--- In [email protected], akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- 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." > > > > My understanding from O'Donnell (of West Wing writing fame, amongst > other things) is that it is part of the statute that it is only those > who have CIA clearance for such information who can be prosecuted for > revealing such. > > If you have rebuttals. call Larry.
He's simplfying. Need to know is always required. Simply having clearance doesn't give you access. 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/
