Friday, June 23, 2006

IT APPEARS KARL ROVE PLEAD GUILTY TO MAKING A FALSE STATEMENT BEFORE ANY CHARGES WERE BROUGHT AND WITHOUT A DEAL HAVING BEEN MADE

LUSKIN CAUGHT PARSING?

Prior to being "charged" -- and without a "deal" -- it appears Karl Rove plead guilty to making a "false statement".

[UPDATED 6.24.06 5:45AM PST Updates appear in red. Please note that citizenspook will be leaving this post to linger until their is an official response from the Rove defense team as to whether Rove plead guilty.]


The public record and other statements of parties with special knowledge of Patrick Fitzgerald’s Special Counsel investigation support this report.

It appears Luskin's consistent insistence that Rove has never been "charged" or "indicted" is true. Luskin has surgically parsed his words to create a false impression that Rove was not guilty of any legal infractions.

It appears Rove plead guilty to making at least one false statement before “charges” were ever filed and without a “5K deal" or any other deal that I have been made aware of.

However, no "deal" was required for Rove to receive a statutory reduction of the “pending” sentence according to 3E1.1(a) of the Federal sentencing guidelines which provide for a "two level" reduction of sentence where a person has plead guilty and “accepted responsibility” for his actions

The 3E1.1(a) sentence level reduction is triggered by statute -- not the prosecutor – when a guilty party pleads guilty thereby “accepting responsibility” for his actions. The earlier the plea is entered, the more likely 3E1.1(a) will be triggered. There is no requirement that the person pleading guilty assist the prosecution as against any other defendant.


ANALYSIS OF LAWS, FACTS AND STATEMENTS

Chapter 3 Part E - ACCEPTANCE OF RESPONSIBILITY

§3E1.1. Acceptance of Responsibility

(a) If the defendant clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility for his offense, decrease the offense level by 2 levels.

(b) If the defendant qualifies for a decrease under subsection (a) , the offense level determined prior to the operation of subsection (a) is level 16 or greater, and upon motion of the government stating that the defendant has assisted authorities in the investigation or prosecution of his own misconduct by timely notifying authorities of his intention to enter a plea of guilty, thereby permitting the government to avoid preparing for trial and permitting the government and the court to allocate their resources efficiently, decrease the offense level by 1 additional level.

[Making false statements carries a base offense level of 6, so only 3e1.1(a) would apply to a plea of guilty for that offense. This would bring the base offense level down from 6 to 4 and I don't see how Rove would get more than probation at that level.]

Please take note that the two level sentence reduction does not require the guilty party to provide the prosecution with any information as to other possible defendants. The sentence is statutorily reduced by two levels simply for "accepting responsibility" in a timely manner so as to save the prosecution the trouble of preparing for a trial. Unlike a "5K" plea agreement which requires cooperation with -- and a motion from -- the prosecutor, the 3E1.1(a) two level sentence reduction only requires the guilty party to "accept responsibility" for his own actions by pleading guilty.

If the Prosecution agrees that the guilty party has properly "accepted responsibility", he may make a 3E1.1(b) motion for a third level of sentence reduction. Statutory and case law do not require that the guilty party cooperate with the prosecutor in the prosecution and conviction of any other defendant(s). But this only applies to offense with a base level of 16 or higher.

A 3E1.1(b) reduction, like the 3E1.1(a) statutory sentence reduction only requires the prosecutor to agree that the guilty party has accepted responsibility.

For a detailed analysis of the application of these statutes please see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. MIGUEL MORENO-TREVINO, United States District Court for the District of Utah (D.C. No. 2:04-CR-00051-DKW).

Jeralyn Merrit of talkleft.com almost nailed this down back on October 26, 2005, when she reported that Federal law allowed Rove to correct any perjury he might have committed before the grand jury and that Rove had probably done just that by willingly appearing before the grand jury for a fourth time:

Rove may have successfully cleared himself of a perjury charge regarding his conversation with Matt Cooper during his fourth grand jury appearance. The applicable perjury statute allows him to do this:



(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.


Merrit followed up on October 28, 2006 with a report titled, ">Does Rove Have a Secret Plea Deal? where she just barely missed being accurate as she postulated that Rove might have avoided “indictment” by pleading guilty to an “Information” – a charge brought by the prosecution by drafting a pleading of probable cause which is only done when the target waves indictment by a grand jury:

If they reached a deal, an Indictment is not necessary. A defendant can waive the right to be charged by Indictment and plead to an Information, which is filed by the prosecutor. It's an ordinary occurrence in my district.

The problem with the “Information” theory became evident last week when Luskin informed Merritt that there were never any “charges” against Rove. Since an http://www.co.rock-island.il.us/SAO.asp?id=376">“Information” is a “charge”, and Merritt was convinced that Luskin was speaking accurately, this theory was shot down.

Luskin also strongly insisted that there never was any “deal” at any time and that Rove cooperated from the very start with Fitzgerald.

On June 13, 2006 Merrit published a retraction of her prior theories featuring the following headline, EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove, wherein she reported:

Sometimes people just don't know when to cry "uncle." I do. I asked Robert Luskin this morning if Karl Rove has made a deal with Fitzgerald. His response:




There has never, ever been any discussion of a deal in any way, shape or
form.

Which is exactly what Luskin told me weeks ago. It's over, folks. Karl Rove will not be charged with a crime. He's cooperated with Fitzgerald by testifying to the grand jury five times and providing whatever information he had without a safety net. Without a 5k. Without assurances he would not be indicted. That's a hell of a risk, but Luskin pulled it off. My hat's off to Luskin.

I opined repeatedly on TalkLeft and HuffPo that Karl Rove would be charged at least with making a false statement to investigators in the fall of 2003 before a grand jury was convened -- the Martha Stewart crime. That was wrong.


I'm ready to put this to bed. Karl Rove walked. He's one of the rare subjects of an investigation who was able to talk his way out of an Indictment.


The problem with Merrit’s current analysis – as well as the similar analysis of the entire main stream media and major blogs – is that they failed to consider Rove might have “plead guilty” prior to any “charges” having been filed and without the safety net of a 5K deal, or any other plea bargain arrangement.


Merrit is an experienced attorney who is all too familiar with the fact that a person can plead guilty to breaking the law before any charges are ever filed.

She has previously discussed this issue – regarding a different criminal matter – at her blog:

One more thing: These Arizona cops and agents pleaded guilty before charges were filed. That means they didn't wait for the benefit of court-ordered discovery -and any exculpatory evidence the Government would have been required to disclose. In other words, they knew, after seeing whatever limited information the Government felt like showing them, that their goose was cooked.

And here’s a link to another case where people plead guilty “before being charged”:


Eight other people were arrested last year and two others agreed to plead guilty before charges were filed against them…

Back in her report of October 26, 2005, she discussed the possibility that Rove plead to making false statements:

On to Plan B. If Rove is charged, it might be only for making a false statement to investigators in the earliest days of the investigation when he said he didn't speak to reporters about Joseph Wilson's wife until after Novak's article was published…

If this is all the grand jury charges him with, and if, as I have speculated frequently in the past few weeks, he has cooperated against others, he could plead guilty under a plea agreement in which Fitzgerald moves for a sentence reduction under 5K1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines, possibly down to probation.

Rove would need that motion…

Patrick Fitzgerald, and only Patrick Fitzgerald, not the grand jury or the Court on its own motion, has the power to make that 5K1.1 motion, and ask that Rove not receive a jail sentence.

And that's how Karl Rove could walk.


Will it happen? Right now, only Fitzgerald knows for sure. As a devout critic of the Bush Administration, I bring it up because I don't like rats. If Karl Rove isn't indicted, or gets a sweetheart deal, I can't conceive of any reason why other than he sang his heart out.

