From What I Remember, Fitz Has A Second Sealed Indictment From The Grand Jury

[Wiley50]

I bet it's for Cheney on Treason Charges

and he plans to serve him as he leaves the witness stand

Oh Boy!

Fitzmas at last!


( and Jason Leopold gains vindication
"cause that's who I remember hearing it from)

Trying to track back for a link now
Anyone else know where and when to look

TO? When?

[mike_c]

1. oh boy....

:popcorn:

[madokie]

5. I guess it'll be something to do

[aquart]

2. Huh?

This isn't a challenge, it's an information request: why would an indictment stay sealed so long and do we know of similar cases of sealed indictments held this long? Was Libby the first sealed indictment?

[Wiley50]

6. I'm Trying To Find It Now

I know I read it back when the shit hit the fan on Leopold

Because he thought Rove was gonna be indicted

and it was because there was a second sealed indictment that he thought that

then when Rove didn't get charged
everyone jumped on him

But what if the reason Rove wasn't served
was because it was waiting for Cheney?

I know I saw that there was a second one

I've just gotta find it

[aquart]

10. Ah, so this is spec.

It's a nice spec, but that's all you've got.

[Wiley50]

12. See Post #9 n/t

[Botany]

3. Please!

and the indictment is right here.

[warrior1]

4. Mmmm popcorn

[rinsd]

7. Cool. You said screw the bag and brought the whole machine!

Thanks :popcorn:

[SpudStateDem]

8. Afterwards, Monkeys Will Fly Out Of Rove's Butt

Sorry, but Fitzgerald is a professional; he's not gonna go for any grandstanding, like holding onto an indictment until it's politically "better" to unseal it.

And Jason Leopold has done enough damage to the progressive "reality-based" reputation without having to continually bring up his misinformation.

[Wiley50]

11. Not "Politically Better". But Until All of the Evidence is Out Front.

A whole lot is Public now that wasn't before

That's not for politics

Just waiting for the cards to fall into place

[bananarepublican]

23. Given the Foley scandal, perhaps t*mp*ns are more likely to fly out of Rove's butt? n/t

[Wiley50]

9. Here's Something About It

http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2006/6/12/9216/61823


"06 cr 128"

By Marc Ash

Tue Jun 13th, 2006 at 02:44:03 PM EDT :: Fitzgerald Investigation

Just a general review of Jason Leopold's latest article on the Fitzgerald investigation/Rove indictment - for clarity.

Once again we will attempt to clearly separate what we know from what we believe - and why. What we know will be based on official records and official statements. What we believe will be based on single source information and general background information obtained from experts. The conclusions we arrive at should be considered carefully, but not taken as statements of fact, per se.

We know for certain several things about federal indictment "06 cr 128" (Sealed vs. Sealed). The indictment was returned by the same grand jury that has been hearing matters related to the Fitzgerald/Plame investigation. The indictment was filed in the time frame (around May the 10th) that the indictment of Karl Rove was first reported. The title of the indictment, Sealed vs. Sealed, is unusual. Typically a sealed federal indictment will be titled, "US vs. Sealed." The indictment has been sealed for roughly five weeks, an unusually long time (although not unheard-of). We know that experts watching the Fitzgerald/Plame investigation are keeping a very close eye on "06 cr 128" (Sealed vs. Sealed). We know that we attempted to contact Karl Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, on two occasions while researching this issue and both calls went unreturned.

Now for what we believe: We believe that federal criminal indictment "06 cr 128" (Sealed vs. Sealed) is directly related to the Fitzgerald/Plame investigation. That's based on a single credible source and the information discussed above. We believe that Karl Rove is cooperating with federal investigators, and for that reason Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald is not willing to comment on his status. That is based, again, on a single credible source, and background information provided by experts in federal criminal law. We believe that the indictment was returned and filed "on May 10 2006." Same single credible source, and details from the filing records. We believe that if any of the key facts that we have reported were materially false or inaccurate some statement to that effect would be forthcoming from Fitzgerald's staff. That is based on the same single credible source.

[Goblinmonger]

14. ..

:boring:

[Igel]

16. We all remembered it.

It just wasn't worth finding it.

It's like the "24 business hours". Nobody's really sure if they're up, or if they'll be up in our lifetimes.

I think I'm going to pass on the popcorn,v though. I've already tanked up on tortilla chips while PDFing pretty much everything the local university library has on anaphora (the kind Binding Theory anaphora, not Halliday-and-Hasan anaphora), and now have to cook dinner for the wife and kid. Bleah.

[Goblinmonger]

13. And the worst part of all of this

is that people will tell me that I need to give it a break for responding to someone else who brings up this crap.

Leopold lied to us. We need to get over it. We need to stop being surprised when his history of being a lying journalist was pretty clear. Unless Rove was served 24 hours (and none of this business hours bullshit) from the time the story ran (i.e. didn't happen), then Leopold isn't "vindicated."

There is not Santa Clause. The Easter Bunny was just your parents. So was the tooth fairy. And Leopold just pulled stuff out of his ass.

