speak to put the best spin on what he knows is almost positively a bill of indictment until the very last moment. He's been a classic proven press manipulator with a record second to none, doing it for years.

If you look at his statements, you will see how they are subtly changing. He knows that Fitzgerald or none of his associates are going to publicly say a word about his statements so he is making them with impunity. Last gasp desperation attempts to keep the media sadists from swarming all over poor Karl.

Your theory is belied by the fact that Rove was in the grand jury room for three and a half hours!! They were grilling him up one side and down the other. Filleting him like a bass. I contend they were putting all the trim on the tree and pulverizing him with his own contradictory contradictory statements. But worse, the under oath testimony of numerous others in direct contradiction to his. And the emails that verify them. Dotting a few I's and crossing a few T's would not have taken nearly that long in a plea to accusation.

I also believe Hadley is in serious jeopardy too. He's the one the "lost" email was sent to and he's been before the grand jury. I think Rove got a serious interrogation on that email as well yesterday. If Hadley had not come forward about that email himself or told the truth during his testimony, he's right in the cross hairs of Fitzgeralds scope too.

And lastly, I keep pointing out there was a mystery envelope paper clipped to Libby's indictment. Ten dollars to a donut that's got something to do with Rove and what we are seeing right now.

[DoYouEverWonder]

27. One more option

Luskin is lying again.

He leaks and lies all the time.

[stop the bleeding]

29. yep - n/t

[PRETZEL]

34. If I can add my 2 cents,

I tend to agree that there is a deal between Rove and Fitz. I'm pretty sure that Fitz has the goods on Rove, especially on perjury and obstruction (which I tend to believe are sister charges) and that Rove voluntarily agrees to testify before the new GJ as part of that deal. But, at least for me, that would seem to indicate that Rove was indicted as part of the last GJ and that indictment was kept under seal as part of the agreement. I think your right in that many cases are adjudicated outside the courtroom and the "trial" itself merely comes as a formality and paper filings. So it may very well be that in the very near future we'll hear that Rove was indicted for perjury and obstruction and agreed to a lesser sentence in exchange for additional information on the bigger fish. That will become public record once the papers are filed.

I tend to believe the significance of the Rove reassignment of duties is an indication that Rove is in very serious legal trouble. If it was true that he is taking less responsibilities to concentrate on the mid-terms the admin would have done it without fanfare totally behind the scenes. That would have been so much more politically safe. Announcing the change in duties I think is an attempt to dissassociate the WH from Rove. Won't be done, but I think that may have been their only option politically.

[alcibiades_mystery]

37. So they would get it into their heads to dissociate themselves from Rove

only now, months after he was secretly indicted? Oh, and that's going to become public, so everyone will know that they did nothing after he was indicted for months?

Come on.

Fitzgerald finished up the Ryan case, which freed him up to continue pressing his inquiries on the Plame case. He has Rove on perjury and obstruction, to be sure, and probably now on conspiracy with the Viveka Novak information. He told Rove that charges were imminent, and Rove asked for another chance to clear it up before the grand jury. Fitzgerald agreed because a federal prosecutor will never turn down a chance to have a suspect yapping under oath, contradicting previous testimony and getting new testimony on record. Rove did it because he thinks he was succesful last time at talking his way out of it at the last minute. That's what happened yesterday. There was no deal, there was no testimony implicating others. In the meeting beforehand Fitzgerald probably asked Rove to lay out the entire operation - a question he knew Rove couldn't answer - and Rove said there was no operation, because he's smart enough to know when a conspiracy charge is being constructed, and Fitzgerald said, alright, let's take it to the grand jury, and that was that.

[PRETZEL]

40. reasons why I feel they're dissassociating from Rove

simply comes down to poll numbers. Bush is tanking, big time. He's losing support left and right, no longer has an agenda, and has become a lame duck almost a full year ahead of most second term Presidents. A full blown scandal that would result from a public indictment of Rove kisses this admin goodbye and the legacy of "most corrupt administration in history" becomes Bush's reality. These people played Rove for the fool he is and now he's no longer needed. They can't fire him because the negative publicity would be too great and they know that. Rove's face is much too ingrained into Bush to have that messy a separation.