So close, but yet so far. Unfortunately, she never mentioned http://www.ussc.gov/2003guid/3e1_1.htm>Rule 3E1.1 which – as explained above – requires no motion by the prosecutor or cooperation by the person pleading guilty to assist in the prosecution of others for the two level reduction to kick in.

When you study those Federal guidelines, it’s important to play close attention to Note 1(a):

Note that a defendant is not required to volunteer, or affirmatively admit, relevant conduct beyond the offense of conviction in order to obtain a reduction under subsection (a) . A defendant may remain silent in respect to relevant conduct beyond the offense of conviction without affecting his ability to obtain a reduction under this subsection. However, a defendant who falsely denies, or frivolously contests, relevant conduct that the court determines to be true has acted in a manner inconsistent with acceptance of responsibility;


So, no “deal” is necessary for the 3E1.1(a) two level reduction, nor is a “deal” necessary for the extra single reduction listed in 3E1.1(b) if the base offense level were greater than 16. Once again, making false statements is a level 6 offense so 3e1.1(b) would not apply.

RANDAL SAMBORN’S COMMENT TO RYAN LIZZA

Contrary to misleading reports by various blogs, Fitzgerald’s tight lipped spokesperson, Randall Samborn, has not always answered “no comment” to substantive questions pertaining to this investigation.

Back in October, at the time of the Libby indictment press conference, Samborn – in response to ">a question by Ryan Lizza of The New Republic as to whether there were any guilty pleas in the case – said there was no “public record” of such pleas:

Yesterday, I asked Fitzgerald spokesman Randall Samborn if there were any guilty pleas in the case. He told me there was no "public record" of such pleas. That sounded less than fully responsive, so I asked Preston Burton, a white collar criminal defense attorney, if there could be guilty pleas outside of the public record. Here's what he said:


Guilty pleas can be taken under seal--and often are--when the person entering
the plea is cooperating with the government and they do not want to tip off the
other targets or there is a safety concern. Also, plea agreements could have
already been reached but not formally entered in court.


Considering Samborn's cagey answer and the fact that we know Fitzgerald received high-level cooperation from several current and former administration officials, it is entirely possible that Libby is not the only Bushie who's been busted.
--Ryan Lizza


Another substantive answer given by Samborn back on October 28, 2006 was directed to the question of whether the investigation was ongoing to which ">Samborn responded, “the investigation will continue with a new grand jury.”

On June 13, 2006 Samborn changed his answer to this question by stating that he would not comment on the issue at this time.

The following District Court local ">rule states:


"With respect to a grand jury or other pending investigation of anycriminal matter, a lawyer participating in or associated with theinvestigation shall refrain from making any extrajudicial statementwhich a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by meansof public communication, that goes beyond the public record or that isnot necessary to inform the public that the investigation is underway, to describe the general scope of the investigation, to obtain assistance in the apprehension of a suspect, to warn the public of any dangers, orotherwise to aid in the investigation."


This allows the prosecution to inform the public that an investigation is under way. It also allows the prosecution to inform the public about the general scope of the investigation. Everything that takes place before the grand jury, is, of course, secret, but the “existence” of a grand jury investigation is certainly a matter of public interest. Indeed, Fitzgerald’s office has kept the public informed of the status of the investigation up until June 13, 2006 when he, via Samborn, refused to comment on the status of the investigation.

The same Federal rule would apply to the statements in Luskin’s fax. If Fitzgerald informed Luskin he does not anticipate seeking charges then Rove would be out of the general scope of the investigation and both Fitzgerald and Luskin may freely publicize that statement to clear Rove’s name. Whether it be a phone call, letter or fax, the medium does not matter, it’s all about the communication. Since Luskin made the communication public, the medium – a fax – can also be made public.

If there’s things in the fax which are to be kept secret pursuant to various Federal secrecy laws – for example: statements in the fax which discuss a sealed plea agreement – then Luskin can redact them and show what’s left.

On June 13, 2006, Fitzgerald, via Samborn, refused to confirm Luskin’s comments.

I believe that when one carefully examines Luskin’s razor sharp parsing, the truth emerges. Luskin has consistently stated:

1. Rove was never “indicted” or “charged” with any crime.
2. Rove never took a deal.
3. Rove has cooperated from the start with Fitzgerald.

I am not aware of any public statements by Luskin denying that Rove plead guilty to a legal infraction pertaining to Fitzgerald’s Special Counsel investigation.

If Karl Rove has not plead guilty to making at least one false statement, then let's have an official denial from Luskin.

I have contacted Randall Samborn and asked him about the subject matter of this report. He hasn't responded to my questions at this time.


Citizenspook

PLEASE COPY LINK AND REPOST AS YOU LIKE

Wednesday, June 21, 2006

DOES RANDALL SAMBORN'S CRYPTIC COMMENTS INDICATE THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A GUILTY PLEA IN THE FITZGERALD INVESTIGATION?


It appears that Randall Samborn's October28, 2006 statement "the investigation will continue with a new grand jury" was NOT the only time he gave a substantive answer to a relevant question regarding the Fitzgerald investigation.

Back on October 29, 2005 Ryan Lizza -- writing for a section of The New Republic called The Plank -- claimed to have received a very cryptic answer from Samborn to a probing question about the Fitzgerald investigation:

"Yesterday, I asked Fitzgerald spokesman Randall Samborn if there were any guilty pleas in the case. He told me there was no "public record" of such pleas. That sounded less than fully responsive, so I asked Preston Burton, a white collar criminal defense attorney, if there could be guilty pleas outside of the public record. Here's what he said:

'Guilty pleas can be taken under seal--and often are--when the person entering the plea is cooperating with the government and they do not want to tip off the other targets or there is a safety concern. Also, plea agreements could have already been reached but not formally entered in court.'

Considering Samborn's cagey answer and the fact that we know Fitzgerald received high-level cooperation from several current and former administration officials, it is entirely possible that Libby is not the only Bushie who's been busted."


Wow! We are definitely not in Kansas anymore if that quote is true.

It was also mentioned at Americanprogress on November 3, 2005:

Another thing we still don't know is if anyone pled guilty in the case. As TNR's Ryan Lizza reported over the weekend, he asked Fitzgerald's spokesman Randall Samborn just that question. Samborn partially dodged the question, telling Lizza that there was no "public record" of any pleas. Not satisfied, Lizza put the question to "a white collar criminal defense attorney," who told him that "Guilty pleas can be taken under seal – and often are – when the person entering the plea is cooperating with the government and they do not want to tip off the other targets or there is a safety concern. Also, plea agreements could have already been reached but not formally entered in court."


So here we have another instance of Samborn breaking from his standard "no comment", but this one here, this Samborn statement is way way out of character. Somebody needs to grill this Lizza person on the exact details of Samborn's statement about no guilty pleas having been entered in the public record.


Furthermore, if this quote is accurate, it provides further evidence that Samborn and Fitzgerald's recent double "no comment" as to whether the investigation is ongoing and what Karl Rove's status is...appears very strange indeed.

And the greek chorus being thrown about by Firedoglake and other main stream blogs trying to sell you on looking away from those bizarre Samborn/Fitz "no comments" just got their asses handed to them once again.

Imagine Rove plead guilty BEFORE giving the Grand Jury the chance to indict him. This is perfectly legal and plausible. It happens in RICO cases all the time:

When the U.S. Attorney decides to indict someone under RICO, he has the option of seeking a pre-trial restraining order or injunction to prevent the transfer of potentially forfeitable property, as well as require the defendant to put up a performance bond. This provision is intended to force a defendant to plead guilty before indictment.


