Truthout Aside, Where is the Fitz Doc Faxed to Luskin ?

If there were nothing more in the document Fitz faxed to Luskin than what Luskin has quoted("does not anticipate bringing charges ... at this time"), don't you think Luskin would be publishing it all over the MSM?

Obviously, there is "more" in the faxed document that Luskin does not want to reveal or discuss.

Fitz and his office have not confirmed or denied Luskin's announcement and comments, but rather have responded with "No Comment."

Truthout has nothing to do with the questions of why has the document not been produced for public inspection? and why has Fitz not confirmed or denied it?

Until the doc is made public, We have only one source for the statement that Rove will not be indicted.

Is that enough for any reputable news organization to print a story that is definitive one way or the other on whether Rove will be indicted?

outlets boasting how Rove was cleared, Rove not charged, Rove not indicted etc etc. I guess they are all going by Luskin and taking his word for it.

Rove has entered into a "deal" to cooperate with Fitz and his investigation. Remember it was Rove that pointed Fitz to the existence and location of backup copies of emails supposedly "not perserved/deleted" by the Office of the Vice President. I believe Rove has thrown Cheney and Libby under the bus to protect himself and Bush.

The qualifier was thrown in to signal that Rove has some heavy lifting left to do to avoid indictment and conviction. The doc faxed to Luskin most likely says as much. The negotiated deal probably included this specific language for Luskin to use for this specific purpose, to mislead the public as to the extent of Rove's cooperation.

There is not much here to hang your hat on if all Luskin has is the statement he has quoted in public. I know I would not feel I was out of harm's way if that was all I had to depend upon.

There is more to come, or the doc would have already been triumphantly shown on Faux News.

because Fitz is no dummy, and because it would be rather absurd for a prosecutor to write a letter saying "your client is not now and never will in the future be indicted in any way, shape or form for any conduct relating to XYZ because I have fully and finally determined that there is no basis upon which to indict him".

No way, no how would any lawyer write an unqualified statement like that, as it would preclude him from changing his mind if new facts or evidence came to light later.

And, as I have posted elsewhere (and in this thread), it would be highly unusual for Luskin to release the letter to the media. I have never given a copy of correspondence from opposing counsel to the media, ever. Such correspondence does sometimes become part of the public record, of course, and is therefore available to the media, but absent it being part of the public record, there is no reason to expect Luskin to produce it.

when reading the qualifier in Fitz's statement was that he expected something from Rove. I think we will find out eventually, but he probably still has a way to go. Here's hoping it comes to a head before the November mid-term election.

Luskin would release it to the media.

Not only because it is just not done in the usual course of dealings with opposing counsel, but also because the litigation is governed by local rules regarding the proper and improper dissemination of documents.

This was the subject of show cause hearings back in April.

http://talkleft.com/fitz421showcause.pdf

http://talkleft.com/libbyshowcauserespo.pdf

http://talkleft.com/fitzaffid421.pdf

There is nothing at all unusual about Fitzgerald having "no comment".

As set out in the same documents above, he has said that since October 2005 (i.e. since the announcement of the Libby indictment, nobody on his staff has or will make any statements about these things at all).

Local Rules of Court usually spell out what documents can and cannot be publicized. However in this case, a letter from a prosecutor saying he did not anticipate bringing charges against Rove "at this time" does not fall into any category of document that cannot be disclosed to the public, UNLESS IT CONTAINS MORE that would violate the Local Rules.

Otherwise those cleared of wrongdoing could never publicize verification of that fact.

if you'd read the links I posted, the parties appear to have agreed not to release to the media any documents that have not been publicly docketed. (Although I can't find the resultant order made after the April show cause hearings so I can't say for sure what the ultimate result was) In any event, they appear to be adhering to "if it isn't publicly docketed, do not disclose".

The letter has not been publicly docketed.

Thus, it would be inappropriate to release it to the media pursuant to those hearings, even if it weren't already simply not something that a lawyer would do in the first place.

I certainly would not release a letter from opposing counsel to the media barring some pretty extreme circumstances, none of which seem to exist in this case.

I suspect that any time a client is "cleared" in an ongoing investigation, there is no court order that would require the client to remain silent. Just does not happen. We do not require people in a free constitutional society to walk around with a publicly misleading cloud of possible criminal charges hanging over their head because a Judge ordered them not to make public a letter from the prosecutor clearing them.

