Posted on 08/21/2006 1:19:35 PM PDT by PJ-Comix
The Great Pumpkin is finally going to be appearing! No, really! It's TRUE. TRUTHOUT just made this grand announcement in the form of saying that Karl Rove was really REALLY indicted last May 12. Oh, and the only reason why we don't know about it is that his indictment has been sealed all this time. You can read the TruthOut Great Pumpkin announcement in this DUmmie THREAD titled, "Jason Leopold and Marc Ash|Indictment Still Sealed, Fitzgerald Still Busy." Yeah, now there are two reliable sources, a degenerate drug-addicted liar and a former fashion editor. And where is Sonny Crockett? Come to think of it, where is William Rivers Pitt? He seems to be most notable by his ABSENCE from this thread. Sorry, Will, but you staked whatever credibility you had on this story and now that the Great Pumpkin has yet to arrive, you have to suffer the consequences to your non-existent political career. So let us now watch the TruthOut Great Pumpkin announcement in Bolshevik Red while the commentary of your humble correspondent, seeing if any DUmmies are left to kick Lucy's football, is in the [brackets]:
Jason Leopold and Marc Ash|Indictment Still Sealed, Fitzgerald Still Busy
[DUmmies still clueless...]
An indictment first reported by Truthout said to be connected to Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's Plame investigation remains sealed, and Fitzgerald continues to work on the leak case.
[Not only was TruthOut the first to report on the indictment, it was the only place that announced the indictment.]
The indictment, 06 cr 128, was returned by the grand jury hearing evidence in the CIA leak case between May 10 and May 17 - right around the time that Truthout reported, based on sources close to the investigation, that Karl Rove had been indicted on charges of perjury and lying to investigators.
[And Truthout also reported that the Titanic did NOT sink and will be sailing into New York harbor any day now.]
However, that indictment remains under seal more than three months after it was filed - an unusually lengthy period of time, according to experts in the field of federal law. The indictment could be dismissed down the road, meaning the public may never get the opportunity to learn the identity of the defendant or the substance of the criminal case.
[Sealed for three months? Or maybe three BUSINESS months.]
These experts said the length of time the indictment has been under seal suggests that the defendant named in the complaint is cooperating with an ongoing investigation and may have accepted a plea agreement.
[Was one of those experts Sonny Crockett or perhaps even the Great Pumpkin himself?]
Former federal prosecutor Laurie Levenson said it's very likely that the indictment was sealed in the first place because the "defendant is cooperating with an investigation and the government wants to keep that person's identity secret" to protect the integrity of the investigation.
[Meanwhile former federal prosecutor Lucy says, "Kick my football again, Charlie Brown. I swear I won't pull it away this time."]
"It would be extraordinary to keep it sealed as the process goes on," said Levenson, now a law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.
[Just two more business months to go, Laurie.]
A two-month investigation undertaken by Truthout into the circumstances that led to Karl Rove's alleged exoneration in the leak probe has once again put the spotlight back on Sealed vs. Sealed, the heading under which 06 cr 128 was filed in US District Court between May 10 and May 17.
[I thought the spotlight was back on the cat stools of Robert Luskin's cat.]
During numerous interviews with Truthout, sources with direct knowledge of the behind-the-scenes legal wrangling in the CIA leak case said the indictment specifically relates to the 2½-year-old leak probe. Other sources who have also been involved in the investigation confirmed this information.
[And all these sources happen to have the name of Joe Wilson.]
The sources said that it was Karl Rove who led Fitzgerald's office to additional documentary evidence that was not turned over to the Special Prosecutor's staff in the early days of the investigation.
[Your sources must read the same newspapers that I do.]
With Rove cooperating, the probe has once again shifted, and the focus now is on another high-level official in the executive branch: Vice President Dick Cheney.
[Oooh! Dick Cheney is about to get probed as benburch looks on jealously.]
Vice President Dick Cheney is a figure of keen interest to investigators working on the outing of Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife, former undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame. Sources directly familiar with the investigation said Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald and his closest confidants suspect that Cheney was "involved in orchestrating a plot to discredit former ambassador Wilson."