[alcibiades_mystery]

49. That's clearly what is happening

But this doesn't suggest a previous sealed indictment. The late date of their gradual dissassociation, rather, suggests that the gears are just moving on Rove now.

[caledesi]

62. Also, I read that * was really pissed at Rove when he got into the

fray w/ Fitz. Since then, * has distanced himself from Rove AND the dick, Cheney.

[symbolman]

39. YES

I agree, all I've seen are DEALS going on, and anyone who makes deals, from a crack dealer to a politician knows that it all boils down to power, control, and quick use of the system, and the magic of secrecy.. I'd forgotten about sealing records, remember how they UNSEALED Scott Ritter's sexploit to damage him during those early days of the WMDs? UNSEALED.

If they can unseal they can SEAL, and it's just a fancy legal structure for HIDING criminal acts from the public, and this fits that bill perfectly..

I mean these are WAY too many trips to the GJ WITHOUT an Indictment for there NOT to be some kind of deal going on. There's been some pow wows going on.

Rove's been dirty his whole life so of course that means that Fitz may have had him from the START, that means they've had what, nearly TWO YEARS to play "Let's make a deal?"

I hope this does come out this way for kicks, when I made the film "Rove's War" I added a LOT of speculation, after a year of research, and I was glad to find out (and I worried a bit about it) that very nearly ALL of my speculation turned out to be accurate - which means I didn't have a crappy, clueless film after all that time.. :)

As Mr Burns would say, "I like the cut of your gib, man."

Clear thinking is something I'm very envious of :)

[Catrina]

43. I too think it's possible that Rove and Fitz have made deals since

last October ~ the target letter may have come back then, but Luskin and Rove may have offered Fitz more information so the indictment (which everyone thought was going to happen in Oct.) may have gone under seal while Fitz worked on Rove to see if he was going to give him what he needed to solve the main issue he was charged with, find out who the real leaker was.

Things have happened since then. Libby's filings revealed that Fitz has the missing emails, eg. This was supposedly due to information from Rove. Holding a sealed indictment over Rove's head would have been incentive to Rove to be cooperative.

There were several meetings, according to Libby's testimony, (and others) between Cheney, Rove, Libby et al where the Plame outing was discussed. Fitz may need Rove's testimony to get conspiracy charges against all of those who had access to the information on Valerie Plame and who could be charged with the main crime of outing her and Brewster Jennings. Rove couldn't be charged with that crime, since he didn't have access to the info at the time.

It's possible that Fitz wasn't happy with Rove's cooperation and may have notified Luskin that unless Rove cooperated further, he would unseal the original indictment. That might be when Rove agreed to be a 'witness' before the GJ. He may have been testifying yesterday about the real leakers, 'clearing up' what Fitz knew he knew but was withholding?

Iow, yesterday's testimony may have been about others, Cheney, Bush, Condy, Bolton eg, and not about his own role.

As far as Luskin saying that the yesterday's GJ appearance was merely to clear some things up, and that there was no target letter re that session, technically that would be true, if Rove is now a witness and fully cooperating. He may still be charged, but with lesser crimes, as part of a deal between Fitz and Luskin (that does happen all the time before it all gets formalized in court).

Of course this is all speculation ~ but I do think the target letter Jason Leopold mentioned probably came months ago ~ and Luskin is talking about now.

I just thought of something, though. As far as a sealed indictment, that might not be the case. I remember reading somewhere that we would know if there were sealed indictments. So, it may be that Fitz just agreed to hold off on indicting Rove until he got what he wanted ~

[alcibiades_mystery]

51. That's not how sealed indictments work

n/t

[Beetwasher]

42. He Could Have Received A Target Letter and Then Worked Out A Deal

To testify again and the letter was put in abeyance until sometime after the testimony. This seems the most likely explanation to me and would explain the meeting beforehand between Fitz and Luskin/Rove. The got a letter (or some sort of target notification), met w/ Fitz and begged to testify again as a further delaying tactic and thus the "target" status was put in abeyance.

