I seriously doubt that Rove has been indicted already

[Perky]

Why would it be sealed?
How in te would would it not be leaked?
Why would Rove still be in the White House if Indicted?

A) He would be focused on raising a defense
B) The White House sets itself up for a colossal PR Fiasco if he is indeed indicted and they are continuing to allow him to walk the halls, conduct meetings, etc. Libby resigned...Rove at a minimum would have to take a leave of absence.

Bush would look like an idiot even to the GOP rank and file if he does not show Rove the door.


Most importantly. Rove is a smart cookie...He would not set up his buddy for such a fiasco because eventually it is going to get out.


I seriously doubt that Rove has been indicted already

[DoYouEverWonder]

1. Indictments are sealed all the time

For numerous reasons.

Google 'sealed indictment' there are many examples.

The thing about sealed indictments is that they are SECRET. The judge can keep anything he wants under seal for as long as he wants.
They are not made public until they are unsealed by a judge.

[Perky]

2. I don't have a problem with a sealed indictment

But I live in DC...No way this story does not leaked....No way in the world does Rove stay in the WH if he knows he has been indicted.

No way Bolten would allow him to stay.

NO WAY!!!!!

[Catchawave]

4. If sealed, would it be dated?

I agree Perky, knowing an indicted Bush-criminal is still running at large in the West Wing is very disturbing. Even if it's "unsealed" after the elections, wouldn't the date be damning to the administration?

I don't think he's been indicted either.

[DoYouEverWonder]

6. Yes

the date it was originally sealed would be part of the public record when it is unsealed.

[Freedom_Aflaim]

37. But if its true...it DID leak

Having said that, Im not sure what the value would be to the court to have this indictment sealed.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

3. Tell me, what would be a reason for Fitz having a sealed

indictment for Rove vs. a regular indictment? In hopes of getting him to turn?

[Perky]

5. The threat is enough

But even if it were true, they are courting political and legal disaster is Rove is indicted and still in the west wing. It woould be politically stupid and as importantly..The WH sets itself up for obstruction charges,if they have ANY discussions with Rove about response tactics.

Again Bolten would Jettison Rove if here were indicted.

[DoYouEverWonder]

7. When you indict someone

then you have to present evidence to support the indictment.

If you are going after other people involved in the crime you might not want to make that evidence part of the public record yet.

[onenote]

10. which is why Fitz would never hand a copy of sealed indictment to rove

[Jersey Devil]

20. There are only 2 reasons to seal an indictment

1 - You are afraid the Defendant will run away before he can be arrested.

2- You are afraid that other people mentioned in the indictment will destroy evidence or flee before they too can be indicted and arrested.

Which is why, as onenote stated below, it is ridiculous to think that Fitz would give Rove's lawyers a copy of any sealed indictment.

BTW, prosecutors normally do not serve indictments whether sealed or not. The procedure is to either have the court issue a warrant for the Defendant's arrest or arrange for him to appear volunarily in court where the court serves him with a copy of the indictment at his arraignment. The prosecutor may informally give a Defendant a copy before his arraignment but it is not required.

[Snivi Yllom]

31. YUP

all correct

[DoYouEverWonder]

41. In this case, there may be a few more reason to seal things

We are dealing with the White House and the Office of the Presidency.

In this case, Fitzgerald has to be much more careful not to harm anyones 'reputation' or the President by presenting information to the public before the WH has an opportunity to prepare for the crisis these indictments will bring. We are also dealing with some major national security concerns has well. So the next time Fitzgerald goes to get more indictments, it's going to be a big deal and he knows it. Libby was not surprised the day he got indicted. It was worked out ahead of time, when and where he would turn himself into the court. The same preplanning will go before the other indictments too.

[Garbo 2004]

45. What about this case Merritt cited at Talk Left? Reportedly an instance

of a case sealed to avoid publicity during an ongoing investigation:

Posted by TalkLeft
May 24, 2006 04:43 PM

Re: DiSalvo, Case is US v. DiSalvo, 34 F.3d 1204 (3rd Cir. 1994) It's a very long opinion, but the sealing stuff starts in headnote 10 (lexis version)

Basically, two were indicted in mob case, one of them, Simone was a lawyer. Both get convicted. The codefendant, DiSalvo appeals and says the indictment was improperly sealed as to him.

The indictment had been sealed not because they were flight risks, but to avoid publicity and because the investigation was ongoing. Simone had been in another trial when the indictment came down and they didn't want to announce it until his trial was over, which was expected to last four months. Simeone was told of the indictment and agreed with the decision to seal it.