Now apply this scenario to the facts in the Fitzgerald investigation. If Rove plead guilty, there could have been...

a. no indictment
b. no deal
c. no reason for Fitzgerald to "anticipate seeking charges"

Furthermore, the guilty plea might be sealed because there's a good public policy for having those pleas sealed. The secrecy protects the integrity of the investigation as well as the identity of the person who plead. And if that persoon is also going to be a witness, than the secrecy of a sealed plea would protect the witness from harm.

If Rove offered to plead guilty on his own volition while also offering to be a witness for the prosecution then you can't really characterize that as "cutting a deal". Perhaps he threw himself on the mercy of the court?

And if that's what happened, then all of Luskin and Corallo's statements are technically true.

If Rove plead guilty under these circumstances, and that plea is sealed, Luskin's manipulation of the facts to make it look like Rove was totally cleared has been a truly disgusting trick on the American people.

Somebody with access, hint to Talk Left, ought to ask Luskin specifically whether or not Rove plead guilty to anything in this investigation. A " no comment" type answer from Luskin would be a blockbuster quote.

This scenario is a strong contender.

"Wanna go for a ride?"


Citizenspook

PLEASE REPOST COPY AND LINK AT WILL





PART TWO: FIREDOGLAKE IS ACTIVELY MISLEADING READERS REGARDING SAMBORN AND BUSH COMMENTS CONCERNING THE STATUS OF THE FITZGERALD INVESTIGATION...

[Please see part 1 below before reading this report.]

Yesterday, Christy Hardin Smith responded to a comment by one of her readers familiar with this blog as follows;

"You don’t talk about proceedings while they are ongoing before the grand jury. In the presser after the Libby indictment, the new G/J had not yet been sworn in and informed about the investigation. They have now, and we just have to sit back and let the process take its normal course. There will be no comment from Fitz, I would bet, unless and until there are more proceedings or he folds up shop. Not while the grand jury proceeds with an investigation anyway. "


This comment contains two misleading statements:

1: A direct false assertion that no new grand jury had been impaneled.

2. A blatant false implication based on the false assertion: since no new grand jury had been impaneled Samborn and Fitzgerald had a small window of opportunity to legally comment that the investigation would continue and that once a new grand jury had been impaneled they would not be able to say "the investigation will continue".

Both the assertion and the implication are patently false.

The false assertion is that the new grand jury had not been sworn in. FDL knows that's a false assertion because FDL reported back on October 29, 2005 -- in response to a New York Times article -- that the new Grand Jury had already been impaneled. Here's what Jane Hamsher wrote:


Hamsher: Looks like everyone's struggling to keep up with Patrick Fitzgerald. NYT:


With the term of his grand jury at an end, Mr. Fitzgerald said he could present any new evidence to an already impaneled grand jury if needed.

Hamsher: Already impaneled? That's new.

Then the topic was discussed by some of her readers in the comments to that report:

The fact that Fitzgerald made reference to an "already empaneled" grand jury isn't odd or newsworthy. Federal grand juries are not case-dependent; they sit around for 18-24 months and hear whatever evidence a federal prosecutor wants to bring them. Fitzgerald is just saying that, if the need arises, he can present his case for further indictments to an existing grand jury. There's always one available.
Homepage | 10.29.05 - 2:41 pm | #


The already impaneled is NOT new. Fitzy said he could use one of the other GJ's currently impaneled (and working on other cases) in the press conference if necessary. GJ's don't just work on one case, they can work on multiple cases and he said right in the PC he would use one of the other ones if necessary as the old one's term expired. Not new at all.

GDoyle


Pachacutec, that's my guess. This GJ was already there, so no need to impanel a new one. Saves time and removes accusations of bias, I believe, since they didn't know when starting that they'd have anything to do with THIS investigation. IMHO.




When reading Fitzgerald's comments at the Libby indictment press conference, all of this should be very clear to FDL, the blog with the reputation of being the clearinghouse for all things Plame. But that reputation must be seriously questioned in light of FDL's twisted false spin on this issue. I have no choice to call it spin because I cannot find another word to describe this shit. Here's what Fitzgerald said on October 28, 2006:

FITZGERALD: Let me answer the two questions you asked in one.

OK, is the investigation finished? It's not over, but I'll tell you this: Very rarely do you bring a charge in a case that's going to be tried and would you ever end a grand jury investigation.

I can tell you, the substantial bulk of the work in this investigation is concluded.

FITZGERALD: This grand jury's term has expired by statute; it could not be extended. But it's in ordinary course to keep a grand jury open to consider other matters, and that's what we will be doing.


That's why the NYT correctly stated that a new grand jury had already been impaneled. Fitz made this even more clear with another comment in that press conference:

QUESTION: You noted earlier that the grand jury's term expired but you said something about holding it open. Or will you be working with a new grand jury?

FITZGERALD: The grand jury, by its terms, can serve -- was an 18-month grand jury. By its statute, to my understanding, can only be extended six months.

FITZGERALD: That six months expired. It's routine in long investigations that you would have available a new grand jury if you needed to go back to them. And that's nothing unusual. I don't want to raise any expectations by that; that's an ordinary practice.


And Fitz made one further comment about the new grand jury:

QUESTION: Just to be clear -- you did touch on this earlier -- with the grand jury time being done, you have no plans to file another grand jury related to this case at all, is that correct?

FITZGERALD: No. I think what I said is we could use any other grand jury or avail of another grand jury. We couldn't use the grand jurors whose term has expired today any further.

It's clear when you actually use the FACTS available, that there was no change in status of the investigation when the first grand jury's term expired by statute on October 28, 2005. Furthermore, FDL had discussed this issue on October 29, 2005. So there's no way they can say they were ignorant about it having quoted a NYT article on the issue.

What the hell?

And to those that would argue that the Libby press conference was the only time Samborn and Fitzgerald deviated from their pat "no comment", I would draw your attention to Fitzgerald's public affadvait filed with the court on November 18, 2005. On page 2, Fitzgerald states:

"Moreover, because the investigation is continuing, and because the investigation will involve proceedings before a different grand jury than the grand jury that returned the indictment, traditional concerns that underlie Fed. R. Crim. Pr. 6(e) very much apply."


The statute cited here by Fitz leads to the Federal Rules pertaining to grand jury secrecy, yet the information contained in this affadavit was made public. You can read it at the Special Counsel's web site. And it was discussed by the MSM and blogs. Here's what Talk Left had to say:

Fitzgerald Confirms New Grand Jury Will Continue Leaks Investigation

Patrick Fitzgerald said in a court pleading today that his investigation of the Valerie Plame leaks case is continuing with the grand jury currently sitting in the District.


So, here we have another public statement by Fitzgerald that "the investigation will continue".


Why am I making such a big deal about this? Let me break it down for you.

FITZGERALD AND SAMBORN ARE NOT SAYING, "THE INVESTIGATION WILL CONTINUE" OR "THIS IS AN ONGOING INVESTIGATION"....any more.

Now they are refusing to comment on this issue.

Because "no comment" exists now where it did not exist in the past, we MUST consider the possibility that the status of the investigation has been the subject matter of "Sealed" activity.

And if the status of the investigation is the subject matter of "Sealed" activity, then Fitzgerald and Samborn must answer "no comment" to the very same question they were free to comment upon at earlier stages of this investigation.

The American people need to be educated as to this possibility, not dumbed down to it by shitty reporting submitted by FDL which has developed a reputation as being a leader on Plame related issues. Personally, I do not see why they deserve such a lofty reputation. They completely fumbled the ball on their parot like insistence that the IIPA was the controlling law and later had to recognize that the Espionage Act -- as discussed by Fitz in the press conference -- was actually more appropriate especially since it carries much harsher penalties than the IIPA, ie life in prison or death sentence if invoked in a time of war.

