"Citizen Spook" Says Grand Jury Should Indict Rove if Justified

This may have been posted already but it's interesting and follows a "no comment" answer by Fitz press representative Samborn when asked if the message was shut down. In his blog, Citizen Spook shouts out for DemocraticUnderground's Marie 26 and makes another favorable reference to DU. This guy is very interesting. Don't know what it means but he implies that there may have been an indictment and it may have been quashed creating the current stall.

CS Talking Point #2: We the People Have Been granted Constitutional Police Powers Over Tyrannical Governmental Abuse As Grand Jurors.
http://citizenspook.blogspot.com/

Procedural rules and practice cannot overturn the Constitution. The Fifth Amendment grants the power to indict on their own volition to Constitutionally empaneled Grand Juries.

Justice Scalia wrote an opinion for the court in 1994 which insisted that the Grand Jury's historical powers have not changed and remain to this day. (See yesterday's post for links and quotes).

Although the Government has cleverly hidden this power from us to shield itself from the oversight we are mandated with, the power still remains -- albeit unused for decades -- despite procedural rules and practices which require a US Attorney to sign Grand Jury indictments.

The Government trusts us to indict, and even to convict people to death while we sit as jurors. So there is no reason why we should not be able to exercise our Constitutionally mandated police powers over the Government when we sit as grand jurors.

Imagine you are on the Fitz Grand Jury armed with what you know about this power. If I were there, I would have lobbied for an indictment regardless of what the prosecutor was up to. Who knows what kind of pressure might be coming down on this prosecutor or any other? It's our duty, once we are empaneled, to weigh in on the evidence.

Why leave it to politicians who have proved themselves e beholden to Presidential and corporate overlords, when we the people have the Constitutional right and duty to do that which our elected officials have failed to do. Refuse to do.

And if the new common procedures of the grand jury system have deprived us of our power, then it's time to take that power back when we are sitting as grand jurors. This is something we can do without the help of legislation. The legislation already exists in the Constitution. All we have to do is exercise it and then see what SCOTUS does about it. Will Scalia choke on his own words.

The choice is yours America. Pass it on.


Citizenspook

PLEASE COPY LINK AND REPOST

posted by citizenspook at 3:38 AM Comments (12) | Trackback 0 comments links to this post



www.electionfraudnews.com

has ruled that fed grand juries cannot indict without the approval signature of the prosecutor. This ruling has not been overturned by the SCOTUS. Thus the lower court decision stands. Regardless of what a Fed grand jury does, a Fed court won't consider it a valid indictment and it won't be filed without the approval of the prosecutor. http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/guidelines/206542.htm#IF3

Also take a peek at some other of CS' wrtings. Like these claims inspired by the work of Clifford May, one of Rove's cutouts: "Wilson is in cahoots with the Bush Administration along with David Corn, Bob Novak and Valerie Plame Wilson, a cast of spooks who have only just been outed with the writing of this article. They've carefully scripted this entire affair to shield themselves from prosecution for monolithic treasons against US citizens and our military."
http://citizenspook.blogspot.com/2005_08_14_citizenspook_archive.html and for more fun,
http://citizenspook.blogspot.com/2005/10/treasongate-is-david-corn-feeling.html

regardless of the limitations. I'm finding the prosecution of these obvious crimes a real affront to a civilized society. A criminal act took place and we're at the point of debating if it was a criminal act. How absurd. She was a spy, they outed her, indict the people who did it. But of course, cops don't go around arresting top cops except in the movies and that's what we've got here.

But here is what a grand jury can do:


(Jefferson's Rules)
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=104_cong_house_rules_manual&docid=hrmanual-59

Inception of impeachment proceedings in the House: … there are various methods of setting an impeachment in motion: by charges made on the floor on the responsibility of a Member or Delegate; by charges preferred by a memorial, which is usually referred to a committee for examination; by a resolution dropped in the hopper by a Member and referred to a committee; by a message from the President; by charges transmitted from the legislature of a State or territory or from a grand jury…”

From:

I'm sure that there is some work-around that Denny and the boys can come up with to avoid either of these events; impeachment by state legislature or grand jury.