[Were those the same sources that told Jason Leopold that Karl Rove had received a target letter?]
Wilson's editorial, "What I Didn't Find in Africa," which was published in the New York Times, raised direct questions about the administration's willingness to manipulate intelligence to facilitate its march to war. In addition, Wilson raised specific questions regarding an alleged attempt by the Hussein government to acquire uranium yellowcake, a component that could be used in the construction of nuclear weapons, from the African nation of Niger. Directly contradicting statements made by George W. Bush only months earlier in his State of the Union address, Wilson not only contended that the statements by Bush regarding the Niger claims were based on highly flawed intelligence, but questioned how the administration could have allowed the debunked claims to be included in Mr. Bush's State of the Union address at all.
[What Wilson didn't find was a frog-walking Karl Rove.]
In the case of Vice President Cheney there are, according to the sources familiar with the case, "Constitutional issues that must be researched." Sources familiar with the ongoing probe said that Constitutional experts are deliberating with the Plame investigators, and that the vice president views his status as shielded, to some extent, by executive privilege.
[Ooooh! Such impressive unnamed sources. Come on, give! One was Sonny Crockett and the other was Ricardo Tubbs? Right?]
Fitzgerald's investigation into the Plame matter is still active and ongoing, sources said, and will be for some time. Fitzgerald has long considered bringing additional charges against other individuals in the administration. However, it's unknown whether Fitzgerald's strategy will change as the investigation moves forward. Fitzgerald has yet to comment on the status of the probe or specifically on high profile figures his investigators have focused on. The only public comments that have surfaced thus far on the direction of the investigation have come from Karl Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, and syndicated columnist Bob Novak, who revealed Plame's CIA status in a July 14, 2003, column.
[Fitzgerald is actively investigating the best person for filing away the Karl Rove file into the dusty storage room cabinet.]
Attempting to gain a clearer picture of the events leading up to the June 12 letter sent by Patrick Fitzgerald to Luskin, our two-month investigation led to several interesting revelations that were communicated to us by well-placed sources. The letter is constructed in a manner consistent with what would be expected when a federal prosecutor writes a letter to a subject's attorney. The letter, we are told, spelled out what was expected of Rove, and made clear the ramifications should he fail to honor the terms of his verbal cooperation agreement with Fitzgerald. According to experts in federal criminal law, that approach is fairly standard given the circumstances.
[Well-placed sources? I'm sooooo impressed! Strange though that Rove hasn't suffered any "ramifications" yet after all this time.]
It was Luskin, sources said, who seized on the single phrase from Fitzgerald's letter that gave the appearance of exoneration trumpeted by the US commercial press. In fact, the letter, taken as a whole, paints no such picture. According to those familiar with the letter sent to Luskin, it details the obligations of a subject, Karl Rove, who must choose between cooperation and further prosecution. If the document were made public it would indicate those obligations, the sources said.
[Actually Luskin seized on a single comma from the letter and twisted it so as to give it the appearance of exoneration.]
Michael Clark, a former federal prosecutor now in private practice in Houston, Texas, said that he has never heard of a sealed indictment referred to as "Sealed vs. Sealed" despite the fact that more than two dozen cases are filed under that heading in US District Court.
[How about as "Kramer vs Kramer?"]
"Two dozen out of hundreds of cases that are filed under 'US vs. [blank]' are still unusual," Clark said. "If this sealed indictment involves a government official, you wouldn't expect that to happen unless you're talking about a high level official and there has been a fair amount of behind the scenes negotiating going on. To have a federal indictment sealed for three months is very unusual."
[Maybe it was filed under "US vs Mel Blank."]
When told that the federal indictment was returned by the same grand jury hearing evidence in the CIA leak case, Clark said, "There is a good chance there is some linkage there. There aren't any other high profile cases coming out of that court that we know of, so chances are that the indictment involves someone important, and that keeping the identity of the case under seal has to do with the fact that the investigation is ongoing. It's entirely likely that if the person in the indictment is cooperating, the indictment could be dismissed down the road. It's not unheard of."