[For a detailed analysis of the Espionage Act's application to the Fitzgerald investigation please see previous CS reports, Part 1 and Part 2.]

So, if the status of the investigation has changed, and we know the President says it has, then what is happening? Yes. That is the question. Up until today, I have postulated two scenarios:


SCENARIO ONE: The grand jury issued Presentments instead of Indictments.

And we still haven't heard Luskin deny there were any Presentments although yesterday he once again denied that there were any "secret" indictments in a statement given to Jeralyn Merrit of Talk Left, since she has access, ought to ask Luskin if there were any Presentments.

I'm not saying this is what happened. I'm saying it's possible that if Fitz had been under pressure and saw interference coming, he might have educated this grand jury as to their Constitutional power of Presentment (a thorough report on the historical use of grand jury presentments will be the subject of a future CS report).

The issue then should not be whether common procedure in the Federal Courts would quash such a Presentment, the issue should be whether quashing such a Presentment violates the Constitution. And I believe that getting that very issue before SCOTUS is the most important tool we have available to us in order to preserve our system of Government as well as our national sovereignty.

I, for one, do not believe we will ever see a genuine, fair, legal election again without taking these electronic voting machines to a national bonfire. I applaud the Brad Blog for leading on election fraud issues and sticking hard to one important topic and making a difference.

Furthermore, if you're looking for either the DNC or the RNC to save us, you're a fool. They both suck lapdog style...forever beholden to corporate scum. The only Representative I can believe in for sure is Ron Paul.

I recognize the Presentment option is a long shot in this case, but I'm using this case to start a national dialogue on this repressed Constitutional power of the people.

And anybody out there in the blogosphere who tries to shut down discussion about this grand jury power obviously doesn't want us to have such power. I've seen arguments thrown about that we the people aren't qualified to initiate charges or investigations, that we'd abuse the process. Then why are we given the right to vote people to life in prison? We are legally required to serve as jurors and we ought to take that aspect of citizenship seriously. We ought to be educated from grammar school about what it means to be a Constitutionally impaneled grand juror.


And we need to take that power back and we don't need Congress fucking it up. We can force the issue when we sit as grand jurors. We can't be afraid of what might happen, we must try to be Constitutional grand jurors armed to the teeth with knowledge instead of blind statutory puppies.


SCENARIO TWO: Fitzgerald is facing a shut down of his investigation by external Government or Judicial forces.


Please be aware that both options might be happening at the same time. We the people have a right to know whether there is an investigation ongoing into the exposure of our national intelligence assets at a time of war.

Up until about five minutes ago, those were the only two options I was looking at. But I've come upon a third option and it will be the next report coming at you later today by...

Citizenspook

PLEASE COPY LINK AND REPOST AT WILL

Tuesday, June 20, 2006

PART ONE: FIREDOGLAKE IS ACTIVELY MISLEADING READERS REGARDING SAMBORN AND BUSH COMMENTS CONCERNING THE STATUS OF THE FITZGERALD INVESTIGATION...

...and I really don't know why. And I'm not going to speculate. I'm seething with anger right now, but I'm going to stay on point. I don't want to say anything I might regret later. But I really don't know what to make of FDL's willful misrepresentaion of Randall Samborn's comments.

Christy Hardin Smith completely misrepresented material facts in one of her columns today. Some of her very astute readers have also been reading this blog and they asked her very relevant questions to which she spun shit I can't believe I read there.


This from Christy FDL today:

"Fitzgerald’s office continues to stick to their "no comment" policy, which has pretty much been in effect from the start of all this (other than the laugh Jane managed to get out of Russell Samborn on the whole Viagra pen issue.)"

(all quotes from FDL can be found


http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/06/20/popping-the-trial-balloon/#comments

They know that's false. It's almost as if they were trying to poor water over the fire started by this blog regarding the mysterious refusal by the Special Counsel's office to acknowledge that the investigation is ongoing.


As I've pointed out in previous reports this week, Samborn has only ever answered one important question with something other than "no comment". That was back on October 28, 2005 when he stated the investigation would continue with a new grand jury.

Now Samborn says, "no comment" to that same question. This shows a clear change in response from the Special Counsel's office.

FDL would have you believe that Samborn is not allowed to tell us whether the investigation is ongoing, yet he did tell us just that back in October. Here is how she handled that issue:

"You don’t talk about proceedings while they are ongoing before the grand jury. In the presser after the Libby indictment, the new G/J had not yet been sworn in and informed about the investigation. They have now, and we just have to sit back and let the process take its normal course. There will be no comment from Fitz, I would bet, unless and until there are more proceedings or he folds up shop. Not while the grand jury proceeds with an investigation anyway. "


FDL is telling their readers that Samborn can't tell us if the investigation is ongoing. That's BS. The workings of the Grand Jury are secret, but the existence of an investigation is not. This is still America, for now. The investigation's existence and status as "ongoing" has always been made very clear to the American people. There is nothing in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure which prohibits the US Attorney from stating that an investigation is ongoing. For FDL to lead their readers to believe that is the case is a lie. And they know it.

Furthermore, it is standard operating procedure for a prosecutor to announce "the investigation will continue".

Look at the comments from other Grand Jury investigations which say "the investigation will continue" right in the official press releases. The first is from Elliot Spitzer in conjunction with a US Attorney:

http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2003/mar/mar10a_03.html

Here's another one:


http://milwaukee.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel06/durgcharges051106.htm


See how many more you can find doing a Google.

Then her readers asked her about Bush's comments which allege that Fitzgerald has ended his nvestigation and check out her answer:

"dqueue says:

June 20th, 2006 at 11:34 am

I have to float this, because I think it’s interesting speculation. CitizenSpook collates a couple underreported tidbits. 1. Apparently Bush may have said that Fitzgerald has ended his investigation. 2. Samborn answers a little differently than in the past.


Christy's answer:

"Bush said that during a press conference with regard to a question about Rove, and Rove only. It should not be read literally, especially since it wasn’t Fitzgerald saying it. Unless and until I hear it from Fitz or one of his spokespeople (who really are saying variations of “no comment” — that has to get old saying it in exactly the same words all the time, after all), then I’m not buying into any other theory, unless and until I can substantiate it myself through independent evidence. That’s just how my skeptical brain works. "

Then this reader also weighed in:

authority_stealing says:


June 20th, 2006 at 12:10 pm

I too am interested in Citizen Spook’s questions as to Sealed vs. Sealed, runaway grand juries, and why more hasn’t been made of Dear Leader’s recent comments:
“On Air Force One flying back from a surprise trip to Iraq, Bush said of the decision: ‘It’s a chapter that has ended. Fitzgerald is a very thorough person. I think he’s conducted his investigation in a dignified way. And he’s ended his investigation.’ ”

Where does she get this special inside info about what Bush meant and what question he was answering? I'd like to see the copy of the transcript she has that the rest of us don't.

In case you haven't noticed, there's a full court press on by Rove and Bush and their pundits to try to convince the American people that Fitz is done with the investigation and has moved onto the trial prep phase. BUT FITZ ISN'T CONFIRMING ANY OF IT.

I think Fitz is in trouble. I'm going out on a limb here. My instincts are telling me they've applied serious pressure and Fitz is in a Judicial dogfight. I have no sources other than Samborn's refusal to acknowledge that the investigation is ongoing. But none of this makes any sense. The Luskin fax which we can't see. Samborn's shift, etc. It's all very weird.

