RawStory:Special prosecutor has no comment on clearing of Rove

[kpete]

Special prosecutor has no comment on clearing of Rove

RAW STORY
Published: Tuesday June 13, 2006

The office of the special counsel investigating charges relating to the leaked identity of undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame has declined to comment on whether or not Karl Rove has been informed that he will not be indicted.

The Public Information Officer for the US Attorney’s office in Chicago, as such spokesperson for the office of Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald, quickly returned RAW STORY's calls for comment--but had none to offer.

Reports have indicated that Rove Attorney Robert Luskin has confirmed that Rove will not be charged in connection to the leak. Truthout.org is standing by its published reports that Rove was indicted last month, but that the indictment is currently sealed.

..................

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Special_prosecutor_has_no_comment_on_0613.html

[OldLeftieLawyer]

1. Oh, lord........

Poor truthout.

[AlCzervik]

2. can i ask you a non Rove related question?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

13. Sure, but I reserve the right

to run screaming into the night if your question scares me or if it contains pictures of has a greasy feel to it.

How's that for a caveat?

Shoot.

[AlCzervik]

18. thanks, appreciate it!! I just got done watching The Smartest guys in

the room, the Enron movie, my question is about Lay and Skilling. How come they won't be sentenced until Sept, is it because it'll take that much time to do the pre-sentencing report? Again, thank you.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

19. Yes

That's exactly it. The whole system has lots of stuff to do before sentencing can take place.

See? You knew the answer!!!

That's a hell of a film, isn't it?

[AlCzervik]

21. it sure was--those fuckers. I hope they get the maximum and i wish

they went after Lou Pi, the one that got away. Thanks again for all your help.:toast:

[OzarkDem]

4. Poor Luskin

Sorry, I side with Dems over GOP'ers most days.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

15. How's it a political thing?

It's a legal matter - I don't get your point, sorry.

[berni_mccoy]

This story helps them

If Fitz wasn't going to indict Rove, and
If Fitz sent a letter to Rove's attorney, then
Fitz would be able to comment, now wouldn't he.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

16. What?

I'm sorry.

That made no sense to me.

Fitzgerald hasn't commented. It's not his place to comment. It's the defense counsel's job to comment, with Fitzgerald's permission and approval.

That's how it works. It's not at all complicated, and now it's over.

[berni_mccoy]

31. You're making an assumption that I think is now in question

The story originated from the AP by John Solomon, a 'reporter' who has reported the complete opposite of reality before and who likes to attack Democrats and has a track record of attacking Plame/Wilson.

If Luskin and Solomon planted this story, and the indictment is sealed, then there is no way Fitzgerald can comment on ANY of it. Period.

It comes down to who is more credible: Luskin/Solomon/Rove or Leopold.

And as far as the B.S. about a lawyer not lying about something like this, I don't buy it. Lawyers lie to defend their clients. That's a widely accepted assumption.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

34. Well, since you know everything,

and I know nothing, why bother even to post to me?

Waste of your good time, I should think. You have better things to do, so I'll let you go now.

[DoYouEverWonder]

40. Why is it so difficult

for people to even have a conversation with you? Why always the rude remarks?

[KittyWampus]

3. Luskin didn't say Rove won't be indicted- it was Fitz doesn't ANTICIPATE

indicting Rove.

Which would make sense if Rove was cooperating after being faced with a sealed indictment.

At this point Fitz anticipates Rove will cooperate because Rove has agreed to.

[iconoclastic cat]

6. Rove: "I can't go to prison! They pee in a cup and then throw it at you!"

"I saw it in a prison movie."

Fitz: "You won't be seeing any prison movies where you're going--prison!"

[myrna minx]

11. Hey can you pay me under the table---(I got a little tax problem.)

:rofl: :rofl:

[karlrschneider]

14. An indictment isn't up to Fitz...it is the Grand Jurie's decision.

They are the 'deciders'.

[greyl]

22. truthout is saying that he WAS indicted.

Fitz is saying he doesn't anticipate indicting him. That sorta means he wasn't indicted as truthout claims, right?

[Kadie]

5. Maybe Rove is getting indicted for something else?

:shrug:

[berni_mccoy]

7. This story supports the theory that LUSKIN IS FULL OF B.S.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1417751

[Catherine Vincent]

8. Of course he has no comment.

He's saving all his comments for his next news conference.

[rman]

9. These lawyer types choose their words carefully

"no comment" is meaningful, though for all i can tell it can still go either way.

[Sanity Claws]

10. It's like reading tea leaves

Another explanation is that Rove was given immunity in return for testifying about someone else but the only one higher up the food chain from Rove is Cheney. I just don't think that is going on.
Also, it seems that Rove has regained some of his nasty self. He made snarky remarks about Kerry and Murtha. He acts as though he just got off the hook.
I think he's skating.

[ramblin_dave]

12. If Fitzgerald sent a letter to Luskin why wouldn't he

comment on it? Shouldn't that be a matter of public record? What would be some legal reasons for not commenting?

