What’s really interesting is how the entire Republican party seems to be lashing itself to Rove. I think this tells us two things. First, that we were right about how powerful and influential Rove is. They’re willing to risk the whole shebang to protect him. Secondly, that they’re afraid that some of this might stick.
1: “But Luskin has now told that National Review that Fitzgerald identified Rove, among others, as a “subject.”
In grand-jury talk a subject — unlike an ordinary witness — is someone who faces possible indictment.
“
This is the first I’d read that Rove is indeed a “subject” of the investigation. That is important and good news.
2: “And investigative reporter Murray Waas blogs today that his sources tell him that columnist Robert Novak — the first person to publish Plame’s identity — has in fact spoken at length to prosecutors.
That would explain why Novak isn’t in jail.”
I have seen this stated a few times now. And yes, it explains why Novak is not in jail… a previously baffling situation. It also explains why Rove would have freed Cooper to talk. If Novak has already spilled the beans then there is nothing to lose there.
“For the record, according to the United States Attorneys’ Manual : “A ‘target’ is a person as to whom the prosecutor or the grand jury has substantial evidence linking him or her to the commission of a crime and who, in the judgment of the prosecutor, is a putative defendant. . . .
“A ‘subject’ of an investigation is a person whose conduct is within the scope of the grand jury’s investigation.”
Subjects, unlike ordinary witnesses, face possible indictment. So, for instance, targets and subjects get their rights read to them before they testify before grand juries.”
The head of the NYT editorial board is a woman. Since she got the job a year or two ago, their editorials have been much more interesting, real-world, less ivory tower.
Didn’t mean you were wrong, Leezy, just that it might not have been written by a man. Or, it might have been. I’m just glad that we can no longer assume such a visible journalistic post is all old boy, all the time.
Hey, no worries. Actually there wasn’t a byline or I missed it. I certainly hope it was written by a woman. I thought it was an excellent editorial and in a major paper to boot.
MR. McCLELLAN: I think we’ve exhausted discussion on this the last couple of days.
Q You haven’t even scratched the surface.
Q It hasn’t started.
Also, according to this diary over at dKos, CNN was maybe going to show this? Down in the comments though someone else says that it wasn’t on C-Span. So I guess either it was on CNN or people were watching the whitehouse feed?
I loved it when they asked him about Fitzgerld telling them not to talk about it and just when did he tell them that and he would not even answer that question. My question is will the press keep at it or not?
What’s really interesting is how the entire Republican party seems to be lashing itself to Rove. I think this tells us two things. First, that we were right about how powerful and influential Rove is. They’re willing to risk the whole shebang to protect him. Secondly, that they’re afraid that some of this might stick.
So you haven’t seen anything about today’s briefing? I can’t find anything so far.
No, I was commenting about the WAPO article that I could swear you had up there earlier.
I did have the WaPo briefing page link up there earlier, but it didn’t have the links to the transcript or video, which was what I was after.
Two key points from Fromkin’s post today:
1:
“But Luskin has now told that National Review that Fitzgerald identified Rove, among others, as a “subject.”
In grand-jury talk a subject — unlike an ordinary witness — is someone who faces possible indictment.
“
This is the first I’d read that Rove is indeed a “subject” of the investigation. That is important and good news.
2:
“And investigative reporter Murray Waas blogs today that his sources tell him that columnist Robert Novak — the first person to publish Plame’s identity — has in fact spoken at length to prosecutors.
That would explain why Novak isn’t in jail.”
I have seen this stated a few times now. And yes, it explains why Novak is not in jail… a previously baffling situation. It also explains why Rove would have freed Cooper to talk. If Novak has already spilled the beans then there is nothing to lose there.
Also from Froomkin:
“For the record, according to the United States Attorneys’ Manual : “A ‘target’ is a person as to whom the prosecutor or the grand jury has substantial evidence linking him or her to the commission of a crime and who, in the judgment of the prosecutor, is a putative defendant. . . .
“A ‘subject’ of an investigation is a person whose conduct is within the scope of the grand jury’s investigation.”
Subjects, unlike ordinary witnesses, face possible indictment. So, for instance, targets and subjects get their rights read to them before they testify before grand juries.”
Sweeeeet!
Excellent editorial from the NYT today. He really calls Karl out and says all Karl has to do is call a press conference to clear this all up. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/13/opinion/13wed1.html?ex=1278907200&en=56bc6c4fd78a4f53&ei=5
089&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss
Or maybe “she.”
He really calls Karl out
The head of the NYT editorial board is a woman. Since she got the job a year or two ago, their editorials have been much more interesting, real-world, less ivory tower.
Ooops..my bad.
Didn’t mean you were wrong, Leezy, just that it might not have been written by a man. Or, it might have been. I’m just glad that we can no longer assume such a visible journalistic post is all old boy, all the time.
Hey, no worries. Actually there wasn’t a byline or I missed it. I certainly hope it was written by a woman. I thought it was an excellent editorial and in a major paper to boot.
of todays briefing is up on the WH page here.
THANK YOU!
God, I felt like I was on a mission for some lost artifacts.
So, this wasn’t on CSPAN at all … it was ignored on CNN and MSNBC, best I can tell (they’re prattling on about the stupid shuttle mission) … que pasa?
I see the reporters SOCKED IT to Scott again!
My favorite part, I think:
Also, according to this diary over at dKos, CNN was maybe going to show this? Down in the comments though someone else says that it wasn’t on C-Span. So I guess either it was on CNN or people were watching the whitehouse feed?
I loved it when they asked him about Fitzgerld telling them not to talk about it and just when did he tell them that and he would not even answer that question. My question is will the press keep at it or not?