--- In [email protected], akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> > > 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.
Well, again, "witness" is a technical term, meaning they aren't interested in what you did but in what you know about what *other* people did. Rove is definitely a "subject," which means he isn't a "witness" except in the sense that he has testified. > > 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/
