Will Rove Testify?

[Roon]

an. 26, 2007 - White House anxiety is mounting over the prospect that top officials—including deputy chief of staff Karl Rove and counselor Dan Bartlett-may be forced to provide potentially awkward testimony in the perjury and obstruction trial of Lewis (Scooter) Libby.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16832257/site/newsweek/

[Olney Blue]

1. I wonder what will happen when he is on the record with the "leak"

[fNord]

2. more of this:

:toast:

[Olney Blue]

3. Wheels of justice?

:toast:

[C_U_L8R]

4. Will he just plead the fifth?

Seems that if he doesn't counter Libby
it's all gonna land in his lap.
This is heavy duty intrigue.

[w4rma]

5. Will Rove have a choice? (nt)

[La_Fourmi_Rouge]

6. Fitz doesn't need Rove to convict Libby.

But down the road, Rove might help to nail Cheney and the puny prez.

[rodeodance]

8. just the idea of Rove in the hot seat is nice to see!

[H2O Man]

9. Right.

It's interesting that Mr. Fitzgerald is not calling Karl Rove or Dick Cheney to testify.

[DemReadingDU]

10. couple questions, please

1. Who will Fitz call as witnesses? It seems like the defense is calling people who actually are helping the prosecution. In a trial, aren't all the defense witnesses called first, then followed by the witnesses for the prosecution?

2. Do u think Rove was granted immunity, similar to Ari Fleisher?

[H2O Man]

11. The prosecution

goes first. The three witnesses called so far are all prosecution witnesses. On Monday, Ari Fleischer will be called by Mr. Fitzgerald. After he does his examination, the defnse attorneys do their cross-exam.

The defense is not required to put on a case. And, of course, a defendant is not required to testify; if the defendant opts not to testify, the judge instructs the jury that they are not to draw any conclusions based on the defendant's not testifying. (Every juror will, at some level, draw some conclusion; it's like when an attorney blurts something out, and the judge instructs the jury to ignore it.)

In terms of the defense, you are correct -- any witness they call has the potential to both help and harm their case. As the trial progresses, they decide on who they need to call on to testify. They do not want to call too many people, nor someone who causes significantly more harm than good.

Mr. Fitzgerald had said back in the spring of '06 that he did not anticipate calling Karl Rove. That, of course, surprised a lot of people, including the defense attorneys. And towards the end of '06, Mr. Fitzgerald said he was not planning to call VP Cheney. Team Libby immediately announced they were calling Cheney.

There are a lot of reasons for these decisions. Some involve what line of questioning is allowed in a cross-examination. In general, it has to be conected to the evidence brought out on direct examination. There are a few exceptions, most notably in regard to "hostile witnesses." In those situations, I believe an attorney is allowed to ask questions that would normally get tossed for being "leading."

There may be as many as six people who were granted some degree of immunity in return for their cooperation with the grand jury investigation. It is possible that we will learn of more than Mr. Fleischer. Should Karl Rove be called by Team Libby, and they expose what had gone on in his FBI interviews and then his numerous grand jury appearances -- and in the meetings between Luskin and the prosecutor -- I think that a lot of people will be pleased.

[DemReadingDU]

12. Thank you

There are so many little dots to connect. We are fortunate to have you and all of your knowledge to explain these things for us. It should be an interesting week at the trial.

[mmonk]

13. I think he already is using Rove and others effectively.

I think he got plenty from him and others and the defense is beginning to realize how much they have spilled the beans already.

[mikelgb]

7. yes it is the question of the night:

will the pig squeal?