Examining this in light of Samborn's previous willingness to state that the investigation would continue coupled with the cold hard FACT that US Attorneys are clearly allowed to say "the investigation will continue"...leads me to believe that something very fuckin' bad has happened to this investigation.

And if Christy and others want to know what the President actually meant when he said that Fitzgerald's investigation had ended, then they can lobby one of their MSM sources to ask Tony Snow what the President meant.

Make some noise people. This case is so damn important. It's a life or death situation for America. It's that big.

Citizenspook

please repost, copy and link at will


BUSH COMMENTS DONT BODE WELL FOR LIBBY PARDON


President Bush said on Air Force One, June 13, 2006:

"It's a chapter that has ended. Fitzgerald is a very thorough person. I think he's conducted his investigation in a dignified way. And he's ended his investigation."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/13/washington/13cnd-leak.html

See yesterday's report for a detailed examination of Bush's strange and vastly under-reported comments which unequivocally state that Fitzgerald has ended his investigation. These comments have been largely ignored by the blogs.

The trial balloon being floated out regarding a Libby pardon due to the so called "criminalization" of politics is dubious and Libby should take heed now and consider turning State's evidence.

Think about this: If the President himself has just gone on the record to say that Fitz has conducted a dignified, thorough investigation, how can he justify a pardon from such an ethical investigation by a US Attorney actually appointed by Bush?

It's really something Libby ought to think about.

Could you imagine the press conference:

Non-Existent Reporter: Mr. President, didn't you state on Air Force One, back in June 2006, that Fitzgerald had conducted a dignified and thorough investigation?

Bush: Yes, I did.

Non-Existent Reporter: Then why are you now undermining a thorough, dignified investigation conducted by a US Attorney you actually appointed?

Bush: Ummm. (Touches ear piece)....

My personal opinion is that Libby just doesn't belong to the cabal the way Rove, Bush and Cheney do. He appears to be the designated scapegoat. The pardon trial balloon may actually be intended to comfort Libby, keep him confident he won't stay in prison and therefore keep him silent. Libby may be an Aspen, but Rove, Bush and Cheney come from a whole other family of trees.

I don't see how a pre-trial pardon could be on the table considering Bush's comments. Perhaps a last minute pardon, but I doubt it. If Scooter's conviction actually does signal the end of this investigation, Bush won't have any logical reason to pardon him in light of his glowing comments about the Fitz investigation. Something to think about from CS to I. Scooter.

Please don't assume that anything I've written in this report agrees that Fitz has ended his investigation as clearly as Bush, Luskin and Rove would have us believe. As I stated in yesterday's report, I think Fitz may have been railroaded and the Bush and Luskin comments appear to be a gambit that they can keep sealed whatever really happened behind the closed doors of the Grand Jury.

Citizenspook

please repost


Monday, June 19, 2006

PRESIDENT BUSH SAYS FITZGERALD'S INVESTIGATION IS OVER


Let me separate this report into two sections.

1. FACTS and QUESTIONS

2. ANALYSIS

All of the FACTS in section "1." are not disputed. Every FACT in this report is 100% documented.

The QUESTIONS are simply questions.

The ANALYSIS section contains my take on the facts.

1. FACTS and QUESTIONS:

The CIA leak investigation has been shut down according to George W. Bush.

Thanks to MissWaverly of the Democratic Underground discussion forum for pointing out this quote.

"On Air Force One flying back from a surprise trip to Iraq, Bush said of the decision: 'It's a chapter that has ended. Fitzgerald is a very thorough person. I think he's conducted his investigation in a dignified way. And he's ended his investigation.' "

DU link

New York Times link


Last week, Randall Samborn changed the official response of the Special Prosecutor's office regarding the status of the investigation.

When asked last week if the investigation was ongoing, Samborn refused to comment. This answer changed the official response of the Special Prosecutor's office as to the status of the investigation. Samborn has consistently invoked the "no comment" response to "almost" every question he's been asked. But back on October 28, 2005, at the time Libby's indictments were announced, Samborn was asked if the investigation was ongoing and to this he replied,

The investigation will continue with a new grand jury.

Fitzgerald -- at the Libby indictment press conference -- stated that the investigation was ongoing.

From a CBS News Report on October 28, 2005:

"Rove’s lawyer said he was told by the prosecutor’s office that investigators had 'made no decision about whether or not to bring charges and would continue their probe into Rove’s conduct.

Fitzgerald’s spokesman, Randall Samborn, said the investigation will continue but with a new grand jury. The term of the current grand jury cannot be extended beyond today."

Political Forecast link

There you have it, back in October 2005, Samborn and Fitzgerald (at the Libby Indictment press conference) both unequivocally stated that the investigation was ongoing.

As of yesterday, the official word from Fitzgerald’s office – via Samborn -- is:

"Asked if the CIA leak investigation is still continuing, Samborn said, 'I'm not commenting on that as well at this time.' "

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/13/ap/politics/mainD8I7C7N00.shtml


How is it possible that President Bush can unequivocally state that Fitzgerald has ended his investigation, while Samborn refuses to confirm this?

Some have argued that if Samborn were to say that the investigation was ongoing -- as he did at the time of the Libby indictment press conference -- that would elicit further media inquiries about who Fitz was investigating. To this I say, "So what?" Fitz can answer those questions in the same manner he answered them at the Libby indictment press conference when he refused to give any names. From the Libby indictment press conference:

QUESTION: Is Karl Rove off the hook? And are there any other individuals who might be charged? You say you're not quite finished.

FITZGERALD: What I can say is the same answer I gave before: If you ask me any name, I'm not going to comment on anyone named, because we either charged someone or we don't talk about them. And don't read that answer in the context of the name you gave me.

Libby Indictment Press conference link

But the more serious question is --

IF THE FITZGERALD INVESTIGATION HAS ENDED AS PRESIDENT BUSH HAS STATED, WHY WON'T SAMBORN OR FITZGERALD CONFIRM THE PRESIDENT'S ANNOUNCEMENT?

If the President is correct, the question remains -- WHO SHUT THE INVESTIGATION DOWN? I can think of three answers:

1. Fitzgerald shut it down.
2. External Government forces shut it down.
3. Judge Reggie Walton shut it down.

It's obvious from the statements of Luskin, Corallo and President Bush, they want us to believe it was Fitzgerald who shut the investigation down after clearing the entire Bush cabal of wrongdoing.

Please also note that Samborn would not comment last week on the status of Karl Rove even though Rove's attorney and spokesperson claim that Rove was cleared by Fitzgerald.

Various commentators have argued that Samborn's recent "no comments" should be ignored since he almost always answers "no comment."

But "almost" doesn't count except in horeshoes and hand grenades. Samborn's recent refusal to comment on the status of the investigation stands in stark contrast to his comment of October 28, 2005 -- "the investigation will continue..." And since that very specific comment was the only comment with any direct substance Samborn has ever issued, it makes sense to scrutinize carefully his most recent refusal to confirm that the investigation is ongoing.

Additionally, Fitzgerald, through Samborn, has refused to publicly issue any exculpatory comments or evidence pertaining to Rove's status.

Furthermore, as I pointed out last week, Samborn's official comment from October 28, 2005 -- "the investigation will continue" -- has been mysteriously edited out of the CBS News report the comment first appeared in.

And since I wrote that report last week, Samborn's only substantial comment --"the investigation will continue" -- remains mysteriously absent from the CBS News report. And since that quote was attributed to CBS News, there now exists no direct confirmation that Samborn ever said that.

