Question...on Rove indictment..

[1956]

Now, if it's true that he is actually indicted, or has been indicted, and from what I've read here today is that the media was told not to report it, isn't that some kind of obstruction in itself...the dummying up process for something that is supposed to be public knowledge? I didn't think the kind of things that came out of Fitz's office are the kind of things that could be dummyed up! Along that same line...I was wondering if Fitz ever rec'vd threats. They probably realize they really can't get away with that kind of stuff with him. Didn't Fitz deal with the mob in Chicago? What a tough and mighty little darling he is.

[ShaneGR]

1. The media wasn't told anything...

The second Rove is indicted, if he actually does end up getting indicted, it will be splashed on every home page and flashed on every 24 news service in the Western World. The fact is, he HASNT BEEN INDICTED AND IT'S STUPID TO POST STORIES SAYING HE HAS. Let this be a lesson to the Blogospere. Personally I think he was served with a target letter on Friday, not an indictment.

[1956]

3. Welll....ExCUUUUUUSE ME!!!

Maybe I'm mistaken, but there was another thread here that said it all!

[ShaneGR]

11. Regardless, he hasnt been indicted

You can take your tinfoil hat off. Prosecutors dont spend multiple hours at the defenses office serving indictments. They don't tend to give targets "24 business hours to get their affairs in order." Like I said, my guess is Fitz was serving notice that Rove is an official target. Besides, Rove participated in an event on the Hill today. People who know a pending indictment is coming don't tend to seek publicity.

But who really knows what is actually going on?

[robbedvoter]

4. yeah, cuz they are so reliable - especially with anti-BFEE info!

Great that you have more faith in MSM than Truthout. After all, they are..."librul" - right? Right?

[AlCzervik]

12. but what about the excellent work they did in the run up to the war???

without them there would have been no war!!
:evilgrin:

[havocmom]

6. So, you're the one with x-ray vision

and can see through sealed papers?

Ever hear of sealed indictment?

[ShaneGR]

13. Rove wouldn't get a sealed indictment unannounced...

Too big of a case, doesn't work that way. There is no coverup, the people who reported he'd been on Friday were either lied to or incompetent as journalists until I see a report that Rove was indicted AND it was originally served last week. Until then, I just see some writers on a fishing expedition. Sorry, tinfoil hats don't work so well sometimes. BTW, I personally REALLY WANT Rove to get indicted.

[robbedvoter]

2. It's obviously business as usual for MSM

It happened in the primaries daily (or at least that was when I paid notice).
Say, Clark was giving a major speech on Iraq - W was blabbing banalities on Iraq - coincidentally at the same time - guess who was covered?
or bigger news; when the Clintons were exhonerated on Whitewaters - the Pillsburry Report I think -did you read, see or hear about it anywhere? (I only know from reading the Hunting of the President)

Don't forget this:


''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And
while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll
act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and
that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you,
all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''
Bush aide to Ron Suskind

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

5. But we are talking about Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald, the man that posts all

court filings up at his site. He hasn't. Does this mean that he's being kept under lock and key like the MSM? I think much higher of Fitzgerald than to believe that.

[havocmom]

7. What part of 'sealed indictment' would be allowed to be posted on the web

At least entertain the possibility that not all is public record just now.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

15. Why would there be a sealed indictment?

From firedoglake

http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/2005/10/untying-few-legal-knots.html

A sealed indictment is one which is kept from being publicly disclosed for a time, until the defendant has been arrested and arraigned before a Federal Magistrate Judge. Sealed indictments are often used in cases where there is an ongoing investigation (Such as drug cases, where you work up the chain from the small dealers to the bigger ones, but you don't want to tip anyone off that you are investigating their network if, say, you've flipped a few low level people and are using them to do controlled buys up the chain.) and/or you have defendants that you are afraid will flee your jurisdiction before they are apprehended. But they may also be used for other reasons, including security and other considerations, if approved by the presiding judge.


In the case of an ongoing investigation, I would think that others being investigated know that they are in regard to this case.

As to fleeing jurisdiction? I don't think that applies either.

Then there the last, which does seem to give great latitude.

But it's still hard for me to believe that Fitzgerald would just be sitting on this.


All I can say is, time will tell.

[havocmom]

17. Sealed indictments could also be used to squeeze mid-sized fish

into giving up bigger fish for plea bargin.

And since Fitz's track record shows a smart man who generally uses #3 and #2 guys to help him nail #1, it isn't hard for me to believe he would be sitting on it.

What I find hard to believe is the energy people spend trying to argue that things are just peachy for Rove.

psst, wanna buy some call records? NSA and FBI have them, why not you too? Now THERE'S something to get vocal about.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

18. havocmom

psst, wanna buy some call records? NSA and FBI have them, why not you too? Now THERE'S something to get vocal about.

You're 100% right about that. It seems this issue is being lost in the din. Has there even been one post today talking about how the Senate and House Intelligence (I use that term loosely) met today to sell our rights away?

BTW...I called my Congresswoman's office, a staunch Bushbot, and asked her if it was time for Impeachment, once again.....

[robbedvoter]

8. The updates on that website have not been very prompt

I believe Fitzgerald has his own timetable for his own reasons.

[1956]

10. I suspect that as well

I'm hoping there is some really big fish to go along with it, however hubby thinks they are like Teflon-nuttin sticks to them!!!

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

16. Do you remember when he indicted Libby? He went into court and came out

and gave his statement. At the same time, the court papers were put on line. There was such transparancy throughout. Maybe that's why this thing about a possible sealed indictment isn't sitting well with me.

BTW! I love your Dove!

[1956]

9. certainly

that is something to think about.

[DemReadingDU]

14. waiting for Fitz

he has all the answers!