--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [email protected], akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation" > > > > July 13, 2005 9:41 a.m. EST > > > > Douglas Maher - All Headline News Staff Reporter > > > > Washington (AHN) - The special prosecutor involved in the leak of a > > covert CIA Agent, has told the lawyer of Karl Rove, in an interview > > with the National Review, that the White House Advisor is "not the > > target of the investigation." > > Not really news; Luskin has been saying this > for a long time. Also, the quote may be slightly > off--other outlets have reported it as "not *a* > target of the investigation," meaning there isn't > just one target. And what I've been reading is > that Fitzgerald didn't tell Luskin this; rather, > Rove told Luskin that Fitzgerald told *him* this. > > Anyway, Luskin has also made it clear that > Fitzgerald considers Rove a *subject* of the > investigation. > > "Target" and "subject" are technical terms in > this context. Essentially, if you're a "target" > of an investigation, it means the investigators > are pretty sure you committed a crime and are > gathering evidence with a view to indicting you. > > A "subject" is anyone whose conduct falls within > the scope of the investigation; it's a broad term. > At this point, Rove is a subject--but a subject can > become a target, depending on what the investigators > discover about his/her conduct. > > The way this story was written, it makes it sound > as though the investigators have cleared Rove. Not > so. If that were the case, he would be merely a > "witness," which would mean his conduct is not of > interest to investigators, only what he knows about > the conduct of others.
Thanks for the clarifications. I listened to Lawrence O'Donnell on Al Franken discuss the same, saying that not being a target means nothing, the relevant question for his lawyer is "is he a subject?". He is a witness, having testified three times before the Grand Jury. The really interesting thing LD brought out is that the ONLY way Rove or anyone can be convicted is if they have official clearance to have known V Plame was an operative. Someone in Rove's postion typically does not have this clearance, but its not known if he in fact is an exception. Assuming he does not have clearance, THEN the big question is who told Rove. Or who told his source. The person in the chain who DOES HAVE official clearance DID break the law -- if the other conditions are met. That could be Chenney, Tennet or Bush. So the plot thickens. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