[There is also a good chance of static cling on Pluto, according to Michael Clark.]
Clark added that if the indictment continues to remain under seal in the weeks ahead it begins to raise important questions about the transparency of the judicial process.
[It begins to raise important questions about the transparency of your underpants.]
"If it's still under seal at the end of next month it will start pushing the envelope a bit," he said. "Two months is starting to get unusual. But three months is very unusual."
[So let's just explain it away by calling it three business months.]
Loyola's Laurie Levenson agreed, saying that it was unusual to keep federal indictments sealed for a lengthy period of time, such as three months. She added that under the current administration there has been an upswing in keeping federal dockets under seal because of the so-called threat to national security.
[Does Loyola know that one of its profs has been inducted into a TruthOut comedy act?]
However, Levenson added that it also appears as though that line of reasoning has been abused by some officials in order to maintain a level of secrecy
[Was this according to one of your many valuable sources?]
"You now get the sense that it is happening more frequently with the current administration," she said. "We live in interesting times. We do have secret dockets going on in the federal courts, and I never heard of it until this war on terrorism. The longer something is sealed the more curious it is."
["Curiouser and curiouser!" cried Jason in Leopoldland.]
John Moustakas, another former federal prosecutor in private practice in Washington, DC, said an indictment could be returned by a grand jury even if the prosecutor did not intend on seeking one.
[Did he also say it could also be used as one of the ingredients for salsa?]
"The grand jury could have said 'We want to vote,' and they are allowed to return an indictment over the US attorney's objections," Moustakas said. As far as keeping an indictment under seal, he said "it may be that the parties were negotiating a disposition of the case and the defendant and the prosecutor are happy not to have the defendant's name in the press."
[More likely the grand jury said, "We have to go to the bathroom."]
Moustakas described a hypothetical scenario that federal prosecutors often use when convincing a defendant under investigation to cooperate:
[How about a hypothetical scenario where I am ravished by a Moon Maiden who looks just like Petra Verkaik?]
"Typically what I would do is get evidence of wrongdoing and develop it sufficiently to get an indictment," Moustakas said. "Then I would send a target letter to the defendant. Then you put on a dog and pony show. I would bring him into my office and say, 'Here's the case, here's what you did.' Lay out main evidence against him. I would encourage a pre-indictment plea, which essentially means that it took the indictment to get him to cooperate. It wouldn't be surprising. If the sealed indictment is Karl Rove, there is a really big story there. But my view, generally, is if it's Rove, it smells bad that it's under seal still. It feels like it's intended to benefit the administration. I think the truth is, if he is cooperating against [Scooter] Libby, there is going to come a time soon that the government will have to disclose that fact to Libby's attorneys."
["Typically what I would do is order a pizza with lots of toppings, Moustakas said. "Then I would sprinkle red peppers all over it. Of course, I would first remove any of those ghastly salty anchovies. But my view is, olive oil goes great with this. Garlic can smell bad but only if you don't bathe. I think the truth is, a time will come soon when the government will have to disclose the bill for the pizza to Libby's attorneys."]
Dan Richman, a former federal prosecutor who is now a law professor at Fordham University in New York, had a somewhat different view. He said that he didn't find it "spectacularly strange" that 06 cr 128 has been under seal for nearly three months.
[But what do Huey, Dewey, and Louie think of all this?]
But, he added that indictments are sealed because if they're made public, "Someone is going to be shocked and upset," and that can hurt the integrity of an ongoing investigation.
[The indictments are sealed because they are blank. Okay, now let us hear the DUmme reaction to this TruthOut comedy act...]
I find it impossible to believe that there is anything that could shock anyone at this stage of the game.
[I find it impossible to believe that there is anything left that TruthOut could shock us with.]
who would be shocked an upset?? and who gives a shit if someone is shocked and upset.. the only people i see that would be shocked and upset are the most fervent freepers.. to find out all their "daddy's" lied to them and are guilty of treason.. the rest of us know damn well these bastards are guilty of treason.. so who would it shock?? and who would it upset?? not I...i would be dancing in the streets buying anyone around a glass of champagne!!
[Enjoy that Freudenschade champagne while celebrating a victory that NEVER happened.]
I thought that DU banned all further Jason Leopold articles
[DUmmieland decided to allow the world to see more great comedy material.]
I'll just call up Fitz and ask him what's going on.
[And listen to the silence mixed with suppressed laughter.]
Oh for goodness sakes. If, after all the bitter sniping and nipping & yipping that people did on this board, Jason Leopold is somehow vidicated I will laugh my frigging ass off.
[A DUmmie Snow White singing, "Someday My Prince will come!"]
Shouldn't this be in the Lounge or SciFi?
[SciFi or the Comedy Room.]
DU needs a "fantasy" forum. Appropriate for Jason Leopold material, Loose Change 9/11 garbage, etc
[DUmmieland needs a REALITY check.]
I'm glad Cheney and Rove are getting their due.
[In the Alternate Reality.]
Those who dis Truthout/Leopold generally don't know anything about the case, never contribute anything to the discussion, and just do these "hit and run" posts against them.
[I BEEEEEEELIEEEEEEEVE!!!]
There truly is a sucker born every minute
[Make that every second in DUmmieland.]
Are we 24 business hours away from the unsealing?
[No. Three business months away from the unsealing.]
Don't people get it? When Jason Leopold lied to Will Pitt, and in desperation said it was 24 business hours until an indictment, no one could ever rely on that outlet for the truth?
[Poor little Pied Piper Pitt. An innocent victim of a Jason Leopold lie.]
Did Will Pitt say he lied?
[Pitt is still vouching for the veracity of the degenerate liar.]
I don't know whether Pitt thought Leopold lied. I do know that I believe that Leopold lied.
[Even Leopold knows Leopold lied.]
It's an "unusually lengthy period of time" because the damned thing doesn't exist in the first place. I can't believe they're still claiming this bullshit, and I can't believe people here are falling for it, either.
[I can easily believe the DUmmies will always buy the latest version of the Brooklyn Bridge.]
I don't know if anyone is "falling" for anything. I'm cautiously watching. I happen to trust Will Pitt. Don't know about Leopold, but I trust Pitt and he hasn't distanced himself from TO. Cautiously watching.
[Hey, if Pied Piper Pitt says that Karl Rove was indicted on May 12 then it MUST be true.]
Indictment to be unsealed by the Great Pumpkin on October 31. The press conference will be held in the most sincere pumpkin patch.
[I swear I didn't see your "Great Pumpkin" comment when I started this DUFU edition you LOUSY FREEPER TROLL!!!]
If Rove gets indicted, that's proof Leopold was right. If he doesn't get indicted, that's no proof that Leopold was wrong.
[Heads I win, Tails you lose.]
In other words, ignoring the part of the letter that says that Rove isn't going to be indicted, the rest of the letter proves that Rove will be indicted. Forget that this makes no logical sense. Forget that OutOfTruth.org reported that Rove had already been indicted one month earlier. This is the "smoking gun" because we BELIEEEEEEEEVE it is.
Wouldn't it be funny if the "shocked" person was Wilson!?
declare a draft, and they'll all flee to Canada. That way, we don't have to clothe or feed them.
This could be The Century When Everything Finally Changed!
PROOF--PROOF, I tell you--that Rove HAS been indicted and that this thing is being SUPPRESSED!!!
The absence of evidence IS the evidence!
[I thought the spotlight was back on the cat stools of Robert Luskin's cat.]
That would be Soiled vs. Soiled.
I didn't know Luskin's cat had THAT problem too!
Obligatory benburch joke already taken.
In other words, the mid-19th century.
US vs. THEM?
I don't know, I'm drawing a blank.
He is, after all, THE MAGIC MAN!!!
2XL. And don't put any metrosexual belly-bag on MY Beaver!
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . THIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NOT THIS
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.