I have never had to publish such a letter to clear a client's name where they have been "cleared" as a result of a criminal investigation, since the prosecution in every case has always admitted as much to the public and the press. But if the prosecution did not confirm the contents, I would have no problem publicizing the letter.

However, it is a different situation where there is work left to do by my client in the form of cooperating with an ongoing investigation. In that case, the Judge's order would apply, and I would refrain from making any statement regarding disposition of possible charges against my client.

for the defence attorney to say that the prosecutor has written to say that his client is not going to be indicted at this time without quoting the letter specifically and without releasing the letter to the public.

What makes you think otherwise?

I can't agree with you about your assertion that you'd publish correspondence between counsel, though. It's just not appropriate except in extreme circumstances, none of which exist here.

As lawyers, we are prevented from disclosing grand jury information, and making public statements that could influence potential jury pools regarding guilt or innocence. Under no circumstances may we make public statements that mislead the public as to known facts. To tell half the truth is often more damaging than to tell a lie. Is that what Luskin has done here? No one knows until the letter is produced or the statement confirmed by the prosecutor.

The extreme circumstances would arise if the letter contained only the information that Luskin quoted, that his client would not be indicted, and the prosecutor refused to confirm it. In that case there is nothing at risk for the prosecution. However, the individual under investigation may lose his job, have his credit frozen, his loans called due, punitive actions taken against him by coworkers and associates because of their perceptions regarding the client still being under a cloud of criminal investigation. Does that qualify as an "extreme circumstance?" I think so. Would release of such a letter violate a local rule? It should not. However, I do not practice in that jurisdiction --so I guess it is possible.

However, I think you would probably agree that there is much more in the letter that would make the document fall under the prohibition in the local rules, and that is what is keeping it from being released to the public.

If so, I hope that you're not actively practicing law.

You said,
I suspect that any time a client is "cleared" in an ongoing investigation, there is no court order that would require the client to remain silent. Just does not happen. We do not require people in a free constitutional society to walk around with a publicly misleading cloud of possible criminal charges hanging over their head because a Judge ordered them not to make public a letter from the prosecutor clearing them.

My comment: huh? Who ever said that there was a court order that required the client to remain silent? Nobody, so far as I can see. Where did that bizarro comment come from?

My further comment: You "suspect"? And "it just doesn't happen"? Do you have any basis in fact or law for those statements in this context?

"As lawyers, we are prevented from disclosing grand jury information, and making public statements that could influence potential jury pools regarding guilt or innocence. Under no circumstances may we make public statements that mislead the public as to known facts. To tell half the truth is often more damaging than to tell a lie. Is that what Luskin has done here? No one knows until the letter is produced or the statement confirmed by the prosecutor.

The extreme circumstances would arise if the letter contained only the information that Luskin quoted, that his client would not be indicted, and the prosecutor refused to confirm it. In that case there is nothing at risk for the prosecution. However, the individual under investigation may lose his job, have his credit frozen, his loans called due, punitive actions taken against him by coworkers and associates because of their perceptions regarding the client still being under a cloud of criminal investigation. Does that qualify as an "extreme circumstance?" I think so. Would release of such a letter violate a local rule? It should not. However, I do not practice in that jurisdiction --so I guess it is possible.

My comment: do you really believe what you wrote above? Seriously? Come on. I cannot imagine any lawyer saying (let alone believing) that. The first three sentences, yeah, okay. The next 8 or so? Good god. How could you even post that as a lawyer?

Your third paragraph:

However, I think you would probably agree that there is much more in the letter that would make the document fall under the prohibition in the local rules, and that is what is keeping it from being released to the public.

My comment: I think I was pretty clear in my prior post to which you refer, and I see no reason to change a word of it, notwithstanding your post which seems to pretend that I have said otherwise. I haven't.

And your post still makes little sense.

Just as Luskin has done, defense counsel is allowed to state their client's innocence of all charges. Luskin can even publicize alibi evidence in his possession without violating any and all local rules I have ever read.(In fact, this scenario is playing itself out in the Duke Rape trial right now. Defense attorneys have gone public with ATM time dated video showing their client was not present at the residence at the time the complainant says the rape occurred.) And as an attorney you should know, local rules have the power of a Court Order so spare me the bizarro commentary.