It makes sense that procedure trumps citizen action when those in power have absolutely no intention of listening to citizen sentiment. To them, we're a nuisance, an irrelevance. The semi professional political press keeps us caged in a ridiculous cordon of inaction by seeming to arbitrate what will and will not "sell" with the public. The recent Salon article attacking RFK Jr.'s piece in Rolling Stone is a perfect example. It's got some people saying, gee we should slow down and try to enlighten Salon, Mother Jones, an KOS. Guess what, the public is ready to abandon electronic voting and almost 50% believe the 2004 election was stolen.

This is not rhetorical, I'd like your views. Why should any restraint be shown regardless of what the experts say if there is a chance to put an indictment or impeachment resolution on the table?

It's almost a violation of the public trust or our role as citizens not to do so, given the opportunity. The "Federalist Society" trained judges could knock these down all day long and that would just confirm what we need to know, there is no interest at all in the will of the people, just the perpetuation of power and the financial remuneration of the Mandarin class.

I think that the real opportunity is constant challenge through creative use of our own laws accompanied by constant ham fisted dismissal of those challenges. I'm now clear as to why not voting is a form of voting. People are disgusted. Well, it's time to get them beyond that to pure outrage at the total indifference of the "ruling class" to the safety of the country. After all, if they can't nail somebody for outing the top spy working on international terrorism through the theft of nuclear material, who the heck can they indict?

Whatever...

Permission to Reprint: "Citizen Spook does not accept advertising or payment of any kind for writing this blog. You are welcome to repost entire articles or links."

Sunday, August 14, 2005
TREASONGATE: The Federal Grand Jury, FOURTH BRANCH of the US Government

http://citizenspook.blogspot.com/2005/08/treasongate-federal-grand-jury-fourth.html
If Patrick Fitzgerald is somehow illegally removed as Special Counsel in the Treasongate proceedings, the grand jury(s) he has impaneled will serve at the mercy of Fitzgerald's replacement, an individual who will have been brought in to shield the Bush administration from criminal prosecution for its many treasons. If that grand jury is aware of their true Constitutional power, it's possible they might stand up, fight, and win a legal battle that is long overdue.

Furthermore, all of us may one day serve as grand jurors in federal court, and I hope this article will educate the reader to his/her true power as granted by the Constitution. For that power, despite having been hidden for many years behind the veil of a legislative fraud, still exists in all of its glory in the 5th Amendment to the Constitution. The US Supreme Court has confirmed and reinforced that power.

So please, copy this report and paste it far and wide. It is not spin. It is not false. It is not for sale, it is not copyrighted by me, so paste and quote it freely. This report is the truth and we need truth, now, more than ever.

The Constitutional power of "we the people" sitting as grand jurors has been subverted by a deceptive play on words since 1946 when the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were enacted. Regardless, the power I am going to explain to you still exists in the Constitution, and has been upheld by the United States Supreme Court despite the intention of the legislature and other legal scholars to make our power disappear with a cheap magic trick.

Repeat a lie with force and repetition and the lie becomes known as truth. In the case of the 5th Amendment to the Constitution, the power of the grand jury, to return "presentments" on its own proactive initiation, without reliance upon a US Attorney to concur in such criminal charges, has been usurped by an insidious play on words.

Most of this article is going to quote other scholars, judges and legislators as I piece together a brief but thorough history of the federal grand jury for your review. But the punch line is my personal contribution to the cause:

UNITED STATES CITIZENS SITTING AS FEDERAL GRAND JURORS ARE THE FOURTH BRANCH OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.

My input into this vital fight is no more than the analysis of a few carefully used words. It only took a small sleight of pen back in 1946 to hide our power, and it won't take more than a few words to take that power back. But a proper overview is necessary for most of you who are unfamiliar with the issue at hand. So let me provide you with some history and then we'll see what went wrong and how to correct it.

HISTORY OF FEDERAL GRAND JURY POWER

I want to draw your attention to a law review article, CREIGHTON LAW REVIEW, Vol. 33, No. 4 1999-2000, 821, IF IT'S NOT A RUNAWAY, IT'S NOT A REAL GRAND JURY by Roger Roots, J.D.

"In addition to its traditional role of screening criminal cases for prosecution, common law grand juries had the power to exclude prosecutors from their presence at any time and to investigate public officials without governmental influence. These fundamental powers allowed grand juries to serve a vital function of oversight upon the government. The function of a grand jury to ferret out government corruption was the primary purpose of the grand jury system in ages past."


