Rove Makes Fourth Grand Jury Appearance

Yahoo News & AP ^ | October 14, 2005 | Pete Yost

[rabair]

Rove Makes Fourth Grand Jury Appearance By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer 5 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Karl Rove walked into the federal courthouse Friday for a fourth grand jury appearance in the CIA leak probe, following public disclosure of his conversations with two reporters about the identity of a covert officer at the spy agency.

[hummingbird]

It's just when you tape 3rd party calls that you get in trouble.

Thanks, Terebitten! I couldn't help but think of the tapes of Linda Tripp and Lewinsky but I think the problem there was a state law in Maryland...I think.

[hummingbird]

LOL...looks like a family reunion!

[eureka!]

Regarding the target letters, if received, then the recipient is likely not going to appear before the GJ. As such, who is not testifying or has not testified? Hmmm. Wilson and Plame come to mind....

[hummingbird]

... hoping to convince grand jurors that he did nothing illegal.

What...they can read his mind, now?! These "reporters" know enough about what is happening in the GJ room to be able to say this?

[Sacajaweau]

Yes, it was the State Law which says the second party must be informed. After that, I looked up MY state law on the matter. Whew......I don't go to jail.

[rocklobster11]

Target MUST receive 'Target Letter' w/rights

I've posted this numerous times, but people contrinue to think that the prosecutor will give ample warning to the target. That's just not the case. Targets are typically notified that they are targets a few minutes or hours before they are indicted. There is no reason for any prosecutor to let someone know they are a target until the last possible moment. By telling them they are not currently targets but that they may be witnesses or suspects, the prosecutor is able to coerce the "non-target" into testifying before the GJ. Then, the prosecutor can use that testimony to go after perjury or obstruction of justice if necessary. It makes a nice fallback if he is unable to get enough evidence to go after an indictment on the original crime. If the prosecutor tells the person he is a target up front, you can bet that he will not cooperate.

Also, in this case, it has been stated repeatedly by Rove's attorney, and repeated again today after the testimony, that Rove has not received a target letter.

[colorado tanker]

I'm with you, friend. He, he, he . . .

[rocklobster11]

It would be highly unusual, to say the least, for Rove's lawyer to let him testify voluntarily if he thought Rove really is a target. It would be crazy, in fact.

Actually, it is not crazy at all. We know that Fitz is supposed to be a pit bull. All Fitz has to do is say the following to Rove's attorney:

"We have your client on record making conflicting statements. We are leaning towards making your client a target and indicting himn on perjury and/or obstruction of justice. I can't promise not to indict if your client wants to come in and explain his inconsistencies, but if he doesn't come in, we'll almost surely indict".

What would you do in this situation?

[colorado tanker]

Since it seems clear Valerie Plame hasn't been covert for years, it would not surprise me at all if the prosecutor were going after perjury against someone.

[DaiHuy]

"Fake TurkeyGate?"

What did I miss?

[Terabitten]

Thanks, Terebitten! I couldn't help but think of the tapes of Linda Tripp and Lewinsky but I think the problem there was a state law in Maryland...I think

The law in Georgia (as written in the Columbus, GA phone book) says "As a general rule, telephone conversations may only be recorded if either (1) all parties to the telephone conversation have given their prior consent.... or (2) a distinctive recorder tone that is repaeated at intervals of approximately fifteen seconds is utilized...."

So, I think it varies state-to-state. I can't imagine why it's required to have the other person's consent to record my own damn phone conversations, but that's what it says.

[defenderSD]

"He'll be indicted. He's too big a catch to let go."

Not a chance. That will never happen. Indications are that Miller is in some trouble with Fitzgerald, but nobody will be indicted.

[hummingbird]

...It appears they are continuing to beat a dead horse, why?

Because they are a sorry bunch who don't know how to play fair so they cheat and bully.

Everything you need to know you learn in Kindergarten.

Sumtin' like that!

[hummingbird]

Whew......I don't go to jail.

Where'd you look it up; I don't want to go to jail, either!

[hummingbird]

Thanks...I just looked up the "Recording Two-Way Telephone Conversations" and "Unlawful Wiretapping" in a Texas phonebook.

It states:

If your telephone conversation is being recorded, one of these conditions must exist:

1a. All parties being recorded must hear a beep or distinctive recorder tone approximately every 15 seconds, or all parties to the telephone conversation must give their prior consent to the recording of the conversation.

1b. The prior consent must be obtained in writing or be part of and obtained at the start of the recording, or

2. In lieu of 1b, the recording party can give verbal notification in a clear, unambiguous manner, which is recorded at the beginning as a part of the call.

Under certain restrictions, exemptions to these provisions exist for commercial broadcast licensees, emergency reporting systems and law enforcement authorities.


Unlawful Wiretapping

It is a crime under federal and state laws to wiretap or otherwise intercept a telephone call unless the consent of one or both of the parties actually participating in the call has been obtained. (The exceptions are properly authorized law enforcement offices acting under court order, according to state and federal law.) The penalty for illegal wire-tapping can be a fine, imprisonment, or both.

How do you think it works if the two parties are in different states that have conflicting regulations?

[GVnana]

Not a chance. That will never happen. Indications are that Miller is in some trouble with Fitzgerald, but nobody will be indicted.

I hope you're right. I don't usually post such cynical prognostications. I guess I'm in a mood.

[Paladin2]

"covert officer"

I thought this was determined to definately NOT be a fact. Where does this stand? CIA against Bush, will not verify you-know-who's status?

[GOP_Lady]

Drudge is reporting "Rove No Target." Poor Chrissy Matthews is not doubt crying right now.

[woofie]

Karl Rove Retires to Bat Cave to Await Imprisonment....news at 11

[Sacajaweau]

The most stringent applies.