I'm not saying this case is similar to Rove's just that if the Government wanted the indictment sealed the court can grant the motion for any number of reasons, including the high media interest in the case and an ongoing investigation. And even though sealed, the government can request an exception to tell the defendant.

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014930.html#comment-220247

[Patsy Stone]

19. Maybe

or, maybe Fitz was waiting for the GJ to hand up all possible indictments against him before making a statement about them all? I still think there may be some from when Libby was indicted. Fitz was "ready" to indict Rove, but Luskin came in at the last minute with the Vivack story. As far as I can tell, there could be other indictments voted on having to do with another issue, and Fitz was checking out the Vivack story in the meantime -- which could be another, perhaps unsealed, indictment and the one which started this whole TO/DU thing. Just a guess -- since we know nothing. Will Rove turn? My guess: not unless Fitz has something worth it.

[exlrrp]

8. I think its all wishful thinking

Ive never been a big Fitzgerald fan but the way so many on my side seem to be giving him super powers is just pathetic.
Fitz has been no help at all to the anti Bush side and will not be--thats why Ashcroft picked him. Fitz gerald is a Republican appointed by a Republican (Ashcroft) to investigate Republicans---really, felloow Democrats--how good do you think thats going to get?? How much good has ANY Republican done while investigating another Republican??.
Surprisingly ,Fitzgerald has many fans on our side, they view him as a white knight on a whit horse who is going to right all the wrongs of this administration.
NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!!
lets look at what Fitzgerald has actually accomplished: After over 2 years investigation (going on 3)Fitz gerald has managed to indict one 2d tier Bush Administration aide for a crime that was committed halfway theough the investigation. Nothing to do withouting a CIA agent, its whether he lied to the Grand Jury.
Those who expected that the Fitzgeralds investigation would deal with the runup top the Iraq War will be very disappointed. Fitazgerald has already said so, not in so many words, in exactly those words.
If Fitzgerald was going to indict Rove he would have done so long ago. There's no new eveidnce in this case that has evolved since the Libby indictment.
If, after almost 3 years of investigation, Fitzgerald is dragging his feet on indicting Rove, its because he doesn't have much of a case against him--otherwise it would have been a done deal long ago. Its not that I don't believe Rove is guilty--I do, its whether Fitz gerald has enough evidence to convict him. Obviously Fitzgerald doesn't think so--or he would have had him indicted along with Libby.
Fitz gerald is doing just what Ashcroft aappointed him to do--stretch out this case as long as posssible, which Fitzgerald has done. He won't be trying Libby untill next year, so any effect this may have had on the midterm election will be negated,. We won't be dealing with this untill the last 2 years of Bush's reign when he'll be a lame duck anyway
So Mission accomplished, Fitz!! You dragged a fairly simple case out for as long as you could and never leaked a thing.
Here's how this will end: Rove won't be indicted. Scooter Libby, if convicted (about a 50-50 Shot)will drag out his appeals untill he is pardoned by Bush on Bush's last day. So much for Fitzgerald being the Saviour of The Side for the Democrats
Don't forget when it happens you read it here first.

[shraby]

9. You are so wrong on so many statements.

First, Fitzgerald is not a Republican or a Democrat, he is an Independent. Second, Ashcroft did not appoint him, Comey did. Third, one of the reasons the investigation is taking so long is the reporters refusal to testify to the GJ. I could go on, but I think I've made my point. You'd better do some more research.

[Jayhawk Lib]

12. If Fitz hasn't got anything

by now....he never will....He is just another Ken Starr, staying on the payroll and accomplishing nothing. I am not sure he even has enough on Libby to get a successful prosecution.

[Jigarotta]

14. ouch! another Ken Starr?

tough comparison to make. STarr was flapping his yap on nightly television throughout most of his bogus 'investigation'.

Fitz has tight Lipz.

[Jayhawk Lib]

27. Keeping his yap shut

is about the only difference.

Starr open his mouth and you knew without a doubt about his incompetence. Fitz is tight lipped and his incompetence is not so obvious.

[Catherine Vincent]

29. " Fitz has tight Lipz."

He sure does. Here is a pic to prove it!



LOL!

[Jigarotta]

30. heh heh. look at the background type...

Tof (tuff) Justice.

[DancingBear]

33. Well, I must give you credit for one thing

You DO always manage to get that picture in!

I don't know exactly where, and I don't know exactly when, but I always know it'll be there. :)

[hang a left]

16. oh you are killing me.