Back to the Creighton Law Review:

"A 'runaway' grand jury, loosely defined as a grand jury which resists the accusatory choices of a government prosecutor, has been virtually eliminated by modern criminal procedure. Today's "runaway" grand jury is in fact the common law grand jury of the past. Prior to the emergence of governmental prosecution as the standard model of American criminal justice, all grand juries were in fact "runaways," according to the definition of modern times; they operated as completely independent, self-directing bodies of inquisitors, with power to pursue unlawful conduct to its very source, including the government itself."

So, it's clear that the Constitution intended to give the grand jury power to instigate criminal charges, and this was especially true when it came to government oversight. But something strange happened on the way to the present. That power was eroded by a lie enacted by the legislative branch. The 5th Amendment to the Constitution still contains the same words quoted above, but if you sit on a grand jury and return a "presentment" today, the prosecutor must sign it or it probably won't be allowed to stand by the judge and the criminal charges you have brought to the court's attention will be swept away. And the reason for this can be found in a legislative lie of epic proportions.

Mr. Roots weighs in again:

"In 1946, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were adopted, codifying what had previously been a vastly divergent set of common law procedural rules and regional customs.<86> In general, an effort was made to conform the rules to the contemporary state of federal criminal practice.<87> In the area of federal grand jury practice, however, a remarkable exception was allowed. The drafters of Rules 6 and 7, which loosely govern federal grand juries, denied future generations of what had been the well-recognized powers of common law grand juries: powers of unrestrained investigation and of independent declaration of findings. The committee that drafted the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provided no outlet for any document other than a prosecutor-signed indictment. In so doing, the drafters at least tacitly, if not affirmatively, opted to ignore explicit constitutional language."<88>"

Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (FRCP):

"An offense which may be punished by death shall be prosecuted by indictment. An offense which may be punished by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year or at hard labor shall be prosecuted by indictment..."

No mention of "presentments" can be found in Rule 7. But they are mentioned in Note 4 of the Advisory Committee Notes on the Rules:

"4. Presentment is not included as an additional type of formal accusation, since presentments as a method of instituting prosecutions are obsolete, at least as concerns the Federal courts."

The American Juror published the following commentary with regards to Note 4:

"hile the writers of the federal rules made provisions for indictments, they made none for presentments. This was no oversight. According to Professor Lester B. Orfield, a member of the Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure, the drafters of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 6 decided the term presentment should not be used, even though it appears in the Constitution. Orfield states <22 F.R.D. 343, 346>:

'There was an annotation by the Reporter on the term presentment as used in the Fifth Amendment. It was his conclusion that the term should not be used in the new rules of criminal procedure. Retention might encourage the use of the run-away grand jury as the grand jury could act from their own knowledge or observation and not only from charges made by the United States attorney. It has become the practice for the United States Attorney to attend grand jury hearings, hence the use of presentments have been abandoned.' "

That's a fascinating statement: "Retention might encourage...the grand jury act from their own knowledge or observation." God forbid, right America? The nerve of these people. They have the nerve to put on the record that they intended to usurp our Constitutional power, power that was intended by the founding fathers, in their incredible wisdom, to provide us with oversight over tyrannical government.

And so they needed a spin term to cast aspersions on that power. The term they chose was, "runaway grand jury", which is nothing more than a Constitutionally mandated grand jury, aware of their power, and legally exercising that power to hold the federal beast in check, as in "checks and balances".

The lie couldn't be inserted into the Constitution, so they put it in a statute and then repeated it. And scholars went on to repeat it, and today, as it stands, the grand jury has effectively been lied into the role of submissive puppet of the US Attorney.

The American Juror publication included a very relevant commentary:

"Of course, no statute or rule can alter the provisions of the Constitution, since it is the supreme law of the land. But that didn’t prevent the federal courts from publishing a body of case law affirming the fallacy that presentments were abolished. A particularly egregious example:

'A rule that would permit anyone to communicate with a grand jury without the supervision or screening of the prosecutor or the court would compromise, if not utterly subvert, both of the historic functions of the grand jury, for it would facilitate the pursuit of vendettas and the gratification of private malice. A rule that would open the grand jury to the public without judicial or prosecutorial intervention is an invitation to anyone interested in trying to persuade a majority of the grand jury, by hook or by crook, to conduct investigations that a prosecutor has determined to be inappropriate or unavailing.' <7>

What is the result? Investigating seditious acts of government officials can be deemed inappropriate or unavailing by the prosecutor, or the judge can dismiss the grand jurors pursuing such investigations. Consequently, corrupt government officials have few natural enemies and go about their seditious business unimpeded.