The link provided for the original CBS News report by politicalforecast.net is

CBS News link 1

But when you click through to it, you come to a two part article about the Libby indictment which does not include the quote by Samborn stating that “the investigation will continue”. That quote has been edited out of the article. Click through and you’ll see that the link to the second part of the two part-article, dated October 29, 2005, does not contain the Samborn quote, “the investigation will continue”. When you click the link at the bottom of that page, it brings you to -- not part one of the article you were reading -- but rather a different article dated October 30, 2005.

CBS News link 2

Neither link includes the quote by Samborn, “the investigation will continue.”

It wasn’t just politicalforecast.net who quoted this Samborn statement. You can find reference to it at
Think Progress

as well as Democratic Underground

The quote was also carried by WTKR, but the page has now been removed.


The full WTKR story with the Samborn quote can be found
here


ANALYSIS


If Samborn's October 28, 2005 quote -- "the investigation will continue" -- had never been uttered, it would be difficult to read anything into Samborn's most recent comments.

There appears to be a coordinated effort to distract those examining Samborn's refusal to confirm President Bush's allegation that Fitz has ended the investigation. That effort has also been extended to Samborn's refusal to issue a public exculpation of Rove's status. The greek chorus sounds something like this:

"Samborn always says 'no comment'. Samborn would say 'no comment' even if somebody asked him if his name was Randall?"

But the facts don't support the greek chorus because Samborn was very comfortable stating "the investigation will continue" back in Ocotber 2005.

There must be a reason why Fitzgerald via Samborn has refused to issue a public confirmation that:

A. President Bush was correct when he stated Fitzgerald "ended" the investigation.

B. Rove has been cleared.

Somebody with access needs to ask CBS News why they've rewritten history regarding Samborn's comments of October 28, 2005.

SOMEBODY WITH ACCESS NEEDS TO ASK CBS NEWS WHY THEY'VE REWRITTEN HISTORY REGARDING SAMBORN'S COMMENTS OF OCTOBER 28, 2005.

If the status of this investigation has been terminated by "SEALED" activity, Fitzgerald has NO LEGAL OPTION to comment. That would give Rove, Luskin and Bush the freedom to liberally comment for Fitzgerald. The only way for Fitzgerald to legally give us a hint that something might be rotten in Denmark is to issue a "no comment" where "no comment" did not exist before.

And that's exactly what we have now, a "no comment" from Samborn to the only question he ever offered a substantive answer to in the past.

I want to go on the record and say I believe in Patrick Fitzgerald. Everything available to me as a critical human being which influences my instincts is screaming loud to me that Fitzgerald is an ethical man swimming amongst vipers. And I believe he and Samborn have used the only tool available to them to inform the public that the situation is not as clear cut as Luskin, Rove and Bush would have us believe.

Last week, Samborn issued a "no comment" to the only question he previously made a substantive comment to. And he's refused to confirm Luskin's statements purporting to exonorate Rove as well.

It's incredible that a US Attorney refuses to confirm the President of the United States concerning the question of whether a criminal investigation with grave national security interests has been ended.

I believe it's totally in the realm of possibility, if not probability, that Fitzgerald was shut down by "SEALED" activity. Had Fitzgerald seen this coming, it's possible he may have educated the Grand Jury to their Constitutional powers of PRESENTMENT as opposed to INDICTMENT. It's also alternatively possible Fitzgerald was ordered to end the investigation. And it's possible that both of these scenarios are in play.

If Fitzgerald has been illegally stopped, and that decision is sealed, then Fitz can't speak out. The Bush cabal would know that he couldn't legally speak out and thereafter choose their statements carefully, making it appear as if Fitz has ended the investigation by selective quotation. Of course, Luskin can help to clear all of this up by publishing the purported document which allegedly clears Rove. But so far, Luskin refuses to do that.

If my analysis is on point, I expect Fitzgerald may be awaiting future decisions of Judicial review before he takes considers more drastic options, ie resignation.

Furthermore, all things considered, I'm very disgusted by bloggers who have eaten Luskin's comments up like good little Bush admin. stooges. The Talkleft.com attempt to squelch all dialogue concerning Rove's status is particularly sickening. You fold up the tents and go home dear girl, I'm sticking with Fitz until he officially clears this up.


Citizenspook

PLEASE COPY AND REPOST AT WILL

All Citizenspook reports are made freely available with no copyright attached. Feel free to copy sections or entire articles at will.

P.S. Various readers have commented that when doing a Google search on "citizenspook" the engine sometimes provides only three hits and then on a second attempt 556 hits come up. As of last week there were over 3600 hits. I just confirmed that only 3 hits showed up followed by a second attempt which showed 556.

Furthermore, the blog has been redirected at times to various blank sites.

I find this all very flattering and it inspires me to keep writing.

Coming soon:

An in depth study of the Grand Jury use of Presentments.


Friday, June 16, 2006

JUNE TALKING POINTS FOR CITIZEN SPOOKS


In yesterday's report I was perhaps guilty of cramming too much information into one essay. After seeing the various arguments floating around discussion forums, I noticed that the trolls are trying to focus attention away from the most important aspects of this report. So I'm putting up two talking points today which, if argued properly, will expose trolls from the wrong side of the tracks.

CS talking point # 1. Fitzgerald and Samborn have done an about face.

In October 2005, after the Libby indictment was announced both Fitz and Samborn unequivocally stated that the investigation would continue. As of June 13, 2006 their official position on whether the investigation is ongoing has shifted to "no comment at this time." This particular "no comment" changes the status of the investigation based upon prior direct answers by Samborn.

The big question you need to get out is why Samborn has shifted the official response from

the investigation wll continue

to

no comment on that at this time

C'mon people, something very starange is happening here with this Luskin fax situation. My theory that a run away grand jury may have taken the reins from Fitz is certainly speculation, but SOMETHING has happened which caused Samborn to change his response to questions regarding the ongoing status of the investigation.

People should be examining the tight lipped Samborn's comments because they indicate that something is going on behind the scenes of this investigation which has now caused Samborn to release a very intriguing "no comment" where there "no comment" did not exist before.


CS Talking Point #2: We the People Have Been granted Constitutional Police Powers Over Tyranical Governmental Abuse As Grand Jurors.

Procedural rules and practice cannot overturn the Constitution. The Fifth Amendment grants the power to indict on their own volition to Constituionally empanelled Grand Juries.

Justice Scalia wrote an opinion for the court in 1994 which insisted that the Grand Jury's historical powers have not changed and remain to this day. (See yesterday's post for links and quotes).

Although the Government has cleverly hidden this power from us to shield itself from the oversight we are mandated with, the power still remains -- albeit unused for decades -- despite procedural rules and practices which require a US Attorney to sign Grand Jury indictments.

The Governement trusts us to indict, and even to convict people to death while we sit as jurors. So there is no reason why we should not be able to exercise our Constituionally mandated police powers over the Government when we sit as grand jurors.

Imagine you are on the Fitz Grand Jury armed with what you know about this power. If I were there, I would have lobbied for an indictment regardless of what the prosecutor was up to. Who knows what kind of pressure might be coming down on this prosecutor or any other? It's our duty, once we are empanneled, to weigh in on the evidence.

Why leave it to politicians who have proved themselves e beholden to Presidential and corporate overlords, when we the people have the Constitutional right and duty to do that which our elected officials have failed to do. Refuse to do.

And if the new common procedures of the grand jury system have deprived us of our power, then it's time to take that power back when we are sitting as grand jurors. This is something we can do without the help of legislation. The legislation already exists in the Constitution. All we have to do is exercise it and then see what SCOTUS does about it. Will Scalia choke on his own words.

The choice is yours America. Pass it on.