[yodermon]

44. symbolman -

have you considered posing your theory to Christy (reddhedd) over at firedoglake?
Post it in the comments, she'll most likely respond to you.

One comment in her most recent post over there (http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/04/27/the-spin-that-wont-die/ ) was interesting -- did Libby ever get a target letter?

[garybeck]

54. all this talk about a target letter is doing nothing but confusing us all

the only thing that matters is if he is idicted (and then convicted). I'm sure, even if he did get a target letter, that it could be retracted, and/or there's no legal bearing that Fitz would HAVE TO indict him just because he sent him a letter. In other words, he could send him a letter and then change his mind. Until he's actually indicted nothing is set in stone. Just think of how many other people (like Libby) have been indicted in the many cases covered by the media, and we never hear about this target letter.

So I say, let's just kick back and hope that he gets indicted. Now that would actually mean something.

I don't care if he got a letter or not. I want him to get indicted.

[symbolman]

70. Sure! I love them

They posted my Fitzmas Tree and hawked my movie, I wanted a review by someone who has the facts and doesn't come unglued or over emotional, and they fit the bill, love Jane Hamsher, don't know Christy.. do I need to sign up first?

I know they know YOU, they praise you for bringing goodies to their attention.

I don't think I've heard anyone talking about my little theory here on the web, and in this world who knows, I might even be right, would't that be a kick?

Thanks, I'll go post there, love the comments there, they don't all HATE you for not wanting to be a fan of any particular site, sanity, seems to be slipping at the DU lately, I've been here a long time and have never seen the kind of venom and vitriol, this place has changed..

Appreciate it and YOU :)

[AlCzervik]

45. Does anyone remember anything about sealed indictments when Libby

got indicted? I seem to remember that there were also sealed indictments as well, am i imagining this or did it happen because if it did one of them could be for Rove.

[PRETZEL]

46. that's what I had thought....eom

[H2O Man]

47. There were none.

A number of people were sure that there were sealed indictments last October. There were not any. Mr. Fitzgerald stated clearly in one of the court documents in the Libby case that there absolutely were not any sealed indictments in October.

[PRETZEL]

52. thanks for clearing that up..........eom

[AlCzervik]

57. ok thanks, a girl can hope.

[alcibiades_mystery]

50. You're imagining it

There were no sealed indictments.

[demobabe]

71. There was a lot of talk

...at the time about the ability to have sealed indictments. Then only one indictment came down and everyone was pissed, remember? No sealed indictments at that point.

[H2O Man]

72. Five indictments

were handed down. People had wondered about something they saw being handed to the judge. There was at least one sealed file given to the judge; however, it was about Mr. Libby, not a "sealed indictment" for anyone else.

[demobabe]

74. Ah, thank you

For the correction! :)

[Zorra]

48. Or Rove may have simply said "lay off me or you will die in a tragic

accident."

[Hamlette]

53. found my answer, self delete

[garybeck]

55. he is

a reporter for an alternative news website called Truthout. He is basically saying he has reliable sources saying that Rove has received a target letter, indicating he will likely be indicted. However, he is the only person in the entire media saying this.

[WilliamPitt]

56. V for Vendetta

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-042606rove_lat,0,1773232.story?coll=la-home-headlines

You need another hobby, brother.

And you used to be such a solid citizen.

[Peace Patriot]

59. Thanks, Will! There are two interesting sentences in the LA Times piece:

"A source said that Fitzgerald is interested in matters that have arisen since Rove last appeared before the grand jury in October."

And...

"People close to Rove have been hoping that Fitzgerald would be making a decision on whether to charge or clear the top aide."

Although you have to be greatly suspicious of sources identified merely as "a source" and especially "people close to Rove," these assertions indicate that, target letter or no target letter, Rove is a target. (...if Fitzgerald is making a decision whether to charge or not, what else is Rove but a target?). Caution, though: target for what? Perjury, obstruction, cover up? Or the outing itself?**

(Note: The "or clear" bothers me as inaccurate. Just because these criminals have lied through their teeth and covered up a major crime doesn't mean they are "cleared" of that charge; it only means they may be TECHNICALLY cleared of it, and aren't going to jail for it NOW.)

