--- In [email protected], akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- 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.
Why would he not have clearance? And its not if they had clearance so much as if they were told via official channels. There's a difference between having clearance and "having a need to know." > > 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/