Citizenspook

PLEASE COPY LINK AND REPOST

Wednesday, June 14, 2006

RANDALL SAMBORN INDICATES FITZGERALD’S PLAME INVESTIGATION MAY HAVE BEEN SHUT DOWN

While yesterday’s Citizenspook headline was clearly labeled as conjecture -- citing no sources -- today’s headline carries an impeccable, unimpeachable source --Randall Samborn -- Fitzgerald’s notoriously tight lipped press officer.

In a political atmosphere run amok with pundits in constant chatter mode, Samborn has become infamous for his pat phrase “no comment.” But as you will soon see, some “no comments” are much bigger than others, especially when the same question asked yesterday of Samborn in a CBS News report elicited a complete reversal by the Special Counsel’s Office.

This is rare history. Randall Samborn has issued a statement which tells us something we did not already know before he opened his unusually tight lips.

Before we address that Samborn comment, we’ll examine his other comment from yesterday:

“Mr. Fitzgerald's spokesman, Randall Samborn, said he would not comment on Mr. Rove's status.”

That’s not the big one, but it does raise questions many bloggers and reporters have begun asking today. If Rove is no longer a “target” or “subject” in the Plame leak case, why doesn’t Samborn or Fitzgerald just tell the people the simple truth? It appears that the truth is not simple.

The lack of confirmation from the Special Counsel’s Office regarding Luskin and Corallo’s statements certainly keeps us all in the dark about what the hell is really going down here. But that analysis is not the main topic of this report.

Still, we all recall that quote from yesterday, yet tracking it down online has proven a difficult task. Here is the link I found through Google’s news search engine

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=
org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&ie=
UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&tab=wn&q=samborn+rove+status+june+13&btnG=Search+News

When you click it, you will see the quote I highlighted above as a caption for the actual New York Times report by David Johnston and Jim Rutenberg, published: June 13, 2006. But when you click through to the actual New York Times article, you will not find that quote. It appears to have been edited out. And this will be a recurring theme in this article.

RANDAL SAMBORN DOES AN ABOUT FACE

OK, here it is, and most of you have probably come across it, so please suspend judgment until we go back a few months for the punchline:

Fitzgerald met with chief U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan before he notified Rove. Hogan has been overseeing the grand juries in the CIA leak case. Fitzgerald's spokesman,

Randall Samborn, declined comment. Asked if the CIA leak investigation is still continuing, Samborn said, "I'm not commenting on that as well at this time."


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/13/ap/politics/mainD8I7C7N00.shtml

This is a blockbuster quote. You would think that if Fitzgerald were still investigating the Plame leak, his press officer would tell the public this is an ongoing investigation. And if Fitz had completed his investigation, one would expect Samborn to say that the investigation is complete.

After all, the investigation must be open or closed, right? I’ve never heard of an investigation that’s neither open nor closed. Have you?

That quote by Samborn certainly seemed strange to me and I mentioned it in my speculative report yesterday (more on that below). But yesterday, I downplayed it in my mind because it’s Samborn’s standard pat response, “No comment.”

NOT!

Today, Samborn’s refusal to confirm or deny whether the investigation remained open haunted me.

The question involves the status of a very public case where people in high Government positions are being accused of treasonous activity, espionage even. Recall that at Fitzgerald’s press conference after Libby’s indictment, Fitz indicated he was considering the Espionage Act to prosecute anybody found responsible for the Plame leak.

[Citizenspook was out in front of the MSM and the blogosphere in our detailed analysis of the Espionage Act -- not the Intelligence Identities Protection Act – as the controlling law for the Plame leak investigation.]

The standard Samborn “no comment” was not appropriate at all for the question asked. Do we have an investigation into who leaked Plame’s name or not? Even for Samborn, “no comment” seems far too elusive and incendiary. This is the kind of “no comment” which raises more questions and problems for the public than a simple answer to the question.

So I looked back in time to see if Samborn had ever been asked this question before to see what his response had been in the past. And what I found blew my mind.

Samborn was asked this question in the past, and his answer yesterday signifies a complete change, an about face has been documented. It now appears -- based upon a thorough review of Samborn’s prior statements -- that the Special Prosecutor’s Office does not know if the investigation will continue. The incredible questions this raises will be addressed below, but first we will examine Samborn’s prior official answers.

From a CBS News Report on October 28, 2005:

Rove’s lawyer said he was told by the prosecutor’s office that investigators had “made no decision about whether or not to bring charges” and would continue their probe into Rove’s conduct.

Fitzgerald’s spokesman, Randall Samborn, said the investigation will continue but with a new grand jury. The term of the current grand jury cannot be extended beyond today.

http://www.politicalforecast.net/2005/10/28/rove-still-under-investigation-by-fitzgerald/#comments

There you have it, back in October 2005, Samborn and Fitzgerald (at the Libby Indictment press conference) both unequivocally stated that the investigation was ongoing.

As of yesterday, the official word from Fitzgerald’s office – via Samborn -- is:

Asked if the CIA leak investigation is still continuing, Samborn said, "I'm not commenting on that as well at this time."

Samborn -- and by proxy Fitzgerald -- have made an official about face. The status of the investigation is now officially in limbo. And I submit to you that neither Samborn nor Fitzgerald are ignorant to the significance of this carefully worded reversal of stated policy pertaining to the status of the investigation.

It just gets stranger and stranger, doesn’t it. You have no idea.

Notice that the above quote taken from October 28, 2005 is attributed to CBS News but the link I’ve provided is to politicalforecast.net . I would love to have provided you a link to the actual CBS news quote. It was originally attributed to CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen.

The link provided for the original CBS New report by politicalforecast.net is

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/28/politics/main990068_page2.shtml

But when you click through to it, you come to a two part article about the Libby indictment which does not include the quote by Samborn stating that “the investigation will continue”. That quote has been edited out of the article. Click through and you’ll see that the link to the second part of the two part article, dated October 29, 2005, does not contain the Samborn quote, “the investigation will continue”. When you click the link at the bottom of that page, it brings you to -- not part one of the article you were reading -- but rather a different article dated October 30, 2005.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/28/politics/main990068.shtml

Neither link includes the quote by Samborn, “the investigation will continue.”

It wasn’t just politicalforecast.net who quoted that Samborn statement. You can find reference to it at Think Progress…

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/10/28/new-grand-jury-will-continue-investigation/

as well as Democratic Underground.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1884715

The quote was also carried by WTKR, but the page has now been removed.

http://www.wtkr.com/global/story.asp?s=4042769&ClientType=Printable

The full WTKR story with the Samborn quote can be found here…

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.republicans/browse_thread/thread/6e64d332b62cc65c/fcc732b9a1e98d0b?lnk=st&q=samborn+fitzgerald+%22investigation+will%22&rnum=1&hl=en#fcc732b9a1e98d0b

Why have these quotes been edited out of these major media publications? It will be interesting to see how fast those quotes return to the stories quoted above.


WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN?

It means something very strange went down in May, 2006.

Let’s see what we know:

  1. We know Fitzgerald’s Office has done an about face with regards to the ongoing status of this investigation.

  1. We know that Fitzgerald has not confirmed or denied Luskin and Corallo’s statements concerning Rove being cleared.

  1. We know Fitzgerald cannot comment about any activity by the Grand Jury which has been sealed by the court.

  1. We know that within three business days of Friday, May 12th 2006 the “Sealed vs. Sealed” entry was added to the District Court’s Pacer system by Judge Reggie Walton who is presiding over the Libby indictment. According to some excellent detective work by Marie26 at the Democratic Underground discussion board, we know that Case No. 06-CR-128 was probably entered on May 16 or 17th. Since the 17th was a Wed. and the Grand Jury meets on Wed., that date is more likely than the 16th.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1406622#1410652

5. We know that Rove’s spokesperson, Mark Corallo, when he worked as a press officer for Ashcroft at DOJ, was no stranger to the use of “Sealed vs Sealed”. See

Link


WHAT WE DON’T KNOW

We don’t’ know if “Sealed vs. Sealed” is a charge against Rove.