**Re: Rove/target. I want to mention a story from Joe Wilson's book, that, early on, Rove blew up at Libby/Cheney for trying to blame Rove for the Plame/BJ outing. I tend to think that this is, indeed, the situation: that the whole story about Plame being outed for political revenge against her husband (for his op-ed piece in the NYT, crying foul on the Niger/Iraq nuke connection) was a cover story, quite believable because that is what Rove is known for--excessively dirty politics. The outing of Plame and Brewster-Jennings had little or nothing to do with punishing Joe Wilson, except in the general sense that it served the purpose of trying to frighten and silence people. Plame and Brewster-Jennings comprised an important component of the CIA WMD counter-proliferation capability, i.e., their ability to track of illicit WMDs and related money trails and people around the world. The Bush junta is extremely dirty in this respect, and very likely were planning to, and likely attempted to, PLANT nukes in Iraq, after the invasion--to gain the enormous political benefit therefrom, AND to discredit and purge the CIA (whose professionals were very skeptical of the WMD charge). (I think it's even possible that Joe Wilson was baited to go public, and that the "crude" Niger forgeries were a set-up all along, to bait the CIA--in Wilson's case, a CIA-connected diplomat--into a public anti-Iraq nuke position, that would have been trumped by a "find" of nukes in Iraq--if that plot had succeeded.)

Ergo: I think there is good reason to believe that Plame and BJ--and any capability of honest professionals to track WMDs--were the targets all along. The Rovian part of it--outing them in the newspapers--was just the song and dance part, over here, in the U.S., in the games the Bush junta plays in our war profiteering corporate news monopoly press. The real story starts in Rome, way back in 2001, with Pentagon-run skulduggery, involving notorious Iranian arms dealer Manucher Ghorbanifar, Michael Ladeen and other Neo-Cons, and Italian fascists. Rove was just part of the "song and dance." He's dirty, for sure, but may not be as dirty as Libby, nor as guilty as Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and probably Rice. In this instance--the Plame/BJ outing--he is like a Mafia brother or uncle--a second in command--who does dirty jobs but doesn't give the orders, may not know the reasons for everything, and, as a "tool," is set up to take the rap, should the Law come down on the Organization. And, if my theory of Rove's level of guilt in this case is correct, THAT would explain the many grand jury appearances and the uncertainty of his status--that he is a lesser player, in this instance (the Plame/BJ outing). Also, it's probable that he knows who IS guilty--that is, who is most guilty--and is covering up for them. Fitzgerald--as has been stated before--is more than likely aimed at the main perps, not the "tools."

[symbolman]

68. Will

I have not attacked YOUR professionalism, and don't understand why you are attackin MINE. I have been at this for 5 years solid and everything I DO is done very well according to millions of satisfied customers in print and online.

This is not a "hobby" and I think you know better than that. I've created a scenario here and may actually be true, deals are what court is all about and as I've said to people before I've spent a LOT of time in courtrooms as well - AND it INCLUDES a Target Letter in this SPECULATION. Why are you beefing with me? And as they say in Hawaii, "you like beef?" (means you want to fight?) Remember that things you say online are to REAL people, people you might actually MEET face to face at some small function. Be nice.

I've offered to send you a copy of my "Rove's War" film DVD which I researched for over a year, yet you've basically never answered any of my posts, except for this attack, what gives here? As for the Plame scene I know a LOT about this subject, and a lot more about life, my young friend.

I'm 53 and between barfighting my way out of trouble only to have my ass kicked by cops after Serving during Nam, looking for Uranium by Chopper in Alaska for two summers (goldmining for three), meeting tons of movie stars, being a minor rock star, hanging out with influential folks as well, winning any award I decided to win (ALL of them in College for sculpture), or at least coming close like the MoveOn bush in 30 seconds, doing tv tours on right wing shows where they threaten to shut off my mikes, dozens of Flash animations, one which won an award in Holly wood, you think I'm a HOBBY kind of guy?