By the way, they made a rule to take care of runaways too, in 1946: Rule 6(g):

'At any time for cause shown the court may excuse a juror either temporarily or
permanently, and in the latter event the court may impanel another person in place of the juror excused.' Now judges can throw anyone off a grand jury, or even disimpanel a grand jury entirely, merely for exercising its discretion."

Now let me add my two cents to this argument:

Most of the discussion about Note 4 to Rule 7 of the FRCP takes for granted that the common law use of "presentments" (as codified in the 5th Amendment) was made "illegal" in 1946 by this act. Nothing could be more false. Note 4 does not contain language that makes the use of presentments "illegal", although it had chosen its words carefully to make it appear as if that is what the legislative branch intended. But let's look at Note 4 again:

"4. Presentment is not included as an additional type of formal accusation, since presentments as a method of instituting prosecutions are obsolete, at least as concerns the Federal courts."

The key word is, "obsolete". Obsolete means "outmoded", or "not in use anymore", but it does not mean "abolished" or "illegal". And therein lies the big lie. The legislature knew it could not directly overrule the Constitution, especially with something so clearly worded as the 5th Amendment, which grants a power to the people which has a long and noble purpose in criminal jurisprudence. But the federal beast legislative branch sought more power to protect themselves from the oversight of "we the people", and in its vampire like thirst for more governmental control, it inserted this insidious Note 4 in the hope that scholars and judges would play along with their ruse, or in the alternative, their ruse would appear to be legally viable.

Let's look at some authoritative legal resources which discuss Note 4:

Susan Brenner, THE VOICE OF THE COMMUNITY: A CASE FOR GRAND JURY INDEPENDENCE:

"Finally, federal grand juries' subservience to prosecutors was exacerbated when the federal system eliminated the use of presentments, which allowed a grand jury to bring charges on its own initiative. (N35) Now, federal grand jurors cannot return charges in the form of an indictment without a prosecutor's consent. (N36) Elimination of the presentment demonstrates the historical trend towards elimination of proactive features in the grand jury system."

Did Brenner fall for the lie or did she cleverly further it when she said, "he federal system eliminated the use of presentments"? The federal system did no such thing. Note 4 said the use of presentments was "obsolete". First of all, Note 4 is not a law in itself. It is a Note to a law, and the law as written, does not have anything to say about presentments. You see the leap Brenner has made? The Constitution provides for "presentments", then the FRCP are enacted and the Rules therein do not mention presentments, nor due they ban presentments, and if they did, such a ban would be unconstitutional, since an administrative enactment regarding procedure can not overrule the Constitution.

Regardless, it's irrelevant, since the FRCP does not mention "presentments". Note 4 simply states that "presentments" allowed for in the 5th Amendment of the Constitution have become "obsolete", or outmoded, which is not to say that they were "eliminated". Shame on you Susan Brenner. You know damn well that the Constitution can only be changed by an official Amendment to it. Nothing can be "eliminated" from the Constitution by an administrative note.

The use of presentments had become obsolete because the grand jurors were not aware of their power. So the use of "presentments" became more and more rare, and then in 1946 the legislative branch seized upon the moment to make this power disappear by waving its magic wand over the Constitution.

Mr. Root got it wrong in the Creighton Law Review as well:

"Before the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure — which made independently-acting grand juries illegal for all practical purposes — grand juries were understood to have broad powers to operate at direct odds with both judges and prosecutors..."


The FRCP did not make it "illegal for all practical purposes". That's patently false. I don't know if Mr. Root, and/or Susan Brenner, were acting as the magician's assistant, but I can't imagine how these educated scholars could be so incredibly ignorant of basic Constitutional law. Give me a damn break.

But if enough people repeat the lie, the lie appears to be the truth.

But we have it on good authority, the Supreme Court, that the lie has no legal effect.

Justice Powell, in United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974), stated:

"The institution of the grand jury is deeply rooted in Anglo-American history. In England, the grand jury served for centuries both as a body of accusers sworn to discover and present for trial persons suspected of criminal wrongdoing and as a protector of citizens against arbitrary and oppressive governmental action. In this country, the Founders thought the grand jury so essential to basic liberties that they provided in the Fifth Amendment that federal prosecution for serious crimes can only be instituted by "a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury." Cf. Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 361-362 (1956). The grand jury's historic functions survive to this day. Its responsibilities continue to include both the determination whether there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed and the protection of citizens against unfounded criminal prosecutions. Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 686-687 (1972)."