[Wiley50]

15. Then Who The fuck Is "06 cr 128" Sealed vs Sealed

It's a real indictment

It's on the fuckin books

As it still hasn't been served

My answer is as good as anyones

[Goblinmonger]

17. Could be anybody. Rocky vs. Bullwinkle

Bush v. Gannon. All I know is that the rantings and speculations of Leopold mean nothing as he has fabricated sources and plagiarized before as a journalist so he has no credibility.

[conscious evolution]

18. I seem to remember Corp

or Ides mentiong sealed indictmentS.Along with recordings.It might have been concerning another matter though.

Try searching their stuff from last fall.

[Peace Patriot]

19. Good article today by Leopold and Ash on Cheney's memo, and it has the

actual memo posted--in Cheney's handwriting.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/013107Z.shtml

Memo directs Scott McClellan to exonerate Libby publicly as he had done Rove, because (we are) "not going to protect one staffer and sacrifice the guy that was asked to stick his head in the meat grinder because of incompetence of others." Good analysis by L&A, re why Cheney wrote "the Pres." (Bush) into the sentence then crossed it out. The memo points to Bush as the one who got Libby to attack Wilson.

I think it's quite likely that Rove is under threat of indictment, pressured to testify relatively truthfully in the Libby perjury/obstruction case. Libby is protecting the masterminds--Cheney, clearly pointed to by Fitzgerald; and (my pick for chief mastermind) Rumsfeld, lurking in the background--not pointed to by anything Fitz has said. As for Goofus--pointed to in this memo--Cheney no doubt has the goods on him, all stamped with the royal seal, safely in a vault somewhere, which is why we're escalating in Iraq and threatening Iran.

I gather from Libby's defense--which claims that Rove & Co. are "scapegoating" him--and other evidence, that that is what Libby was trying to do to Rove. This may be why Rove wasn't indicted. He was a political errand boy on this one. I think the whole thing was hatched in the Pentagon and has aspects to it that are unseeable at present. Sealed v. Sealed. If it's connected to this case (and the timing of it points that way) it's probably Cheney. I hope it's Rumsfeld. Rove has a deal, I think (at least on Libby's trial). Rove was one of the outers of Plame. It's in the evidence/testimony. He broke the law. But whether he did so for Cheney's or Rumsfeld's reasons is hard to know. And THAT is a crucial question to Fitzgerald--stated by him in his one press conference on this matter--WHY they outed Plame (and the entire Brewster-Jennings WMD counter-proliferation network) is the grave national security matter that he spoke of.

I didn't know there were two "Sealed v. Sealed"'s. That title is certainly interesting. It could be U.S. Attorney vs. U.S. Attorney General. That's what I thought when I heard of the first one. It would be like Gonzalez to try to interfere (meat-handed), and he is indictable for obstruction (gave warning and shredding time to the perps). But the way Fitz is pointing to Cheney these days, you gotta figure it could well be Cheney. Fitz would want to keep that covert. And it could also be Rove--a way of keeping that criminal on a short leash.

[Wiley50]

21. Thank you From My Deepest Heart, Peace Patriot

I follow your posts just like I follow posts by Octafish, Seems Like a Dream and a few others.
I don't know how you write so prolificly on almost any subject, at the drop of a hat.
You amaze me.
I truly love you
Talk about a beautiful mind.

It's just a hunch
But, I think it's as good as any

Maybe Leopold wasn't lying
I"ve never been able to find a motive why he would

Maybe he was just Half Right?

[bananarepublican]

24. Healthy food for thought! n/t

[Catherine Vincent]

20. I'll join my fellow popcorn munching comrades!

:popcorn:

This thread will catch a lot of the anti-TO/JL crowd.

:)

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

22. Who can possibly know who the sealed indictment is for?

The indictment in question, 06-cr-128 is missing from the court's records of indictments, but would have occurred on or about May 16, 2006, according to the indictements filed just before and just after it. The fact that the number is missing from the court records is consistent with a sealed indictment. I believe the last day of Fitzgerald's Grand Jury was May 12th, a Friday. The Grand Jury only brings the indictment, they do not bring a sealed indictment. The prosecutor must bring the indictment before the Federal Magistrate upon a motion to seal it. If the judge orders the indictment sealed, the Clerk of the Court is the one who actually seals the indictment. Therefore, if May 12th had been the day the Grand Jury returned an indictment, it might have taken one or two extra days for the indictment to be sealed. Thus May 16th, a Tuesday sounds about right as far as the date is concerned.

But we have no way of knowing if this missing number concerns the Plame matter and we may never know. It could just be a lot of wishful thinking. And I happen to be a big pessimist.

[MonkeyFunk]

25. oh please, just stop it. STOP IT!

Nobody's getting charged with treason! Jeez

[HEyHEY]

26. With comments like that I hope you are

[MonkeyFunk]

27. You're very articulate

[Catherine Vincent]

28. You guys are funny!

n/t

[HEyHEY]

29. I was drunk dammit!