You don't know shit! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Libby is so busted. Every defense he has tried to mount has been eviserated and we are still in pre-trial motions. If he goes to trial and doesn't plea out he is the stupidest mfer on the planet. That is unless he has his pardon in a safe somewhere already.

[Jayhawk Lib]

26. Small potato

It is a gj indictment which is far from a conviction. In almost 3 years of investigation and that is all he has??? How can anyone get to excited about that???

Either Fitz is incompetent or he is on the Republicans payroll. Actions speak louder than words and in almost 3 years not much action.

I give up...

[Missy Vixen]

24. Really?

>He is just another Ken Starr, staying on the payroll and accomplishing nothing.<

Is that a fact? In other words, the first indictments of a member of the White House executive staff in 130 years just means nothing, hm? What exactly is it you believe Patrick Fitzgerald has not accomplished? I'd LOVE to know. To compare him (and his hard work,) to Kenneth Starr would be laughable if it weren't so utterly pathetic. Kenneth Starr spent seven years and $70 million of the taxpayers' dollars to find a stained blue dress (and to write a report that reads like government sponsored porn.) The Special Counsel's investigation has cost less than $1 million, lasted two years, and netted five indictments at this writing.

>I am not sure he even has enough on Libby to get a successful prosecution.<

Libby's four attorneys think so. They wouldn't be burying the Special Counsel's office in a paperwork blizzard if Patrick Fitzgerald had nothing. Also, you might notice that Libby's attorneys are losing their motions repeatedly. They have NO defense against the charges, it seems.

You might want to do some reading on this matter. Allow me to recommend a few sources.

www.firedoglake.com
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/H2O%20Man

Julie
president for life of the PFEB

[Jayhawk Lib]

25. Even a blind hog

finds an acorn once in a while. Libby is small potatoes compared to what the investigation is about. We will just have to see if Libby is prosecuted and if Fitz finds any more acorns.

An indictment by a gj is certainly no proof of wrong doing. It is a fishing expedition.

I hope I am wrong but if there is (was) anything there he would have already found it.

[Missy Vixen]

36. Maybe you should give Libby's attorneys a call

I'm sure they'd be relieved to know that you think Patrick Fitzgerald and his group have no evidence, considering that they're being badly beaten in the weekly pretrial motions and filings.

>Libby is small potatoes compared to what the investigation is about.<

Libby was the VP's chief of staff and a member of the national security group. This goes straight to what the investigation is about.

>An indictment by a gj is certainly no proof of wrong doing. It is a fishing expedition.<

Considering the fact that the Special Counsel's evidence has survived more than one motion to dismiss already, I'm thinking you're not paying close attention to this case.

Julie

[Jayhawk Lib]

39. I am not trying to help Libby...

I want to see something come out of this but Fitz is doing a terrible job. It will not surprise if it goes to trial that Libby will be exonerated. His lawyers would not be doing their job if they did not make some attempt to keep it from going to trial. Going to trial is lengthy, expensive, and you never know what juries will do in spite of the evidence. OJ trial for example.

[JuniperLea]

35. You can't be serious!

He's already earned his pay for the next 10 years!

[exlrrp]

13. Less research, more action!!!

"First, Fitzgerald is not a Republican or a Democrat, he is an Independent."
In every account I have read,. Fitzgerald is listed as Republican
"Ashcroft did not appoint him, Comey did." And who wqas Comey's Boss when he did it? Ashcroft, the Attorney General at the time,. The picking of the prosecutor was sucjh an important decision, its not possible to believe that Ashcroft didn't have the final say and that he didn't consult others in the Bush WH about it.
Ashcroft was ultimately responsible for the decision and you are the first Ive seen to deny that--Ashcroft sure didn't.
"Third, one of the reasons the investigation is taking so long is the reporters refusal to testify to the GJ."
And another reason is that this investigation is politically embarasssing to the Bush WH and its to their advantage to string it out all along. Fitzgerald wwas well known as an I dotter and tee crosser when they picked him, someone who would get lost in the details--thats why Ashcroft (and comey) picked him.
And he's been right on that track.
here's the fact of the mattter: "lets look at what Fitzgerald has actually accomplished: After over 2 years investigation (going on 3)Fitz gerald has managed to indict one 2d tier Bush Administration aide for a crime that was committed halfway theough the investigation. Nothing to do withouting a CIA agent, its whether he lied to the Grand Jury." Argue with THAT!!