The Note 4 lie is smashed on the SCOTUS altar, "The grand jury's historic functions survive to this day." Take that Note 4!

The wonderful irony of the situation concerns the ultimate neocon Justice, one known as Antonin Scalia, who effectively codified the unique independent power of the Fourth Branch into the hands of all citizens sitting as federal grand jurors. In discussing that power and unique independence granted to the grand jury, the United States Supreme Court, in United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 at 48 (1992), Justice Scalia, delivering the opinion of the court, laid down the law of the land:

"'ooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history," Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420, 490 (1960) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result), the grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It "`is a constitutional fixture in its own right.'" United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1312 (CA9 1977) (quoting Nixon v. Sirica, 159 U.S. App. D.C. 58, 70, n. 54, 487 F.2d 700, 712, n. 54 (1973)), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 (1977). ' "

I submit to you that this passage sets the stage for a revolutionary knew context
necessary and Constitutionally mandated to "we the people", THE FOURTH BRANCH of the Government of the United States. Besides, the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches, I submit that there is a fourth branch, THE GRAND JURY, and "we the people" when sitting as grand jurors, are, as Scalia quoted in US v. Williams, " a constitutional fixture in its own right". Yes, damn it. That is exactly what the grand jury is, and what it was always intended to be.

Scalia also stated, that "the grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside..." Id.

And finally, to seal the deal, Scalia hammered the point home:

"In fact, the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people. See Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 218 (1960); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 61 (1906); G. Edwards, The Grand Jury 28-32 (1906). Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the Judicial Branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm's length. Judges' direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office. See United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974); Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 6(a). <504 U.S. 36, 48> "

This miraculous quote says it all, "...the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people." The Constitution of the United States, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, gives rise to a FOURTH BRANCH of Government, THE GRAND JURY. We the people have been charged with oversight of the government in our roles as grand jurors.

And at this critical time in American history, we must, for the protection of our constitutional republic, take back our power and start acting as powerful as the other branches of government.

The law is on our side. So please spread this knowledge as far and wide as you can. We the people have the right and power under the 5th Amendment of the Constitution to charge this government with crimes by returning presentments regardless of whether the US Attorneys or the federal judges agree with us. As the Supreme Court has so brilliantly stated, we are the "buffer between the Government and the people."

Take the reins America. Pass it on. The Fourth Branch is alive and kickin'.

by Citizen Spook

PLEASE REPOST and LINK

citizenspook@hotmail.com


posted by citizenspook at 6:35 PM
6 Comments:

Wayne said...

If you tape the audio of your interviews post it on the blog.
8:54 AM
dphi said...

Very interesting. I've forwarded the contents of this post to Justice for 9/11, which has been petitioning the New York Attorney General (Eliot Spitzer) and the Manhattan District Attorney to open grand jury investigations. It would seem they should also make direct appeals to grand juries for those same jurisdictions, as well as to federal grand juries for the Eastern District of New York.
3:53 PM
Kim said...

We really enjoy your posts. Very informative and fulfilling.

Our economic article site is completely pertaing to economic article.

Come visit.
7:15 AM
TheDevilIsInTheDetails said...

Another medical abortion Resource... LifeLaw.org . A discussion forum for all that deals with such hot-button issues as medical abortion .
7:51 AM
Kim said...

I find a lot of good content on blogs and yours is interesting.

I have a article improvement self submit site which is a very popular article improvement self submit site.
2:44 PM
oldturk said...

Yes very informative. Thank You for
taking the time to research and post this. Welcoming and encouraging people to share this far and wide,.. is most refreshing
in comparison to the secrecy that
is projected by this administration.

