1. The "Sealed vs. Sealed" matter.
2. Luskin's carefully worded statement from this morning.
3. The carefully worded statements of Randal Samborn, Fitzgerald's press officer.
4. The strange case of Jason Leopold
5. The Constitutitional grant of authority to Grand Jurors to indict on their own volition without requiring a US Attorney "seek charges".
Yesterday, Jason Leopold, who alleged back in May that Rove had already been indicted, revisited this allegation by examining the strange indictment returned by the same Grand Jury working with Fitzgerald which was sealed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia under the bizarre heading of "Sealed Vs. Sealed,"
The following is taken from http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/061206Z.shtml
Four weeks ago, during the time when we reported that White House political adviser Karl Rove was indicted for crimes related to his role in the leak of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson, the grand jury empanelled in the case returned an indictment that was filed under seal in US District Court for the District of Columbia under the curious heading of Sealed vs. Sealed.
As of Friday afternoon that indictment, returned by the grand jury the week of May 10th, remains under seal - more than a month after it was handed up by the grand jury.
The case number is "06 cr 128." On the federal court's electronic database, "06 cr 128" is listed along with a succinct summary: "No further information is available."
We have not seen the contents of the indictment "06 cr 128". But the fact that this indictment was returned by the grand jury hearing evidence in the CIA leak case on a day that Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald met with the grand jury raised a number of questions about the identity of the defendant named in the indictment, whether it relates to the leak case, and why it has been under seal for a month under the heading Sealed vs. Sealed.
I can't speak for anybody else, but I have never seen another case titled "Sealed vs Sealed" so this by itself is VERY strange. Then couple it with the fact that it was the same Grand Jury empanelled for the Fitzgerald investigation. Judge Reggie Walton presided and it was returned -- as Leopold pointed out -- on a day that Fitzgerald also met with those same Grand Jurors.
All of that raises massive red flags. Some have argued that the case might refer to a war between Fitzgerald and the DOJ. This was specifically floated out by a Daily Kos diary http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/5/21/184052/881
as well as here http://my.opera.com/prosperingbear/blog/show.dml/277182.
However, this is not possible under the facts reported by Leopold because such a filing would not be the subject of an indictment by the Grand Jurors. If Fitzgerald filed a complaing against DOJ for trying to remove him then no Grand Jurors would have been involved. Judge walton would make that decision not the grnad jurors.
So what is "Sealed vs. Sealed"?
Now let's review the two ways a Criminal Indictment can come down under the Constitution:
1. A US Attorney may request and indictment be returned by the Grand Jurors which is then signed by the US Attorney.
2. A Grand Jry may return and indictment without the request or signature of a US Attorney.
Under number 2 above, such activity constitutes a "Runaway Grand Jury", although that disparages the true purpose of Grand Jurors as a fourth branch of checks and balances.
For an in depth study of this issue see my previous report
TREASONGATE: The Federal Grand Jury, FOURTH BRANCH of the US Government
Now let's examine those statements by Luskin.
To answer that let's look at Luskin's carefully worded commentary:
"On June 12, 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove...
In deference to the pending case, we will not make any further public statements about the subject matter of the investigation."
If the Grand Jurors returned the indictment without Fitzgerald's signature, than it may very well be true that Rove was indicted but Fitzgerald is not the one who indicted him.
And if Rove was indicted as follows:
"Grand Jury for the District of Columbia vs Karl Rove" than the "pendign indictment" referred to by Luskin is explained. If Luskin was not reffering to an indictment against his client then he shold be able to unequivocally state, "Karl Rove has not been indicted".
Notice that Luskin's letter mentions both:
1. The pending case and
2. The investigation
The pending vase might very well be "Sealed vs Sealed". Luskin can clear this up.
Fitzgerald cannot comment on "Sealed vs Sealed" and that may explain why Samborn will not comment on Rove's status according to
Furthermore, Samborn will not even comment on whether the investigation is ongoing.
And all of this might indicate that there is a war on to stop Fitzgerald, that he saw the pressure coming and enlightened the Grand Jurors as to their Constitutional ability to indict on their own without him. His hands may have been illegally tied by the Court and his superiors. [Revisit my previous posting on this topic.]
If that happened we are facing a Constitutional challenge to the valdity of the Grand Jury's power and right to bring charges where they see a crime despite the Government's intention to impede them. And if this is what happened, then Fitzgerald and Samborn have no other option but to say, "No comment."
And TPM Muckraker is reporting that Luskin will not comment on how he was "formally advised" Fitzgerald. http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000890.php
Please repost everywhere.