Indictments when? Grand Jury timing.

[longship]

It's been about two years that they've had the Rove case. A lot of substantive information has leaked out about the case during the past month. But the grand jury has until October before their term expires.

I'd like to put forth the following questions:

If you are the grand jury, and you have a good case, how much longer do you investigate to get a better case?

With all of DC on vacation do you hand down indictments now? Or do you wait for everybody to return in September?

Is the grand jury likely to be worried about the politics of the case? In other words, with the Repugs firmly in control of both Houses of Congress, the House is not likely to impeach, and the Senate is not likely to hold hearings. Does this influence the grand jury in the timing of indictments?

How does the prospect of more leaks influence the investigation? The timing of indictments?

Just some idle speculations for a Sunday afternoon.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. Grand juries

can be very independent of politics. If memory serves, some of the grand jurors in the Watergate era wanted to walk down to the WH and make a citizen's arrest. The SP is in charge of timing, not the jury, I think. I hope that the indictments come down soon, though.

[Moochy]

2. No Indictments possible, but unlikely

but.. still possible for october to come and go, and for fitzgerald to merely return to Chicago. He's not an INDEPENDENT prosecutor, and so he doesnt have to "indict a ham sandwich"
Just throwing it out there, as another possiblity with regards to timing of indictments.

On Washington Week, I heard this was unlikely due to the jail time and the perjury that is likely happening in the case.


(on edit fixed my mixup with independent vs special prosecutors)

[longship]

3. I believe that Fitz *is* a special prosecutor.

He was appointed by AssCrack, who then promptly recused himself. (If I remember correctly.)

But I believe his term expires in Oct with the grand jury.

[tblue37]

5. He is a Special Prosecutor.

What he is not is an "Independent Prosecutor," which is what Ken Starr was.

[Moochy]

7. Right sorry bout that Independent must indict

*Independent* prosecutors were required to indict but we don't have them anymore.

[H2O Man]

4. There are 4 options:

(1) They could make a decision now.
(2) They can wait until October.
(3) They can end investigations in October, but still take a long time to decide on returning indictments, and go well into 2006.
(4) Fitzgerald can request a 6-9 month extension for the investigation.

[Moochy]

6. Sub option for 3

3.b) very unlikely since miller is in jail, and perjury has probably happened, Fitzgerald could return to chicago and NOT file indictments.

I heard this option on Washington Week last night, and none thought that this would happen, since criminality must have occurred to warrant judith miller's jailing on contempt.

[H2O Man]

8. Miller's position

isn't key. No matter what option he takes, he has separate choices with her. The one being considered most likely is criminal contempt of court, for which she has literally no defense. Her status is not a serious factor.

I don't think that anyone can say with any certainty which option will come in to play. But, it is fun to look at all of them, and think what each could mean.

[kevsand]

11. I don't think that's what they meant.

They weren't referring to Miller's status as a factor, but rather as a possible indicator of the seriousness of possible charges. The judges who agreed to her being compelled to testify mentioned this in their rulings. You are correct that she is not a factor in the actual decision to indict, but it may be a hint that there probably will be indictments.

[Moochy]

17. Thanks for clarifying that.

Thanks for clarifying that, thats my understanding of what the NYT reporter was talking about (Annie Kornbluth?) on Washington Week.

[flyarm]

19. i read that fitzgerald is looking to change judith millers

civil contempt to criminal contempt..well for him to do that he has to have some juicy stuff!!

[NeoConsSuck]

12. If there is an extension..

would Miller stay in jail?

[hang a left]

13. I think she could.

They probably have to formally compel her to testify again. Then if she still won't testify, the Judge could decide to jail her longer. Or he could decide that continued confinement will not induce her to testify.

[sattahipdeep]

9. What is the Point? (Special Counsel)

In December 2003, he was named Special Counsel to investigate the alleged disclosure
of the identity of a purported employee of the Central Intelligence Agency.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/aboutus/patrickjfizgerald.html


Patrick J. Fitzgerald began serving as the United States Attorney for the
Northern District of Illinois on September 1, 2001. Mr. Fitzgerald was initially
appointed on an interim basis by Attorney General John Ashcroft before being
nominated by President George W. Bush. The United States Senate confirmed his
nomination by unanimous consent on October 23, 2001, and President Bush signed
his commission on October 29, 2001.

Mr. Fitzgerald served on the Attorney General's Advisory Committee
from 2001-2005, and he remains Chair of that Committee's sub-committee on terrorism.
He is also a member of the President's Corporate Fraud Task Force.

:shrug:

[ChairmanAgnostic]

10. This guy will have indicted

every corrupt Dem and GOPer in Illinois, given time.

It is a joy to watch.
He will not be swayed by politics on the Plame leak. TO the contrary, the Neo CONs may have to drop the "neo" from their name.

[hang a left]

14. I wondered that myself about all the new leaks and their accuracy

or their inaccuracy might piss off the jury. I am sure they have all been asked to not read the paper or watch the news but who knows they aren't sequestered.

I can also run rown the road with my roll of foil and imagine scenarios like those in the movie "Runaway Jury."

[longship]

15. ROFL - Runaway jury.

I don't think lawyers have that control over a grand jury selection. I think they are vetted by a judge who would be very careful. The main thing is whether they could serve for months without hardship and whether they would be reasonably impartial.

[longship]

16. BTW, Watergate Grand Jury Indicted on Friday.

It was March 1, 1974, a Friday, when the Watergate grand jury indicted seven Nixon aides and in a secret memo (which didn't remain secret for more than a few minutes), named Nixon as an unindicted co-conspirator.

At that time the House was already four weeks into their inquiries for what would become the formal impeachment proceedings in early May.

The timing of the Watergate scandal is very important right now. I find that we are very much behind the eight ball on *. The contrast is important. Either something very, very big has to break, or we may be looking at fighting this for two more years. Even if the Fitz and the gj indicts now there may be little that will happen to * until Jan, 2007, 17 mos from now.

On the other hand, I believe that Cheney can be indicted without impeachment and removal. After all, Agnew was indicted and plead nolo contendre to felony tax evasion *before* he resigned as VEEP. So Cheney could be the linchpin to getting the top of the ticket caught up in this. If he is indicted, could shrubby still get off? I wouldn't bet on it.

[wli]

18. if there were a secret memo indicting the neocons, would we know now?

[longship]

21. Indictments are public records

You can't indict somebody and keep it secret, can you?

To my knowledge, the only person who cannot be indicted is the President. When the GJ indicted Haldemann, Ehrlichman, etc. Nixon was named as an unindicted co-cospirator. That leaked out with the hour of the main indictments.

I think if * were named, the press would know about it quickly.

[flyarm]

20. heck if cheney and rove are gone ...

who's lap will* sit on to testify?? after all their fingers are up his ass and all he does is move his lips...