One last thing,.. there is a group of folks that are trying to address the issues of election integrity,.. specifically the accurate tabulation of our votes.
There is fear that the counting of the vote on a national basis is not being done with a high degree of exactitude,.. and this is placing democracy in serious jeopardy. Come visit bradblog.com
if you feel that you could contribute toward the solution of this dilemma. Thank You again - Be Well.
10:43 PM

Post a Comment
Links to this post:

RANDALL SAMBORN INDICATES FITZGERALD’S PLAME INVESTIGATION MAY ...
The original version which was cached by googlenews for the initial New York Times report by David Johnston and Jim Rutenberg, published: June 13, 2006. … In a statement, Mr. Luskin said, “On June 12, 2006, Special … ...
posted by admin @ 12:00 AM
RANDALL SAMBORN INDICATES FITZGERALD’S PLAME INVESTIGATION MAY ...
While yesterday’s Citizenspook headline was clearly labeled as conjecture -- citing no sources -- today’s headline carries an impeccable, unimpeachable source --Randall Samborn -- Fitzgerald’s notoriously tight lipped press officer. ...
posted by citizenspook @ 7:36 PM
STRONG INDICATIONS ROVE HAS BEEN INDICTED BY RUNAWAY GRAND JURY IN ...
I'll begin by telling you straight up, Citizenspook has no sources for this headline. But I believe it is the most likely explanation for all of the anomolies, strange quotes and secretive actions invoved with the official Special ...
posted by citizenspook @ 3:41 PM
TREASONGATE: Bitchslapping the media
BITCH SLAP #1: BOB WOODWARD was on Larry King yesterday. Check out his unsourced spin. And I quote: "And this is not even a firecracker, but it's true. They did a damage assessment within the CIA, looking at what this did that Joe ...
posted by citizenspook @ 8:26 AM
TREASONGATE: The Challenge of 18 USC 794...
CHALLENGE TO JOE WILSON: “Naming her this way would have compromised every operation, ...
posted by citizenspook @ 9:47 AM

Create a Link

<< Home
About Me

Name:citizenspook

Citizen Spook does not accept advertising or payment of any kind for writing this blog. You are welcome to repost entire articles or links.

View my complete profile
Previous Posts

* TREASONGATE:MI6 Chicago Subway Bomb Scare UPDATE
* Citizen Spook was spooked....
* TREASONGATE: The US Attorney General's Office AND President Bush Have NO LEGAL AUTHORITY To Remove Patrick Fitzgerald As Special Counsel
* TREASONGATE: The Controlling Law, Part 2: THE DEATH PENALTY, 18 USC 794 and the shift from GWOT to GSAVE
* TREASONGATE: White House Indicted? - US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE "ISSUES" OFFICIAL COMMENT
* TREASONGATE: July 18th Chicago Subway/Dirksen Federal Courthouse Bomb Plot Involving British MI6 -Part 2:CTA OFFICIALS DENY CHICAGO POLICE ACCOUNTS
* TREASONGATE: July 18th Chicago Subway/Dirksen Federal Courthouse Bomb plot involving British MI6 assets -Part 1:CHICAGO POLICE IMPLICATED IN COVER UP?
* TREASONGATE: The Controlling Law - Big Trouble For The White House Staff.

Powered by Blogger

and have them result in an indictment without the approval of the Fed prosecutor. A Fed grand jury cannot force a prosecutor to prepare or sign an indictment. The prosecutor can refuse to act upon/approve/sign charges brought by the grand jury on its own initiative. And without the prosecutor's approval and signature the court will not consider the grand jury's charges valid. That renders the presentment issue moot. That was the point of the appeals court decision: the Fed prosecutor has the power and discretion to decide if charges/an indictment will be filed and cannot be overruled by the grand jury and the court. The appeals court decision is not a mere "administrative procedure," it's a legal ruling. And again, since it has not been overturned by the SCOTUS, it stands as case law.

There was a case in the 90's where a special Fed grand jury wanted to file criminal charges on its own but could not since the US attorney would not approve and without the prosecutor's signature, the court would not act on the grand jury's charges. No criminal charges/indictments were filed in that case. And it wasn't for lack of trying by the grand jury.

I hope they do it for that reason alone. This entire investigation has taken too long and it's
produced too little. It's an embarrassment. The uber spy working on the prevention of nuclear
terror is outed by people in power resulting in God knows what (we minions are no longer allowed
to know that) and the entire weight of Federal law enforcement produces what, the indictment of
a tool, a useful idiot Libby. Terrific.

I'm getting the feeling that this investigation is like the NYT's handling of the NSA wire tap
story, which they conveniently left on the back burner even though they knew in mid October
2004 (as in two weeks before the election). Who benefits? I'm not saying Fitzgerald is
specifically to blame or any other individual. I'm arguing that the system is beyond broke,
it's on life support and brain dead.

Fixed judicial system, executive and legislative abuse of power, and rigged elections...they've done
a fine job of consolidating power...without much noise from our "leaders."