The issue here is whether the faxed "writing" contains information prohibited from public disclosure. I do not see a "letter" that says no more than Luskin quoted as containing such prohibited information, nor likely to constitute evidence subject to offer and admission at trial.

If Luskin voluntarily negotiated, promised and/or agreed not to make the letter public before it was received by him --then he cannot disclose it to the public until one of the following occurs: the prosecutor releases him from his promise/agreement, or the letter is made public by the prosecutor, or the letter becomes part of the public record either by filing or introduced at a hearing or trial, or the promise/agreement not to disclose is voided because it was based upon some material statement that was untrue, misleading or deceptive, or a Judge addresses the question and issues an order resolving it.

I have no problem with Fitzgerald answering all questions with "No Comment." It is standard, and does not indicate a position either way as long as the "No Comment" responses are consistent to all questions.

The question we should be asking is why did Fitzgerald write the letter in the first place, if what Luskin quoted is all that it contains? In that case, I cannot think of a single reason he would do so. All he had to do was make a phone call, or a statement face to face. Obviously, the written letter served some purpose that a verbal statement lacked. Writing the letter most likely memorialized some facts that have not been disclosed, as well as the qualifiers "anticipate" and "at this time" in case circumstances change.

I refuse to respond to your personal attacks on me. There is nothing personal about this.

Defense attorneys must always tell the truth, since once they are ever proven to have lied or shaded the truth their credibility with the court and juries is gone(not to mention their law license). As a defense attorney you can tell the truth, treat opposing counsel professionally and ethically, and defend your client zealously.

the letter "says no more than Luskin quoted"?

Regardless of the entirety of its contents, would you, as a lawyer, produce correspondence from opposing counsel to the media? I wouldn't.

Moreover, as mentioned earlier, the parties appear to be operating on the basis that they will not produce any documents that have not been publicly docketed. It is apparent that the letter in question has not been publicly docketed.

I agree with this: "Defense attorneys must always tell the truth, since once they are ever proven to have lied or shaded the truth their credibility with the court and juries is gone(not to mention their law license). As a defense attorney you can tell the truth, treat opposing counsel professionally and ethically, and defend your client zealously."

And that, to my mind, is additional reason to believe Luskin. He has expressly stated that there was no indictment, no plea bargain, no May 12 meeting, etc.

In over twenty years of practice, I have never had to turn over correspondence from opposing counsel to the media. (Once, I did have to produce a copy of correspondence from opposing counsel for the judge when he doubted my statement of fact that could only be proven by producing the correspondence. I took the position that if opposing counsel was going to imply a fact that was not true, I had a duty to present it to the judge).

I know that in all my years of practice, I was never willing to risk my law license by making an untruthful or misleading statement. I would expect the same of Luskin.

However, Rove is not the normal client. There are political consequences at play here. Indictments mean resignation from his position. Even the threat of indictment can cost him his security clearance, and that in turn could require his resignation. I can imagine the scenario where Rove tells Luskin, just negotiate a written statement from Fitzgerald that he does not anticipate seeking indictment at this time so that I can use it to regain some footing and get my name out of the daily media reports. If, and that is a big if, that happened, what did Rove promise or give Fitzgerald to get that statement that Fitzgerald had no duty or inclination to make?

True, Luskin has stated Rove has not been indicted, and there is no plea bargain. Both of these assertions may be true right up until the time an indictment is returned and/or the details of a plea bargain are agreed upon and signed.

No one knows what the letter says except Fitzgerald and Luskin and their respective staffs. However, what remains unsaid and undisclosed points out that there is more to the story than what we know today. And MSM pronouncements that Rove is definitely off the hook would appear to be not only premature, but unsupported by what has been disclosed.

release correspondence to the media.

And yet, here you have started a thread saying, among other things, "Where is the Fitz Doc Faxed to Luskin?" and "don't you think Luskin would be publishing it all over the MSM?"

I agree with you that only Fitzgerald and Luskin and their respective colleagues/associates/staff/etal know the contents of the letter, and I say that's exactly how it should be.

