Posted on 10/24/2005 8:29:50 PM PDT by ArmyBratproud
(Special thanks to Perdogg for finding this law on perjury in the US Code)
My question is, would it be hard for the Special Prosecutor to prosecute Rove for perjury in regards to his "reported" conversations with Cooper. Many of the "lawyers close to/working with/involved in the case" that the media keeps reporting on claim that Rove later recalled contact with Cooper. That would be during the interview phase.
One would think that would cover the "admission" part.
According to the US Code in regards to perjury:
"(d) Where, in the same continuous court or grand jury proceeding in which a declaration is made, the person making the declaration admits such declaration to be false, such admission shall bar prosecution under this section if, at the time the admission is made, the declaration has not substantially affected the proceeding, or it has not become manifest that such falsity has been or will be exposed."
Any Freeper Lawyers...Please chime in.
PING
This language from the statute is important.
If Fitzgerald found the email and then confronted Rove with it, after which Rove admitted the conversation, then the fact that Rove "admitted" it during the same continuous grand jury investigation does not help him.
On the other hand if Rove found the email and brought it to Fitzgerald's attention, then Rove is in good shape under this statute.
Let's see:
1. You can indict a ham sandwich.
2. If not perjury, obstruction of justice?
This is a game it is hard to win if the prosecutor does not just say forget it there was no crime here.
The same Code states that, under paragraph a, the person must have KNOWINGLY lied. NO soup for you, Fitz! The WH did the search for the email
It strikes me that the language of the code gives the Prosecutor wide lattitude to say that the inquiry was impeded or that the suspect changed his story out of fear of being caught.
Even if Rove later brought the memo in voluntarily, Fitzgerald could claim that he set back the investigation or only brought it in to cover himself.
So, we're back to square one. We need to hope that Fitzgerald is a decent guy and an honest prosecutor.
SECTION E is where Fitz might get an indictment.
If I read it correct.....Federal requirements for perjury...ARE WEAK!!!!
FITZ could nail anybody with this standard...
(e) Proof beyond a reasonable doubt under this section is sufficient
for conviction. It shall not be necessary that such proof be made by any
particular number of witnesses or by documentary or other type of
evidence.
And if that goes before a jury, Rove will skate.
I won't rely on Fitz doing that. So far..we have seen that he backed Comey when he refused to investigate Pardongate/Rich.
AND...It seems that Fitz gave money to Kerry during the campaigns...... Fitz was assigned to this case back then...If I recall.
Yes, and not only would Rove have to have "knowingly" made a false statement, but the false statement must be "material" to the subject matter of the investigation.
If it were definitively established that Rove did not know Plame was a "covert" agent or that her status was classified, then arguably it is not "material" when or how Rove made the statements to Cooper about her, since Rove's statements could not amount to a crime in any event.
That only means in GJ testimony one witness is required not two.
It's hard to imagine, based on what we know from the media reports about this case, that (assuming the worst case) there is any reasonable argument that Rove's failure to tell the GJ about his conversation with Matt Cooper until after being confronted with the email could have "substantially affected the investigation."
However, we certainly don't have access to all of the facts about how the investigation has proceeded.
I don't really think we disagree about this. I'm hoping that, contrary to the fervent desire of the MSM, Fitzgerald will be fair and reasonable.
If he's not, then he could indict anybody, but they will subsequently be acquitted and Fitzgerald would wreck his reputation in the long term. Meantime the Democrats would once more make hay while the false indictment lingers, as they are doing with DeLay.
I would prefer not to see that happen, of course.
"You can indict a ham sandwich."
So the saying goes; and there's a lot of truth to that. Once a person is indicted, even when found not guilty, their influence and integrity is tainted.
Let's all stop spinning brain cells speculating on what will become clear by the end of the week. The press (Chris Matthews in particular) wants to presume that indictments are coming, not because they know anything in particular that makes that more likely to be true than coin-toss guessing, but because they want to spend the week talking about Rove as an about to be indicted fellow - since it damages his reputation regardless of whether an indictment materializes. Let's give it a rest until Fitzgerald speaks.
apparently the email was found within a day of Rove's initial testimony. It might have been the same day.
Killjoy.
Was the converstion material?
If it were definitively established that Rove did not know Plame was a "covert" agent or that her status was classifiedSince her status was not classified...
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.