If anyone takes the time to read Amendment 5, they will see that this person's claim is nonsense at very best. More, the line the person took regarding Mr. Fitzgerald's authority was not only totally wrong, but it was point for point exactly what Team Libby claimed in their totally discredited motion to have the case dismissed based on the issues of Mr. Fitzgerald's authority.

Even if there is the remotest legitimate argument for a "presentment" I say the time has come.

If there is no indictment of anyone other than Libby for the biggest crime imaginable against national
security, sleuthing to stop nuclear terror, then we live in a lawless society as of the moment the
investigation stopped at Libby. I'm aware of Citizen Spooks comments on the Wilson and I find those
odd, however, this is just fine because it's a vehicle..."presentments", state legislatures and grand
juries sending resolutions of impeachment (allowed by Jefferson's House Rules, etc.). We have to take
back the law soon or it will have disappeared forever, I'm afraid.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1452253&mesg_id=1456338

a call for citizen action. I am concerned when I read some DUers channeling Eeyore, and saying that Rove wasn't indicted, Bush is all powerful, and the administration has stopped the Plame investigation. In fact, the Libby indictments are strong, and the pre-trial hearings and documents have made it clear that the Plame scandal was an Office of the Vice President operation.

There is an on-going effort by those who engage in perception management to convince the public that the scandal was insignificant, and the investigation a waste of time. The harder that these snakes fight to make thgeir case, the more important that citizens at the grass-roots level take some action to counter their efforts at "perception management."

Everyone on DU should be sending a letter to the editor of their local paper, saying something like, "President Bush promised to fire anyone who took part in outing CIA agent Valerie Plame. Karl Rove publicly denied playing any role. But the investigation showed he played a significant part in the effort to spread Plame's name to journalists. If George Bush is a man of his word, he should fire Karl Rove today."

There are more than a dozen small, easy activities that DUers could be taking that are the type of "citizen action" that can make the difference between a Rove indictment in the court of public opinion, or allowing the White House to define the case for the public.

the people who read this are more interested in having other DUers read the OP than their own words.

:thumbsup:

I should have read your excellent point before I blathered on in response to Garbo's excellent points...still time to self delete...nah...but you're right. It's up to citizens. It's our time...

If a reporter asks them if it's hot enough out there for ya, Mr. Fitzgerald, you'd get a "no comment". :) Regardless, CS is an interesting read.

...or not (didn't mean to be presumptions;)

See the story dated: "Friday, May 26, 2006"

Isn't that what Arte Johnson used to say on the show, Laugh In?

The purpose of the grand jury is to determine if there is enough evidence to allow the prosecutor to take the case to a jury trial. If the prosecutor decides to drop the charges, then the Grand Jury is dismissed. The Grand Jury itself has no prosecutorial powers.

If one is to indict, even if people tell them that it will not be carried forward due to some procedural issue, then they should know that option. Indictment requires prosecution and there are probably no prosecutors who would carry forward under these circumstances. Nevertheless, it's an act of defiance, stretching the system, just like the legislators did in Illinois when they introduced the Joint resolution to impeach Bush.

I say that the legal authorities have abandoned the law and now it is the job of the citizens, whenever they can, to introduce the truth to the situation through creative actions, no matter how slight the chances are for success.

you will see exactly what Fitgerald knows about 9/11 and this administration!!

fly

In October, Libby was charged with obstruction of justice and lying to FBI agents and a grand jury during the investigation. He has pleaded not guilty and is scheduled to go to trial in January.

That prompted speculation that Rove, too, could face charges since he had also spoken to reporters in the case.

"We believe the special counsel's decision should put an end to the baseless speculation about Mr. Rove's conduct," Luskin said.

On Air Force One flying back from a surprise trip to Iraq, Bush said of the decision: "It's a chapter that has ended. Fitzgerald is a very thorough person. I think he's conducted his investigation in a dignified way. And he's ended his investigation."

http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/swissinfo.html?siteSect=143&sid=6806820

I don't know the book on Citizen Spook, although he's certainly out there (see his post on Hopsicker & 911). At the same time, if they've shut down the investigation either by choice of the prosecutor or by fiat, meaning a "higher authority," then I say it's time to pull out all the stops. This grand jury, any grand jury that is related, should do a "presentment." If it's archaic or null and void according to the court, so what, we've had charges brought.