Whether I need to do more research is immaterial as I really have nothing to do with this case and am not much intersted in it--as I say, I don't think its going anywhere, or not in enough time to be any good to us.
Mission Accomplished, Fitz

[Scout1071]

17. Got a link for any of that "info?"

Are you aware that Ashcroft recused himself?

re·cuse ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-kyz)
tr.v. re·cused, re·cus·ing, re·cus·es
To disqualify or seek to disqualify from participation in a decision on grounds such as prejudice or personal involvement.

And this gem:

"Third, one of the reasons the investigation is taking so long is the reporters refusal to testify to the GJ."
And another reason is that this investigation is politically embarasssing to the Bush WH and its to their advantage to string it out all along. Fitzgerald wwas well known as an I dotter and tee crosser when they picked him, someone who would get lost in the details--thats why Ashcroft (and comey) picked him."

It's to their advantage to have it constantly in the headlines for 3 years? O.K. Seriously, what planet are you from?

[Garbo 2004]

32. From Fitzgerald's Oct 28, 2005 press conference:

"One day I read that I was a Republican hack, another day I read that I was a Democratic hack, and the only thing I did between those two nights was sleep.

I'm not partisan. I'm not registered as part of a party. And I'll leave it there."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801340.html

Edited to add:

And as noted by others, Ashcroft had to recuse himself from the investigation. He didn't choose or approve Fitzgerald, he was out of the process for very good reasons, the same reasons he had to recuse himself. Comey, in his capacity of Acting Attorney General, appointed chose Fitz.

About one year of the investigation was spent in litigation and negotiations to get reporters to talk. It went all the way to the SCOTUS which, as I recall, declined to hear the case in summer 2005. Cooper testified in July 2005, Judy Miller testified in September 2005. Both provided crucial testimony to the investigation.

[dubyaD40web]

34. You are so wrong too!

"First, Fitzgerald is not a Republican or a Democrat, he is an Independent."

QUESTION: Mr. Fitzgerald, your critics are charging that you are a partisan who is conducting what that considered -- (inaudible) --

(Laughter.)

MR. FITZGERALD: What's that mean?

QUESTION: You tell us.

MR.FITZGERALD: You tell me.

QUESTION: It's like a political witch-hunt. I mean, how do you respond to these, since you are in Washington?

MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. I don't know, you know, sort of when you stop beating your wife. I have read -- one day I read that I was a Republican hack, another day I read I was a Democratic hack, and the only thing I did between those two nights was sleep. I'm not partisan; I'm not registered as part of a party and I'll leave it there.

Pages 11 and 12 of October 28, 2005 Press Conference

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/

Independent is a party. Fitz is not an Independent.

[onenote]

11. and its no surprise that Fitz hasn't dealt with the "run up" to the war

His authority is specific: crimes related to the Plame leak and crimes committed in the course of his investigation of the Plame leak.

[Scout1071]

15. Interesting theory.

:popcorn:

[dogday]

21. Wow, get your information straight....

"I thought, 'He is the original Untouchable,' " Peter Fitzgerald says. "You could just see it in his eyes that he was a straight shooter. There were no levers that anyone had over him. He had no desire to become a partner in a private law firm. He has no interest in electoral politics. He wanted to be a prosecutor."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55560-2005Feb1.html

[ificandream]

18. Probably some deal in the works

That's probably why we haven't heard the indictment news yet. If it happens, it'll probably be something the GOPig can wiggle out of.

[Beelzebud]

22. Yeah I think the first hint was when he didn't get indicted...

[RandomKoolzip]

28. Zing!

:rofl:

[dysfunctional press]

23. secret pardon.

i'm sticking with my theory.

[Perky]

38. Possible but doubtful

first. Fitpatrick would yell about it being obstruction. Secondly, Bush would have a hard time defending it even to his base as a "Law and Order" guy.

Third, the fact of the pardon would efecctively imput guilt on Rove. Fouth and finally it being secret would become the other major issue.

It would look like a bonehead play by Bush and the Novemeber election would be about his fitness. You think Denny Hastert is pissed off at the FBI Raid...watch him explode over a secret pardon.

[dysfunctional press]

40. if it's kept secret until january 19, 2009...

issues 2, 3, and 4 become moot.

and as for fitzgerald raising a fuss- once poppy takes him aside, and shape-shifts into his true reptilian form- i'm sure that patrick will be willing to "play ball"...

[Perky]

42. Wow

Now that would be a tinfoil hat with a propeller on top....LOL

[dysfunctional press]

43. don't take my word for it-

just ask david ickes- he's all over the "reptillian agenda"

http://www.davidickebooks.co.uk/

[Maddy McCall]

44. Of course he hasn't.

He may be indicted soon, but he hasn't been indicted yet.

When he's indicted, we'll all know.