Truthout.org claims to have a reliable source informing them that “Sealed vs. Sealed” was an indictment returned by the Fitzgerald Grand Jury. I have no way of verifying that because there is no official information available about that case. It is completely sealed.

Since it carries the “CR” designation, it must be a criminal case, not a civil case or a motion regarding news sources like Cooper and Miller. Those carry different designations than “CR”.

CONCLUSIONS

If Luskin and Corallo can quote the fax sent by Fitzgerald, than that document is not sealed and they are legally free to show it to the world. If that fax completely exonerated Rove with no legal implications against the story they have told the world, then one would expect them to print that important exculpatory document. The have refused to show the world and until they do, the entire scenario DESERVES to be examined.

We must examine it in light of Randal Samborn’s strange statements regarding the status of Rove and the entire investigation. If Rove’s people and Fitzgerald are on the same pages, we expect a communication from Fitzgerald to that effect. If Luskin has a document from Fitzgerald that he is legally allowed to quote from, then he is also allowed to show that document.

But he won’t. And Fitz won’t back up those statements.

And Samborn won’t even tell us if the investigation is ongoing. Adding this strange behavior to the existence of “Sealed vs Sealed”, we must assume there is something very unusual about the Plame investigation now that wasn’t strange before May 2006.

For the sake of argument, let’s assume now that Jason Leopold was not lying and was not being lied to. I am not saying I believe him. I have no way of knowing if his claims are true. But for the sake of argument, I want to assume Leopold, Samborn and Luskin are all telling the truth.

What scenario would allow them all to be telling the truth? There may be others, but the scenario I speculated upon yesterday -- a runaway Grand Jury may have returned charges without Fitzgerald having sought them or signed them -- allows all of the parties to be telling the truth.

If that were the case then charges may actually exist and may be the “pending case” Luskin referred to.

These might be the same charges Leopold became aware of. The investigation may have been put on hold due to the unique Constitutional issue such charges would cause. And that might also explain Samborn’s inability to confirm whether the investigation is ongoing.

If the Grand Jury returned charges which were not requested by Fitzgerald, such charges would not be signed by him. In fact, according to Constitutional law, the Grand Jury could eject Fitz from the Court and bring whatever charges they like without him. Such charges might read:

Grand Jury for the District of Washington D.C. vs. Karl Rove

And in that case, the charges may have been sealed until Judge Walton decides how to handle this unique Constitutional exercise of citizen authority.

I have seen various commentary about yesterday’s Citizenspook report alleging that the runaway Grand Jury scenario is not possible since lower courts have held that a prosecution cannot move forward without the signature of a U.S. Attorney. I submit that any lower court ruling which states that is in direct contradiction with the Constitution.

Neither the Supreme Court nor Congress has ever removed the right of Grand Jurors to return charges without a US Attorney’s acquiescence. Far from it.

Please read my previous report on the Constitutional independent authority of Grand Jurors:

TREASONGATE: The Federal Grand Jury, FOURTH BRANCH of the US Government

Link

Justice Scalia, delivering the opinion of the court, laid down the law of the land:

"'[R]ooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history," Hannah v. Larche, 363
U.S. 420, 490 (1960) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result), the grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It "`is a constitutional fixture in its own right.'" United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1312 (CA9 1977) (quoting Nixon v. Sirica, 159 U.S. App. D.C. 58, 70, n. 54, 487 F.2d 700, 712, n. 54 (1973)), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 (1977). ' "

Furthermore,

Justice Powell, in United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974), stated:

"The institution of the grand jury is deeply rooted in Anglo-American history. [n3] …The grand jury's historic functions survive to this day. Its responsibilities continue to include both the determination whether there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed and the protection of citizens against unfounded criminal prosecutions. Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 686-687 (1972)."


Is it possible that Fitzgerald had the patriotic audacity to educate the Grand Jury as to their power to return indictments without his approval?

Is it possible that Fitzgerald anticipated interference by forces in the DOJ loyal to the people he is investigating?

Is it possible that behind the scenes the very fabric of our citizen powers to investigate the Government as Grand Jurors is under the final assault of a Government hell bent on destroying the safeguards of our delicate system of checks and balances?

Is it possible that Fitzgerald has spoken to us through Randall Samborn by sending an S.O.S. hidden in the simple quotation, “No comment”?

There are other possibilities, but none of them allow for all of the players to be telling the truth. I don’t believe Luskin and Corallo would say anything to the public which Fitzgerald could slam them on. Not a chance. Corallo is ex DOJ and Luskin is too skilled to do anything that stupid or unethical. So we MUST assume that Luskin and Corallo have parsed their words within the law and facts.

We don’t have to assume that Leopold and Truthout.org are telling the truth, but all things considered, I believe they have real sources or else they had to know they were committing professional suicide. Their sources could be misleading them, but we have the unique confirmation from major media reporters like David Schuster, and Chris Matthews who also believed Rove had been or was going to be indicted at about the same time Leopold first said that they were.

So if the Grand Jury acted on their own, without the signature of Fitzgerald, then Luskin’s statement that Fitzgerald doesn’t anticipate seeking charges could be true even though charges are pending against Rove. And if the “pending case” Luskin referred to is actually a charge against Rove, then his statement in this regard is also true.

THE PROBLEM WITH MY ANALYSIS

The problem then is what to do with Corallo and Luskin’s insistence that Rove has not been indicted which is a totally different animal then whether or not Fitz “anticipates seeking charges.” If the Grand Jury returned charges against Rove on their own volition, how can team Rove’s direct, unqualified insistence that Rove was never indicted square with my theory? An excellent question. Good thing I have the perfect answer. It’s called

PRESENTMENT

From TENNESSEE v. JEFFREY DWIGHT WHALEY:

“The grand jury has the power to act independentlyof the court and the district attorney

General by instituting a criminal action by presentment. State v. Superior Oil, Inc., 875 S.W.2d 658, 661 (Tenn. 1994). In practice, the district attorney general is informed of the offense, prepares the appropriate charge, and delivers it to the grand jury where it is signed by all members of the grand jury. State v. Hudson, 487 S.W.2d 672, 675 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1972) (citing State v. Darnal, 20 Tenn. 290 (1839)). A bill of indictment, on the other hand, is sanctioned by the district attorney general and signed only by the foreperson and not the other members of the grand jury. State v. Davidson, 103 S.W.2d 22, 23-24 (Tenn. 1937). “

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:RO7mNaBw1scJ:www.tsc.state.tn.us/OPINIONS/TCCA/PDF/004/whaleyjd.pdf+%22presentment+v+indictment%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a

Obviously, Tennessee law does not apply. I only cite the case to show the difference between INDICTMENTS and PRESENTMENTS. The Bill of Rights mentions both. And the Grand Jury has the Constitutional authority to return either, but as our system developed certain habits of procedure, charges brought exclusively by the Grand Jury became regularly classified as PRESENTMENTS as opposed to charges brought directly by the U.S. Attorney which are commonly referred to as INDICTMENTS.

Somebody with clout needs to ask Luskin if Rove is the subject of any PRESENTMENTS by the Fitzgerald Grand Jury. Because if the Grand Jury returned charges in the form of PRESENTMENTS, then Luskin and Corallo could steadfastly deny that any INDICTMENTS have been returned against Rove.

These people are professionals. If you give them wiggle room they will use it like a skilled Samba dancer.

Citizenspook

PLEASE COPY LINK AND REPOST EVERYWHERE