I also agree that pronouncements that "Rove is definitely off the hook" would be over-stating things.

I do not agree that what remains unsaid and undisclosed necessarily means that there is "more to the story".

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

is often the most important information you are seeking. Yes there is "more to the story."

It is all about weighing the interests of the parties and their actions. Obviously, it is not in Luskin's best interest to publicize something that does not help, and in fact may hurt, his client's standing.

However, this is not the normal case. Rove is a White House Government Official. Rove has testified five(5) times before the grand jury. It has been covered extensively by the press and blogosphere. I do not think Fitzgerald would have crafted such a letter and delivered it to Luskin without an expectation that it would become "public," unless there was a prior agreement between himself and Luskin.

Have you considered the possibility that Fitzgerald by delivering this letter to Luskin is allowing the public to be misled in order to facilitate his further investigation of others? The theory being that there is a benefit to having Rove cooperate without the knowledge of other investigatory targets?

the possibilities that you cite - they have been cited many times by others on previous threads.

And, I reiterate, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

http://news.tbo.com/news/nationworld/MGB7W3I4FOE.html

http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.asp?feed=FT&Date=20060613&ID=5793271

try google for hundreds more

The quote is of what Luskin said Fitz said. It is not a quote from Fitz's letter, unless of course you think Fitz would refer to himself as "he" rather than "I"....

he does not "anticipate bringing charges at this time." "Anticipate" and "at this time" are the bits that I notice. Also, didn't a number of posters point out that a grand jury can bring charges independently of the prosecuting attorney? It's not over.

...to justify printing a statement regarding a fact not in the public domain? Otherwise, you get all those alien abduction stories on page one each day, right?

Also, don't you think at least one MSM would have asked to SEE the faxed letter BEFORE they printed a story exonerating Rove? Even if they agreed not to print it, they at least could verify the existence to their editor before going to press.

Really, no doc --no story. Otherwise it is unsupported propaganda until there is something more than a bare allegation to support it.

The local court rules will govern attorneys' conduct during a court proceeding. According to the DC district court rules, attorneys can't release information about a GJ investigation beyond what is absolutely necessary to describe the general scope of the investigation. So here, Luskin can inform people about the scope of the investigation (ie, that it is not targeting Rove), but can't make other statements about the details of the case. If the letter includes any additional details about the specifics of this GJ, that info can't be released to the public. Also, it's just not in Luskin's interest to make the document public; lawyers rarely release private correspondence. This is probably all we're going to get.

"With respect to a grand jury or other pending investigation of any
criminal matter, a lawyer participating in or associated with the
investigation shall refrain from making any extrajudicial statement
which a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means
of public communication, that goes beyond the public record or that is
not necessary to inform the public that the investigation is underway, to
describe the general scope of the investigation, to obtain assistance in
the apprehension of a suspect, to warn the public of any dangers, or
otherwise to aid in the investigation."

http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/LocalRulesEditedMarch2004.pdf

truthout was swiftboated as was Dan Rather. It was necessary for the rover to discredit them both in order to keep the sheeple in the flock. if the flock fractures stolen elections will not be possible. without stolen elections the shit will hit the proverbial fan.

I thought it was one of their writers who was wrong in one of their stories? Besides, one writer's mistakes, screwups or however anyone wants to characterize them doesn't mean it discredits the entire site....at least not to me. Truthout's made up of a lot more than one guy.

gets out concerning his main man, bush*. I am also inclined to believe he will do anything to discredit any and all who attempts to get the truth out, Dan Rather, planted story, discredited. Truthout, planted story, discredited, both to have an asterisk due to the fact they reported a false, planted, at the time not to their knowledge, story. Thats how kkkarl works, don't build up the little tear down the big, it works better for short term gain and short term gain is so important due to the fact the electorate have such short memories. imho

Where is the written tally of the votes from the electoral college? I haven't seen it. If he had won, they'd show it to us. I'm not buying it, I don't think Bush is President.

...the Congressional Record. You may review the written tally as recorded by the Clerk and inserted in the record.

It is available for public inspection, and they are willing to show it to you if you ask.

However, there are legitimate doubts about George W. Bush having been "elected" President in light of voting irregularities which were well documented in the Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. article in Rolling Stone Magazine.