[Avalux]

17. If he cleared Rove, why keep it a secret?

I can't think of any legal reason when it's already been announced by Luskin, who claims to have a letter in support from Fitzgerald (which he won't release). Why can't Fitzgerald just say "yeah, I sent him a letter, he's off the hook"?

Something still isn't right about all of this.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

20. No

It's not Fitzgerald's to announce. It's defense counsel's to announce.

There is a protocol to these things. It appears people don't know that.

I guess it's just another part of the lack of education on the part of our system that fails to provide citizens with an understanding of how these things work.

We need a better educational system, and we need it now.............

[ramblin_dave]

23. Is such a letter an official communication from

the government to Luskin/Rove? Maybe it's Luskin's role to announce it but what stops Fitzgerald from confirming it?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

24. It sure is,

and his words speak for themselves. When defense counsel makes them public, it's the same as if Fitzgerald uttered them.

It's how things are done.

[princehal]

25. Tell that

to Ken Starr.

[berni_mccoy]

26. SNAP!

OLL, you've been hit with a nasty little fact!

[OldLeftieLawyer]

29. Yeah. So?

See my response.

You drinking too much coffee, honey? I put out a nice little fact, and someone posted an aberration that simply affirmed my fact.

Decaf for you, I swear.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

27. Talk about an aberration

He was nothing short of a miserable embarrassment, and time has shown him to be the incompetent witchhunter that he truly was.

Watch out for David Sentelle, who's part of that cabal, by the way, and is a very dangerous, powerful man.

[ramblin_dave]

28. But what stops Fitzgerald from commenting?

If Luskin won't release the actual letter, how do we know that some spin hasn't been applied?

So, is Fitzgerald restrained legally or ethically from commenting? If so, what is the reasoning for this? If not, then why doesn't he comment?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

30. Your paranoia, I suppose

I've explained as much as I want to. This is tiresome. If you can't understand, I can't help you.

And if you don't believe what Luskin said, there's no one who can help you, because your understanding of how the system works is just too flawed.

[ramblin_dave]

32. You have not explained what stops Fitzgerald

from commenting. I was interested in any legal or ethical restraints, if any. Can you answer that if possible?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

33. No

Frankly, I'm just tired. The information is out there, and you can research it for yourself. It's not hard.

I'm just tired.

[ramblin_dave]

36. I assumed you would have the answer and it would

be easy to just give it. I'm not a lawyer, I wouldn't even know here to start. That's the nice thing about a discussion board - we can profit from the expertise of others.

If you're tired, then maybe someone else with a legal background can answer.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

37. I did give you an answer

I told you it was standard protocol. You wanted more. I told you I was tired.

Sometimes, it's hard to accept that that's how things are done. That's all there is to it. Nothing else.

Good luck.

[The Onyx Key]

41. Rest, OLL. You will be vindicated. For some around here,

the old adage applies very well: "No one is so blind as he who WILL not see."

[OldLeftieLawyer]

42. Thank you

Seriously, it's been a long haul. Utterly impossible to believe.

Today's the first time in a while that I've even posted, so thanks.

[The Onyx Key]

44. My pleasure! n/t

[OldLeftieLawyer]

45. Oh, and welcome

to DU!

[The Onyx Key]

46. Thank you! I've lurked a while, but I appreciate being welcomed

by an outspoken DU vet such as yourself! :)

35. Since when did we have uniform education except for the few

this is the democratic underground, not the Ivy League underground.

Life is the great educator.

[Scout1071]

39. OldLeftie, you don't need to be condescending.

You couldn't come over and do my job to save your life, so don't act like the non-lawyers on this site are a bunch of uneducated schmucks because they aren't familiar with grand jury indictments and the processes that surround them.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

43. Condescending?

That's your view of it. This stuff is taught in high school civics classes. If people don't know how it works, it's not my job to walk them through it. There are even books written about this stuff, believe it or not!!!

Condescend on that, why don't you, and just because someone knows something you don't know is no reason to try to pump yourself up. You do your job just fine, I'm sure. I have no interest in it, but your interest in mine seems to drive you to spurious choices of words.

So, go do your job, and take a bow. I'm sure you're great at it, and that's wonderful.

[Scout1071]

47. My job title is not in my moniker.

If you don't want people asking you advice, why do you advertise you are a lawyer?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

48. Advertise?

it's a statement of fact, and I can use any name I want.

Doesn't mean you get anything from me just because you want it, though.

And, by the way, the good and intelligent people never ask for advice. They're too well-mannered and thoughtful. It's never been a problem except with the less-than-gifted ones.

I'm sure you'll understand this. Eventually. After you figure out what "advertise" means.

[riskpeace]

49. I agree that your attitude is unfortunate

Best wishes to you.

[Ksec]

38. The Reicht got to Fitz

He couldnt handle the pressure of doing the right thing and he caved like a coward.

[tom22]

50. Go back to Fitz's press conference transcript.

He told the world that he would never announce the fact that he would not indict someone. Read the damn transcript.