Leopold could be right. Maybe.

It's possible that a sealed indictment of Rove was handed down by the GJ, and then tossed by Fitz when Rove agreed to testify/cooperate. It's possible. I'm just saying.

The sealed indictment could've been leverage to force Rove's cooperation.

Indictments are brought by grand juries. "Never mind" is not an option for prosecutors.

Holy crap, is there nothing that will convince Leopold loyalists? There's absolutely no reason to believe him and there never was.

after an indictment.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/n061.htm
"nolle prosequi - An entry made on the record, by which the prosecutor or plaintiff declares that he will proceed no further."

So it could have gone like this
1) GJ returns Rove indictment
2) it's filed under seal
3) Judge rules that contents of sealed indictment may be revealed to Rove (& counsel) but no one else
4) Fitz presents indictment to Rove, Patton-Boggs, and his Secret Service detail.
5) Fact of indictment & meeting leaked to Leopold
6) Rove flips
7) Fitz files nolle prosequi (under seal) on Rove indictment
8) Luskin declares Rove exonerated
9) Leopold flamed into oblivion even though he was right, and DU devolves into its monthly gibbering flamefest on the matter.

They make deals with indicted suspects all the time, don't they?

Prosecutors do not have the option of quietly "tossing" indictments after they've been brought.

was offered.

This may turn out to be one of those things we'll never know for sure. It's a shame TruthOut and Will Pitt's reputations have been damaged by all this. I for one am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt because AFAIK, they've always played straight with us.

A prosecutor can't make an indictment "go away". Either it was issued or it wasn't. According to Luskin, Fitz notified him that Rove was not indicted, and that he does not anticipate indicting Rove in the future. Fitz hasn't denied this. There was never any indictment.

and if he put it on paper, and Rove's Attorney has made public, it would seem his office could confirm at that point. A no comment tells me nothing... However, if Luskin is willing to make public the letter clearing Rove of any indictments, now or in the future, then we can all go home and go to bed....

If Luskin was making this up, Fitz would release a statement IMMEDIATELY to deny this claim. He hasn't commented - cause it's true. Luskin would not make up something like this - he could be disbarred, he would piss off Fitz & it would put his client in danger. All for what? How would releasing a false statement that Rove won't be indicted (when he really might be) help Rove in any way? This story is true - unlike Leopold's, it's now on every TV channel & every major newspaper. Maybe Fitz got wind of all the rumors & fake stories about a Rove indictment & tried to put those rumors to rest. Maybe he finally cleared Rove. Whatever the motive, the fact remains - Fitz officially notified Rove's attorney that he's in the clear. It's over.

If there is nothing to hide and all with Rove is cleared, let us see the official statement...

I still say we need to see the official statement from Fitz's office, what is the harm of that???

I'd still like to see the letter too, though.

You and only you are making that supposition.

You are also totally incorrect in saying a Prosecutor can't use an indictment as a tool to garner coopertion.

How do you think Fitzgerald got Mafia underlings to squeal on their bosses?

What do you think a plea bargain is?

I'm the only one saying Fitz responded to Luskin? Have you read EVERY PAPER today? The NY Times, CNN, WP, NBC, etc. are all saying that Fitz notified Luskin that Rove will not be indicted. OF COURSE a Prosecutor can use an indictment to get cooperation - where did you see me denying that? A Pros. can also use pressure & numerous GJ appearances to pressure someone to cooperate w/o any indictment. If there's an indictment, the defendant can plea bargain the charges, but the indictment still doesn't disappear. To plea bargain, though, there actually needs to be an indictment first - and according to what Fitz said, Rove was not indicted. That's it. No indictment. I don't know which post you're reading, but all mine said was that Luskin wouldn't make up a fake notification from Fitz, & it's probably true. Fitz notified Rove's attorney that he will not be indicted. I'm sorry to be rude, but what is wrong with you people? How can you still claim the story was right? My mind is boggled. Keep on flaming, but IMO the fire has run out on this story.

was notified by letter, the others are saying by phone call.. Right there we have confusion.. Which is it and if a letter, make it public...

all reporting the same. I can link them if you'd like. Like you said, though, if it's a letter I also hope it's made public.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/13/washington/13cnd-leak.html?hp&ex=1150257600&en=e40da3e03155858f&ei=5094&partner=homepage


The decision by the prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, announced in a letter to Mr. Rove's lawyer, Robert D. Luskin, lifted a pall that had hung over Mr. Rove who testified on five occasions to a federal grand jury about his involvement in the disclosure of an intelligence officer's identity.


Enough said

Please, do tell. The contents of the letter are very important. It could say Rove is completely innocent. It could also say he's not being indicted because he has chosen to cooperate with prosecutors.

What does it say?

He will reference for an article in the times, by a reporter, favorable to this administration. But we don't know if the reporter even saw it, or why Luskin won't make it public if it exonerates his client...

games or not actually cooperate.

I think some kind of deal was struck--a sweet deal for Fitz if he was willing to drop indicting Rove in return. Also keep in mind that everything that we've heard so far is out of the Rove camp, not Fitz's.

:headbang:
rocknation

Coulda, Shoulda, Mighta...I'm just sayin'...

If Fitzgerald knew half as much as all the "keyboard lawyers" here, if he didn't indict he should be disbarred. Difference is he has all the evidence...he's worked with a grand jury who are the ones who pass out indictments...not Fitzgerald alone...and then signed off by a judge. There's no secret here.

Rove never received a target letter...right there it should indicate that Fitzgerald did not find sufficient evidence to go to that prelimninary step other than to keep a grand jury available should any additional evidence appear.

While I would have enjoyed seeing Rove frog-marched in this case, it's not gonna happen.

Instead of accepting the story for being legit...it's far easier to conjur up some conspiracy or excuse.

is: why would Fitzgerald write the "no charges are anticipated" letter to Luskin? Surely he would hold off on making this kind of statement until the investigation into the bigger fish (Cheney?) was complete and Rove had fully cooperated as agreed?

:eyes:

Damn you! My little world lies in smoldering ruins...!

We can cast Jason Leopold as Scrooge