Lawrence: at least three indicted

[Halliburton]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-odonnell/plamegate-the-next-step_b_8447.html

<snip>
Prosecutors prefer pre-indictment plea bargaining to post-indictment because they have more to offer you, like not being indicted at all or downgrading your status to unindicted co-conspirator. And pre-indictment plea bargaining can greatly enrich the indictments that the prosecutor then obtains. If, for example, Fitzgerald has a weak case against, say, Scooter Libby, imagine how much Rove's cooperation might strengthen that case.

If no one RSVPs to Fitzgerald's invitations, look for indictments as early as next week. If anyone does sit down with Fitzgerald, he will probably have to move to extend the grand jury, which now has only thirteen working days left in its term.

Prediction: at least three high level Bush Administration personnel indicted and possibly one or more very high level unindicted co-conspirators.
<snip>

Scooter may cooperate. But Karl? Doubt it.

[patrice]

1. So are these the reasons for Bush's Harriet Miers nomination?

[electron_blue]

2. oh but of course....

[halobeam]

4. I thought she couldn't do anything, but recuse herself??? no?

[patrice]

20. That's right isn't it? Does the Law require that she recuse herself?

Can she choose not to?

[dmkinsey]

21. I believe that it's at the discretion of the individual SC Justice

No requirement and no way to insist that a Justice recuse him/her self

[RaleighNCDUer]

22. She would need to examine heself and decide if she were under

any undue influence. If she finds that to not be the case, she doesn't need to recuse herself.

That's the way Scalia explained his hunting trip with Cheney while having Cheney's case before him.

He discovered he was incorruptible, and therefore did not recuse himself.

[patrice]

23. Oh, That!! makes me feel better!

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[KittyWampus]

30. "He discovered he was incorruptible"

that is really, really funny! :rofl:

[indie_voter]

3. I guess this means no indictments today?

I would like to know what he means by

"one or more very high level unindicted co-conspirators"

I am afraid to even hope....

[samdogmom]

5. I hope the unindicted co-conspirators are Bush & Cheney

They have to be removed from office before they can be indicted. My fingers are crossed!

[yodermon]

12. I thought the Veep can be indicted outright?

cf: Spiro Agnew (anagarm: grow a penis :hide: )

on edit: i know he wasn't indicted, but didn't he have to resign pending an indictment? -y

[HereSince1628]

6. Someone who wouldn't be subject to a trial while in office I am guessing

probably someone whose "Grand Jury" is the House of Representatives.

[indie_voter]

8. A dream come true!! n/t

[seemslikeadream]

7. Cheney - Very high level

Rove

Libby

Bolton?


Where's that list?

[HereSince1628]

10. Bolton isn't/wasn't part of the White House

And remember this report is still speculative at this point.

[cry baby]

11. Maybe even the shrub himself...? Dare I hope?

[whometense]

9. Any lawyers here?

What, exactly happens with an unindicted co-conspirator?

[HereSince1628]

13. Not a lawyer, but such an accusation would be libel if not true.

So, I think there will be a rationale in the prosecutors report for why that person is a co-conspirator but isn't charged.

In the scenario that the co-conspirator is the pres or v.p. then I would think that all the documents surrounding the identification of the co-conspirator would be turned over to the Congress for potential drafting of letters of impeachment.

[whometense]

19. Thanks!

We can only fervently hope.

[hootinholler]

35. Or he isn't able to be indicted because of his office.

I think only the house has the authority to indict the Pres. Isn't that what impeachment means?

-Hoot

[Marie26]

24. Not much

I am a (new) lawyer, and I don't think anything at all happens to an unindicted co-conspirator. Under the law, you can't just charge one person with conspiracy - the heart of the charge is an "agreement" between 2 or more + "overt acts" to further the conspiracy. So if say Cheney & Rove conspired to release the name, the prosecutor would have to name the other members of the "conspiracy" in order to charge Rove. But the prosecutor can then choose not to indict those other members; because they are testifying against the target, or the prosecutor is still looking for someone who can testify against them.
Given how bull-dogged Fitzgerald has been, one reason I can think of why he wouldn't charge other conspiracy members is that he can't - because of constitutional protections. The only member of the administration who is protected from indictment while in office is the President. (who can only be impeached). Nixon was actually an unindicted co-conspirator in Watergate. So I'm thinking this could be a hint that the "unindicted co-conspirator" is President Bush. We can dream, right?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

14. All rumor at this point. Fitzgerald runs a tight ship. Give him time.

[Ksec]

15. Probably Libby and other expendables/

[HereSince1628]

17. Re: turning of those "western Aspens?" Did Libby mean Cheney?

And those who share his roots?

[Marnieworld]

16. edit thought

Change the name in your thread title to either Lawrence O'Donnell or just O'Donnell to let people know the author.

I'm clicking anything Plame realted so I caught it but some just skimming might appreciate the more specific info because O'Donnell has been ALL OVER this story in great accurate detail since the beginning. In my memory I don't think I've heard anyone on TV yet (though I do stay away) talk about the specific State Department memo involved in the case or how it could all be about prosecuting espionage instead of the harder to prove Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

Just saying. Thanks for posting this.

[janx]

18. Note this part:

"If Karl Rove's lawyer, Bob Luskin, is still as easy to read as he has been since I broke the story that his client was Matt Cooper's source, then we now know that Rove has received a target letter from Patrick Fitzgerald. How do we know it? Luskin refuses to deny it."

[fooj]

25. 11th hour testimony...

He put shrub there and he'll TAKE HIM OUT!!!

peace.

[DemReadingDU]

26. just heard this on MSNBC

Rove to give testimony

[Marie26]

27. Flipping Rove

I wonder if this means Fitzgerald won't indict Rove now at all - he might just have been trying to scare him into testifying against someone else. Which means Rove is now going to implicate someone higher up, and who's higher up than Rove? Hmmm.

[fooj]

29. The Fed. Prosecutor WOULD NOT GUARANTEE NO INDICTMENT!

Peace.

[LunaC]

34. Rove will dig himself deeper with new testimony

Liars always think they can lie their way out of their lying. While he may roll-over on someone else to get out of one indictment, he'll be setting himself up for another one. That's why Fitz can't promise that Rove will escape the Indictment Whirlwind about to hit with a vengence.

Rove is playing with a double-edge sword and he WILL get wounded no matter what he does. He's just looking for the edge that cuts the least.

[The Witch]

28. Someone suggested Rove's going to rat out Cheney

I like that scenario

:evil handrub:

[npincus]

31. O'Donnells prediction: what does this mean?

Prediction: at least three high level Bush Administration personnel indicted and possibly one or more very high level unindicted co-conspirators.


Rov e= high level or very high level?

B*sh/Cheney = very high level?

[Lerkfish]

32. "unindicted" indicates Bush, I think

since you can't indict a sitting president.

[stevietheman]

36. But "unindicted co-conspirator" is a good step toward impeachment. n/t

n/t

[Buns_of_Fire]

33. That's my reading...

not being a lawyer nor playing one on television. Rover/Scootie-Poot = High Level; Tinkles/Ironheart = VERY high-level.

Hey, I can hope. GO FITZ! GO FITZ! GO FITZ! :bounce: