Posted on 10/06/2005 12:19:41 PM PDT by West Coast Conservative
Federal prosecutors have accepted an offer from presidential adviser Karl Rove to give 11th-hour testimony in the case of a CIA officer's leaked identity but have warned they cannot guarantee he won't be indicted, according to people directly familiar with the investigation.
The persons, who spoke only on condition of anonymity because of grand jury secrecy, said Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has not made any decision yet on whether to file criminal charges against the longtime confidant of President Bush or others.
The U.S. attorney's manual requires prosecutors not to bring witnesses before a grand jury if there is a possibility of future criminal charges unless they are notified in advance that their grand jury testimony can be used against them in a later indictment.
Rove has already made at least three grand jury appearances and his return at this late stage in the investigation is unusual.
The prosecutor did not give Rove similar warnings before his earlier grand jury appearances.
Actually, I think they don't name you as a target until right before (or simultaneously with) indicting you. I'm sure they know you are a target from day one, but don't want to make you an official target, because they want to get you to cooperate with them and perhaps give them information they can use against you or someone else. I had a friend who was never an official target but was indicted at the 12th hour on the last day of the statute of limitations. Perhaps they called his lawyer that day to tell him he was a target
In this case, we know there was no official crime (like the bogus naming a covert agent crap), so the only thing the prosecutor can do if he wants to get someone is try to get them for perjury. He can't get them for perjury if they don't testify, so he can't name them as a target until the end.
The only way that Rove will be indicted is if Fitzgerald is part of the democratic conspiracy to alter the 2006 elections by painting the republicans as having a "culture of corruption". Some say Fitzgerald is a professional and wouldn't do this, but he is a democrat and he may also be looking for some big star to put on his resume for future elective office.
Judge Andrew Napolitano, on FOX News, said the same thing.
Thus, I can't believe he'd go after Rove or Libby on a trumped up prejury trap. Perhaps he's planning on blowing the cover off the media conspiracy to bring down Bush, and will indict Cooper and Miller.
"I think George W. Bush would be wise to cut Karl Rove loose.
I think FRee Republic would be wise to cut you loose, troll."
One of the reasons that President Bush commands such loyalty is that he gives such loyalty.
And besides, if it comes time that somebody as politically aware and smart as Karl Rove would help the administration more by resigning, nobody will have to tell him - he would be the first to know.
But I would bet just about anything that none of the original charges had merit - but it is awfully easy in a case like this to get an obstruction charge - that is the concern, I think.
:Thus, I can't believe he'd go after Rove or Libby on a trumped up prejury trap. Perhaps he's planning on blowing the cover off the media conspiracy to bring down Bush, and will indict Cooper and Miller.
A) Do you think all law enforcement is (or should be)partisan?
B) What is Miller guilty of, not writing a piece that exposed Plame? That is a crime how?
C) Do you think that this administration's enemies are only Democrats? Think again. Think in particular CIA.
I'm sure there are lots of rumors and HOPES that he will be indicted. Maybe some folks are hoping that talking about it and pushing the idea will make it happen.
CLUELESS POST????
Brainless and thoughtless response from you
My post was based on the FACT that I witnessed Larry J on Buchanan and Press in 2003 when he NAMED LIBBY, that is ALL. The typical emotional over-reaction to anything that even smacks of opposition to the partyline is not unanticipated. I VOTED for this admin BOTH TIMES, but I DO have a mind of my own, and give serious consideration to the TRUTH...novel idea, huh???
Sniff sniff
That's sweet.
So what?
I used to watch Chris Matthews spit "Scooter", "Scooter Libby", "Libby" or "Cheney's office" for months before it came out Libby had long ago waived any confidentiality and had nothing to hide.
Johnson's facts are twisted or flat out wrong and he is discredited.
The only emotional outburst is your ALL CAPS hysterics when confronted with fact. It helps if your "opposition to the party line" had a basis in truth and reality otherwise your opinion can be disregarded.
P.S. I'm the serious one here. You traffic in propaganda.
I rest my case...LOL
Oh, you think you emerged the winner of that exchange?
What a fool.
Facts trump hysterical braying any day.
Before posting idiotic blather about the likes of Larry Johnson it would behoove you to know what you're talking about.
I've never heard that Corn was called, but you're right, he was the first to get the talking points.
"UPDATE V: Just preliminary, but a question: "What did Judy tell Fitzgerald about Cooper?" The answer, "What Rove is going to be talking about"."
http://macsmind.blogspot.com/2005/10/plame-game-final-curtain.html
Interesting update because as I was looking through my files this morning I came across an article I had saved noting Cooper had visited Miller in jail (then again, who didn't).
It wasn't an article...I had been looking through my history and saw YaYa's catch of Matt Cooper appearing on CSPAN. Thanks for making that note, YaYa:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1493909/posts?page=177#177
Caught just a snippet of C-Span, Matt Cooper saying, yes he did visit Judith Miller in jail.
177 posted on 09/30/2005 6:33:13 AM PDT by YaYa123
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.