I KNOW a lot more than you, not bragging, just claiming life experiences and seniority. Like my dad used to say to me, "You;re still shitting Green.." A kid in my view, a nice kid, but you need to respect those who have fought for this country - where YOU drafted? Did you FIGHT for America, maybe with a chance of DYING?

Didn't hear from me for a year? It's because I was running around filming for an Electronic Election fraud movie, that would be replete ith new animations, and I'm known worldwide for that. SOme people say that Takebackthemedia.com and American Stranger and I were the first creators of online Political attack ads using Flash, and it all came about from meeting right here. Back when the DU was filled with highly prized people, ones proud of their KNOWING THE FACTS.

Seems to be much more like High School lately, attack attack attack..

You're better than that, at least I always thought you were.. I know you've got a lot riding on your boy looking good, the money pool is small for Liberal sites, but don't go trashing me when I come up with a POTENTIAL scenario tha even saves LEOPOLD considering NO ONE is reporting in ANY of the Media (which you linked as some kind of "proof" for me right here) that he is "right" or what he says is "true"..

Vendetta? Yeah, I have a vendetta, just like the movie I DEMAND that the TRUTH be told no matter WHO says it or where it comes from, right or Left.. especially the Left.

Takebackthemedia.com is highly respected, and our first year alone brought in 100 MILLION HITS, hardly a hobby my friend.

I saw your post about having Hope. Well, am I supposed to HOPE that Leopold doesn't take you down with him? Or HOPE that you act like a friend, I thought you were, but apparently if I find Raw Story to be what I think are a bunch of Whackjobs (uh, why does that word sound familiar? oh the BIGOTTED article they refuse to apologise for) then I can't be your friend anymore and YOU HAVE to attack my professionalism?

Please remember that fame is fleeting, and fickle, so again, don't burn any bridges just yet. Things can change in a heartbeat, and they always do in a fluid universe. Be Nice, it helps you a lot. Me, I'm not so nice, but I'm older and crankier, in a lot of pain :)

[demobabe]

73. Am I missing something?

Is this article supposed to disprove something Symbolman said? If so, I don't see it.

Additionally, it doesn't say anything about Rove receiving a target letter, which is where your Truthout has placed all its chips.

Why are you attacking Symbolman? Is he that much of a threat to you? :shrug:

[PRETZEL]

58. I guess I'm now more confused than ever

as to why Rove would go before a GJ "voluntarily" for the fifth time. If, as I've been corrected, there is no sealed indictment or "target notification" then it makes no sense at all for Rove to go before the GJ again. If there is a target letter out there then why would Rove go there and risk further damage by answering more question. If he's a target he would have been best to clam up and wait til an indictment was handed up. If he's a target then Fitz feels he has enough to get an indictment and what does he gain by having Rove testify again. Also, what has been presented to this GJ that could possibly warrant further explaination from Rove.

I guess the only thing I know for sure is that Rove's up to his ass in aligators. That seems to be the reason why I think (for the most part anyway) he's been put on the sidelines. Whether or not this ultimately comes down to being a criminal case beyond the perjuries and obstructions and into conspiracy (or worse) or is ultimately found to be pure political vendetta I guess I just have to wait and see. I still tend to think it goes beyond the obstructions and perjuries (mainly because of the damage to Brewster-Jennings)but just how far I don't know.

[caledesi]

61. SM - I love your analysis. Really explains how Leopold may be

right. Enjoyed reading it.

[robertpaulsen]

63. So...you think Fitz FLIPPED Rove like he did Hannah?

I hope you're right. That would mean Cheney's days are numbered, I think. Pig Boy won't rat on his boss (hoping for a pardon, no doubt) but would take out his frustrations on Cheney. I don't think he spent the entire three hours yesterday just on the Hadley e-mail, I'm guessing the content of some of the OVP e-mails were discussed as well.

[Duer 157099]

79. interesting discussion. kick n/t