Plame, by consensus, was working on extremely high level intelligence, the trade in illegal nuclear material. If the current system cannot abide charges against those who revealed her identity, then
there is no legitimacy to lesser charges. We have dropped into total lawlessness and anarchy due to the lack of competence on the part of those involved in this investigation It is they who are lawless.

I say that legislatures should bring impeachment, allowed for in Jefferson's House rules (no controversy) and grand juries (also allowed to bring impeachment) should do so as well. The people have to take the law back.

It better not be over is all I can say or they've sowed the whirl wind, to be sure.

to avoid the awesome potential for abuse of power that you envision.

The post is possibly right; juries have a lot of power. They could be empaneled, decide on the basis of the National Inquirer they read that morning before being empaneled that Bat Boy needs to be indicted for something, and do so. The jury empaneled for the Libby trial could look at all the evidence and be charged, they could promptly decide the color tie he wore to court went well with his socks, or that they didn't like Fitzgerald's accent, and vote 'not guilty'. In other words, juries can be very, very irresponsible. So it's good that we don't allow them to be mini-dictatorships, even though most aren't irresponsible.

Were a GJ to be assembled (of course, at the behest of a non-juror), and were it not necessary for the prosecutor to sign off on the indictment, it would simply return indictments. At best. They haven't heard any counter-evidence, and so their decision is properly very, very limited in force.

It would not be able to compel a prosector to press the indictment; it would not compel the prosecutor to present any specific kind of case; it would not compel a judge to empanel a jury to hear the case.

so this is more spin from the spin zone about the investigation being over.

I understand why there are restraints on grand juries. The dangers are mostly hypothetical now since they're in the not to well known past.

The reality now is that WE HAVE A JUSTICE SYSTEM THAT SIMPLY DOES NOT FUNCTION, at all, in any meaningful way. That's why I like Citizen Spooks particular point here, use archaic or otherwise viable means to get citizens challenging he government. If just one grand juror gets a hold of this and pushes just enough panel members and we get a "presentment" like this:

"The grand jury is appalled at the dereliction of duty of the entire justice system at bringing those responsible for the greatest crime against the nation, compromising intelligence efforts at the highest level which were operating against nuclear terrorists. Therefore, we present the following charges of conspiracy to defraud the government against the following individuals: President *, Vice President Cheney, etc.; and the following members of the press..."

I really don't expect we will see this and if we do, it will be crushed just like everything else of use regarding the case is crushed by this judicial system. It would be a powerful statement to the people, the employers of all those who day by day, inaction by inaction, expose us to the most perilous dangers imaginable.

This is a key point of a very interesting post on what's really happening with the investigation. Basically, the good "dr" is arguing that Rove has turned on Cheney in concert with * to deflect the ultimate blame from the president to a guy that is the only alternative. Who knows. I like this a little better, except for the time factor. Justice and the people are not served by the inordinate delay accompanying a huge violation of national security:

http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2006/06/rove-revisited-update.html

"One would think that Rove has lost power because he has been under investigation. However, I'm suspicious that he has launched the campaign of his life now precisely because of that investigation. I'm suspicious that he has set his mind to both cover and clear his ass by nailing Cheney, because Cheney drags the party down. To do that, though, Rove has to regain so much power and influence with Bush that he will be allowed, even sanctioned to do go after the VP. It won't be enough to simply list all the ways in which Cheney is an anvil around their throats, though that is simple enough to do. Rove must make Bush believe that nailing Cheney is the only way to save their precious project of US and world domination. For Jesus. Or whatever romantic, lusty phrasing gets them off. Rove can believably appeal to this side of Bush, but I cannot even imagine Cheney trying, can you?

Rove would then conceivably unleash all his most despicable and devious tricks to take Cheney down (not that there would be much of a public outcry on that count). And what's more, we absolutely know that Rove is more than up to the task. We might therefore be seeing more exposure of the Dick's evil deeds, whereas Cheney was always able to suppress those things in the past. Of course, we might also watch for Cheney to return similar salvos; one wonders what Cheney might have on Rove.

Again, all this is just my wildest psychological and theatrical speculation, and little if any of the power dynamics will come out in Libby's trial, so we'll likely never know the truth (until the Bard reincarnates and writes the real story). We just have to pray that Fitz does in fact subpoena Cheney to testify in Libby's trial. I'll be shocked if he does not, because it seems clear that Cheney is in Fitz's viewfinder."