Lawyers, please weigh in here. Is the fact that Fitz has

[pnwmom]

kept the grand jury open this long a good sign that indictments against Rove and/or others are forthcoming?

Or is it just as likely that he'll just close up shop after crossing every i and dotting every t -- but with only Libby on the line?

[billybob537]

1. The fact that he empaneled a new grand jury

Is evidence that the investigation is far from over.

[stop the bleeding]

2. I'm not a lawyer but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night

and I think that Fitz sequestering a new GJ or keeping one open this long does not bode well for Rover.

[Jack from Charlotte]

3. Might I recomend..... Firedoglake.com for Fitz info. One of the women ...

there is an ex Fed prosecutor and really knows her fed procedures.

[pnwmom]

4. thanks!

[Peace Patriot]

5. Fitzgerald was very convincing in his determination to get to the bottom

of this crime (or the top, as the case may be), in his press conference on the Libby indictment for perjury and obstruction. His two main points in that press conference were, a) that a SERIOUS crime or crimes had been committed, involving a threat to our national security, and b) that Cheney chief aid Libby was OBSTRUCTING the investigation.

Is Rove now obstructing it also? Very likely. Because this crime was very likely ordered by their BOSSES, Bush (Rove) and Cheney (Libby) and also very likely Rumsfeld (my pick for mastermind, although he hasn't been mentioned much in investigation stories).

The DELAY in indicting Rove--whom Fitzgerald very likely has by the short hairs on perjury/obstruction--probably has to do with sweating Rove to give up the masterminds of this crime (or possibly to give up Libby on the main crime). Fitzgerald may have Rove under a sealed indictment (what Truthout/Leopold have been saying, based on their sources). (Actually, I don't know if they said "sealed indictment"--they are saying he HAS been indicted.)

The "controversy" here at DU has to do with the fact that the Rove indictment hasn't happened YET--or rather, hasn't yet been made public. It may well exist under seal--to be unsealed when Fitzgerald is good and ready.

So that's the situation. A perusal of filed court papers and other information points strongly to Rove perjury. But if he tells the truth (gives up the masterminds), he may not be indicted. Some bargain might be in the works. Fitzgerald is a stickler, however, when it comes to the perps of any crime, including perjury--and would not likely be inclined to a no-jail deal for Rove.

Educated guess: No, this investigation is NOT going to close up shop. Despite all the time it has taken, it in many ways has only just begun. This is a prosecutor known for his PATIENCE, as he slowly turns the screws on the lower perps, aiming at the higher perps. There has never been an investigation with so much at stake--nor one of more dangerous people. He is taking his time, being meticulous, and relentless. That's my read on it.

[pnwmom]

6. Thanks for taking the time, PP. I sure hope you're right!

[npincus]

11. follow-up question:

with regard to the possibility that Fitzy may be "sweating Rove to give up the masterminds" and the possiblitlity of some kind of bargain.... IF the GJ has already handed up an indictment, under seal, CAN Fitz still make a deal with Rove and withdraw the indictment? Or, IF an indictment has been handed up, it is no longer up to the prosecutor's discretion whether to indict?

thank you- please advise.

[Uncle Roy]

15. Fitz might be offering a deal like the following:

Either A) you plead guilty to all of these charges in this indictment AND you cooperate fully with my investigation of the higher perps, (in which case I MIGHT say nice things to the judge in your behalf when sentencing time rolls around);
or B) I will go to the Grand Jury and get another indictment on a ton of additional charges and I will nail your sorry butt to the wall on each and every one of them.

[rock]

13. Revenge is best served cold

[WiseButAngrySara]

17. If Leopold's story is credible, then why did KKKRove's attorney deny it?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1197128

A lawyer on that thread said that if Luskin is lying about this, he could be disbarred.

[Geoff R. Casavant]

7. Fitz doesn't impanel GJs or keep them open

IIRC, federal judge empanels a GJ for a definite term (say 18 months, usually meeting once a week). The GJ usually does not hear only evidence regarding one investigation, but hears evidence brought from many prosecutors on different matters. The prosecutor can request an extension, as Fitz did with the GJ that indicted Libby. This GJ is still in its primary term.

[Peace Patriot]

10. Geoff R. Casavant, I thought it was a NEW Grand Jury. At the end of the

first GJ term (the one that indicted Libby), I thought that GJ was retired, and Fitzgerald went to a NEW GJ for further investigation and indictments. As I understand it, the jurisdiction in question keeps one or more GJ's seated on a continuous basis, and Fitz went to one of the aleady seated ones with new information--and this, a new set of people--are the GJ that will be indicting Rove, if and when that happens. One reason I picked this us up is that Fitz had to give this 2nd GJ time to catch up. That's one of the reasons it's taken so long for further action.

Oops! I entirely misunderstood your post. You're saying the same thing--it's a NEW GJ. And what you're saying is that THIS GJ has plenty of time left to continue with this investigation. Sorry! Will post anyway, to show that I can sometimes be a doofus, and for info value.

