Why Rove Wasn't Indicted: A Criminal Attorney's View

See here.

The short answer: Fitzgerald's trial strategy, and the laws of immunity, required him to let Rove wriggle free. But the decision had nothing to do with Rove's "innocence." Read at the link for more. What's contained there is a legal analysis, but as simple and straight-forward an analysis as (I think) you'll find. Why should we trust the media on this issue, rather than criminal attorneys who've seen this sort of thing play out time and time again? Beats me.

S.

Read here too:

http://www.progressiveu.org/100931-rove-roller-coaster-derailed


Thanks for your lawyerly view.

very interesting.

seeing three polite responses IN A ROW!

So thank you for your thank you. ha ha ha.

(Ok..I'm a little slap happy from all this rage on D.U. I'll be back to normal in a week...)

And I really wasn't being snarky about the lawyerly view. I find it really incredibly interesting to see how lawyers think. I mean...think about it...Olsen supported GWB in 2000 and I thought that argument(14th amendment) was incredibly ridiculous, yet the surpremes fell for it!) So I hope my post didn't sound snarky before.

We'll end up losing congressional seats.....

And all this time, I thought grand juries indicted people.

Now it turns out it's NOT the grand juries.

Oy, if this isn't pie-in-the-sky nonsense, I don't know what is.

But, it's someone's blog, and we get to do all sorts of things out there in the blogosphere. Ask Jason Leopold.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

anyone else is the world should speculate about anything except for you.

All hail the expert on all matters Rove.

:rofl:

Thanks for posting.

It is refreshing to read professional analysis on this day in particular.

I have other issues with your legal analysis, but it's all speculation anyway.

Edit: Pronoun change. Didn't realize you were the author, at first.

...yes, that's exactly how I used the word. To mean "tiny." As in, Libby's case was a "tiny" bit stronger for the government than Rove's.

As to this being speculation rather than fact: of course it is. But legal analysis is always interpretive; there's always an element of reading the tea leaves. The point is, we listen to media-types all day tell us what this development does and doesn't mean, and I think a criminal attorney's viewpoint is a valuable one, in that context.

S.

In several years of practice, I've never come across any such scenario of "case strength by minute degrees."

Legal analysis may be "interpretive" from a judge's standpoint, but from a lawyer's standpoint it ought to be highly concrete. My clients don't pay me to read tea leaves. But I think you managed to give substance to a certain theory floating about. My point was only that the translation of such theory into procedure is no more based on fact than the theory itself, because we don't know the facts. It could be that Rove covered his tracks well enough that Fitzgerald simply couldn't satisfy the reasonable doubt standard.

...I'm surprised to hear you say that, as I think, for instance, prosecutors make charging decisions--on a daily basis--based upon infinitesmal distinctions between the likelihood of securing a conviction on two disparate charges. For instance, a defendant might be charged with a felonious sexual assault instead of an aggravated felonious sexual assault, because the former charge is a slightly stronger--more win-able--case-in-chief for the State. Likewise, the framing of charges in an indictment (which facts are asserted, which left out, what surplusage is intentionally put in, what left out) often reflects an effort to make a case infinitesmally stronger.

Legal analysis--in criminal law--is sometimes a question of forecasting. There are a few knowns and many unknowns. Speculation must always be based on articulable facts. But to say being a criminal lawyer isn't interpreting signs and making predictions based on present information...well, I have to think you practice in a different area than I do.

S.

I've been asking questions all day and getting attacked for not blindly taking what Luskin has said at face value and for not blindly trusting Media (AP, Reuters, etc) that has deliberately misled the public in the past.

Your reasoning seems to pull in all the facts that have been reported (accurately) thus far and not just cherry picking to the ones that fit your argument.

Good work.

"Posted by TalkLeft
June 13, 2006 12:45 PM
<snip>

I still think Rove incriminated Cheney and others in the VP's office -- he's just not getting anything for it officially. That's a big deal, because if he were, Libby's lawyers would have to be told of the deal and could use it in cross-examination if Rove testified at trial. Now, Fitz has preserved Rove's reputation which could make him a star witness."

She later posted this:

"Posted by TalkLeft
June 13, 2006 07:50 PM
<snip>

As to why Fitz would only say he doesn't anticipate indicting Rove rather than saying Rove has been cleared and never will be indicted, consider this. What if he publicly cleared him and Rove then testified for Libby's defense team and said something different than he told the grand jury? Fitz needs to remain free to charge Rove in that event. Also, if the investigation is continuing, new information could develop, particularly if Fitz continues to turn putative defendants. One might convince him Rove lied. Both of these situations are unlikely to occur, but Fitz needs to protect his ability to act against Rove if they did happen. That's what lawyers do, they try to cover all the bases."

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/015080.html#comments

spinning in circles and shooting each other.

It's like an arcade game in here.

The Libby case IS much stronger. He has direct testimony from Russert and Cooper that makes Libby out to be a liar.

Libby didn't forget, he told a totally different story than the truth. He didn't answer "I don't remember, or i'm not sure what happened", he answered in total fabrications.

I don't go up to a friend on the street and tell him something I personally know, and then later think he's the one that told me.

in order to nail Tessio?

If Fitz only indicts when he has an airtight case, why did he cut a deal with Karl AFTER the indictment?

Shouldn't he be able to nail Libby, even if Karl takes the Fifth?

Fitz was faced with an either-or situation. He couldn't bring charges against both Libby and Rove without losing one or the other as a necessary witness against the other. Truly and literally a dilemma, and there could not be a perfect solution. **BUT** if both paths lead into the Office of the Vice President, I'm not so sure I care so much which horn of the dilemma he chose, or why. I most want to see what comes next.

:tinfoilhat: three possibilities:

1. Rove didn't leak, he didn't lie, he didn't obstruct.

2. Rove did leak/lie/obstruct but not enough evidence to indict.

3. Rove flipped on a bigger fish

In our zeal to see Rove frogged marched - we've lost sight of the intent of the investigation. WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR LEAKING PLAME'S NAME.

I have no doubt that Rove is involved, but is he the "mastermind" behind it or just a willing player? If you hired someone to do something illegal aren't you just as responsible for the act as the person who actually did it?

regarding the announcement ..Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, 45, formally notified Rove's legal team yesterday that the prosecutor ``does not anticipate'' seeking charges, Rove attorney Robert Luskin said in a statement.

so what does ``does not anticipate'' seeking charges mean? What charges? Obstruction? Perjury? or Leaking? might be wishful thinking on my part - but it seems the door is still open a crack.

If Roves lies, he's toast.

Long time no see? I use to enjoy visiting your site, good to see you back.

Love your blog!

K&R

It's great to see you here! :hi:

You'll disappoing a few DU-ers.

that means he allowed him to explain away lies.

Face it people. Fitz aint what you thought he was. Hes not a knight in shining armor you all hoped he was. Hes yer typical bought and sold republican .