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

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.

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

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.

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

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

4. We know that within three business days of Friday, May 12^th 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 17^th. Since the 17^th was a Wed. and the Grand Jury meets on Wed., that date is more likely than the 16^th.

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

STRONG INDICATIONS ROVE HAS BEEN INDICTED BY RUNAWAY GRAND JURY IN "SEALED VS. SEALED"

I'll begin by telling you straight up, Citizenspook has no sources for this headline. But I believe it is the most likely explanation for all of the anomolies, strange quotes and secretive actions invoved with the official Special Counsel investigation by Patrick Fitzgerald. The following argument is my analysis of the LAW and FACTS. Unlike previous disserations by this author, the following is short and firmly based upon the evidence. I am attorney so let me argue the case based on the following mysterious indicators:

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.

CR signifies a criminal case.

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

http://citizenspook.blogspot.com/2005/08/treasongate-federal-grand-jury-fourth.html

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

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000888.php

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

Citizenspook

Please repost everywhere.