[pnwmom]

27. thank you for the info!

[Peace Patriot]

8. Here's a good rundown on the whole situation from Jason Leopold at

Truthout...

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051306W.shtml

[Inland]

9. All one can say is, as long as there's a GJ, there's a chance. No more.

Nobody knows what the GJ is doing in total, or why it is doing anything, with two exceptions: The gj and fitz's office, who aren't telling, and the defense attorneys, who are motivated to lie and conceal.

Therefore all you know is that you can't rely on reports. Really, stop driving yourself crazy trying to read tea leaves.

[Peace Patriot]

14. I don't think the Jason Leopold article that I reffed is 'tea leaves.'

It looks well-sourced to me. "Sources" can always burn reporters, inadvertently or maliciously. But these sources are NOT Libby's or Rove's lawyers, and the details of what is happening sound genuine. Also, I'm familiar with a lot of the court docs and many details of the case--and I think a Rove indictment is a real possibility. I think Fitz has him on perjury, and is sweating him.

Why speculate? Because we, as citizens, have other responsibilities, too, including following the Bush junta's phony narratives, for instance, on "immigration." You can look at this phony narrative naively--as mere politics--or you can look deeper and see the desperation in the dim background of a pending Rove indictment, and the pre-emptive attempt to focus the war profiteering corporate news monopolies and the yahoo Bushites on hating brown people.

I think the "dim background" is very important. I think it was important during Katrina as well--that Rove knew he was in legal trouble THEN, and quite possibly went on strike in the first days of that disaster--perhaps negotiating a future pardon--leaving Bush to be caught eating cake and playing guitar on camera, while people were dying in New Orleans.

This is not a small matter--the Fitzgerald investigation. I think this "dim background" has informed quite a lot that has happened in the foreground over the last six months. And it behooves us to try to understand what is going on in the background and to try to anticipate Bush junta moves, and be prepared for them. Also, our national security is at risk from the Plamegate perps, according to Fitzgerald in his Libby press conference. How I would put it is this: If we have traitors in the White House--who would out and endanger a CIA agent and the entire CIA WMD counter-proliferation network that she headed--what would they not do to retain power? Who are these traitors? How many of them are still in the WH and running our government, military and intelligence agencies? And who is the mastermind or masterminds? Cheney? Rumsfeld? All of them?

A Rove indictment is not primarily a political item, to me anyway. Some people treat it that way, anxious for the junta to be exposed, to help the Democrats win back Congress. But we need to be prepared for other possible consequences, including the Bushites' refusal to be "checked and balanced," threats to the prosecutor Fitzgerald and attempts to fire him, their hanging onto power with tooth and claw, and worse.

It is quite appalling that we are reduced to reading entrails (or 'tea leaves,' as you say), which is the truth, for sure, in many ways. This is the most secretive government ever, and the worst news establishment. We, the people of this country, are forced to read between the lines--a sad fact. But we MUST try to understand our situation, as best we can. And guessing about Rove--based on what we can know, and what REAL reporters are trying to find out for us--is a healthy exercise, in my opinion. It's not all of what we must do, but it's part of it. Our biggest task--our main task, in my view--is to get rid of Bushite-controlled electronic voting machines, so that we can start getting real representation in Washington DC. Fitzgerald cleaning out this nest of criminals could help us do that. You want more of the same? Let Diebold and ES&S "count" your votes! But understanding and anticipating these criminals and their power plays--however much we can--is also very important.

[Uncle Roy]

16. Hear! Hear! (nfm)

[Inland]

18. Your arguments don't have anything to do with the issue.

1. It is not appalling that the grand jury proceedings are being kept secret. Not only is it the law, but it’s the only protection of the civil liberties of targets, witnesses and merely associated persons in a grand jury setting.

2. That one is reduced to reading tea leaves in an effort to guess about what the gj is doing is a reason to be cautious and skeptical, not an invitation to be neither.

3. There is no citizens’ duty to speculate about gj proceedings, at least, not where it’s clear they are being handled by a professional. Indictments are newsworthy and important. Scooping the announcement of an indictment by two days is not. Rove being indicted is important. An article scooping it is not.

4. As to Leopold’s sources, there’s only two types that know about what is going on with the gj, Fitz and the gj itself, and the defense attorneys. The former isn’t talking, so the sources are either the defense attorneys, who have an incentive to lie, or people who really don’t know. If he relied on defense attorneys, he got played and if he relied on someone else’s educated guesses, then he should have said so. In either event, I would have warned Leopold to use better judgment in the small purpose of trying to “scoop” the indictments. I did warn the DU member last month about getting ahead of secret grand jury proceedings, and got a number of sarcastic replies for my trouble. Too bad. It’s not my problem, one way or another. Nobody really has much at stake in scooping the announcements of indictments by two days than the scooper, and he’ll take the glory or the heat personally, and the real life concerns are unaffected.

In sum, nothing you talked about had anything to do with the article in question.

[pnwmom]

30. Perhaps you misunderstood the post. The way I read it is that

it is quite appalling that the whole administration has taken secrecy to the lengths that it has. That we, and our representatives, are given so little information about almost anything important that we are reduced to reading the "tea leaves" as it were.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I didn't think s/he was objecting to grand jury secrecy. Rather, the secrecy of the entire administration about practically everything.

[WiseButAngrySara]

19. Excellent post; it should have it's own thread, IMHO. ....n/t

[pnwmom]

29. Yes -- fixing the voting system has to be the top priority.

Everything else depends on it.

[Justice Is Comin]

12. Yesterday,

I heard Pat Buchanan at the end of Hardball saying, "things really do not look very good for Rove right now."

Boy, I've never heard him joining our train before. :wow:

[Catherine Vincent]

20. Fitzgerald says:

"Let's let the process take place. Let's take a deep breath and let justice process the system."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/28/politics/28text-fitz.html?ei=5070&en=1636be841279f33d&ex=1147924800&pagewanted=print

[lindisfarne]

21. Surely, however, the people accusing others of "reading tea leaves"

would not advocate for citizens to take an uninterested stance in this matter?

There is definitely a need for discussion, if only to help inform the citizenry of the laws, what certain events could mean to the case (this helps people understand the process), as long as it is made clear that many factors of a necessity must remain secret. Leaks by the defense do not, however, infringe upon defendants rights, and *do* have some relevance, although must be interpreted cautiously as they almost certainly are biased (although such bias really has no bearing on the outcome of the case - it's all about trying to salvage public opinion. In fact, the spin put on the events by the defense lawyers can be interesting in terms of what it reveals.)

[Inland]

22. Depends what you mean by "this matter".

If you mean crimes, sure, be interested. If you mean reading tea leaves, guessing on what's going to come when, building huge scenarios based on the guesses, it strikes me as a royal waste of time and energy.

And I don't consider the citizenry to be "informed" one whit by speculation. Were you "informed" by Leopold's article? Even if the article ends up true, and Rove is indicted today, or tomorrow, all it means is that you got a good weekend out of it....not even that, since not even the rumor mill has the charges in mind.

[lindisfarne]

23. One is informed when various scenarios are laid out and the various

legal ramifications are discussed. This teaches one a lot about the relevant laws and how they may be applied. It also teaches one a lot about what issues are relevant to any case (in this particular situation, relevant to the case(s) Fitzgerald is investigating). It also teaches one HOW to think - understanding how laws get applied is not clear just based on being generally well-educated; legal terms are far more specific than most people realize, and the way laws apply can be tricky.

I'm not sure which Leopold article you are referring to; the one I read contained anonymous sources (I don't have a problem with this), but little speculation on the part of Leopold.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051306W.shtml

[Inland]

26. Sounds like a legal symposium

which, unfortunately, is exactly what's NOT going on. It's a scoop. The scoop doesn't even tell us WHAT the indictment says, there's so little there there.

[yodermon]

24. Fitz is not "keeping it open"

It is NOT a special Grand Jury. It is a regular Grand Jury which can hear all kinds of evidence from any case.

from firedoglake (http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/2005/10/untying-few-legal-knots.html ) back on Thursday, October 27, 2005

Is this a Grand Jury or a Special Grand Jury? What is the difference?
After everyone working for weeks under the assumption that this was a special grand jury, based on media reports, yesterday's article in the WaPo revived that question for me. Since there has been no sourcing in any of the articles thus far, I decided to take matters into my own hands and called the Federal District Court Clerk's Office for the DC Circuit this morning. Amazing how such a little thing as the telephone can prove so useful, isn't it?

As it turns out, this is a regular old Grand Jury. The Clerk with whom I spoke told me that "no special Grand Jury is seated at this point" in the DC Circuit. (Am trying to not read into tea leaves that perhaps one could be seated shortly, and just take that as a no special grand jury at present, thanks.)

What this means in terms of the term of the grand jury is this: a regular grand jury has a normal term of 18 months. A special grand jury has a normal term of up to 36 months, if all extensions are requested.

More good firedoglake info on Grand Juries: http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/2005/10/inner-workings-of-grand-jury.html

[Love Bug]

25. Why would Rove plead out? He's going to be pardoned anyway

so where is the incentive for him to cop a plea?

[Jersey Devil]

28. Fitz has not "kept the grand jury open"

In fact, his special grand jury empaneled for the purposes of the Plame investigation expired shortly after the Libby indictment. The grand jury he is using now is a regular grand jury that hears any kind of case brought before it, whether by Fitzgerald or any other federal prosecutors involving other cases.

[pnwmom]

31. Another question: if he decides not to indict Rove, will we

know it? Does he have to announce this? Or could it have already happened? In other words, if he decided not to pursue the case any further -- at least for now -- does he have to publicly let Rove off the hook?