Federal prosecutor tells Salon: Rove must believe he may be indicted
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Federa...must_1006.html
10\6\2005
"So Karl Rove is returning to testify before the grand jury investigating the outing of Valerie Plame, and he's doing so without any guarantee that Patrick Fitzgerald won't prosecute him. How big of a development is this?" asks SALON.COM's Tim Grieve. "Stunning," a former federal prosecutor told SALON.COM. "There is no reason for Rove to make this appearance unless he and his counsel believe he is at serious risk of indictment. None."
RAW STORY excerpts a few paragraphs from Grieve's post below. Read the full ad-restricted version in Salon's War Room.
"It's always risky to go before a grand jury," Grieve adds. "You can't take your lawyer into the room with you. It's especially risky if you've already testified once -- or, in the case of Rove, three times -- before: The odds of introducing inconsistencies into your testimony increase each time you give it. That's why, the former prosecutor tells us, a defense lawyer would advise his client to make a return appearance before the grand jury 'only in extremis.'"
New York University law professor Stephen Gillers offers a similar assessment to the Associated Press. He calls Rove's return trip to the grand jury room an "ominous sign" that suggests Fitzgerald "has learned new information that is tightening the noose" around Rove's neck. "It shows Fitzgerald now, perhaps after [Judith] Miller's testimony, suspects Rove may be in some way implicated in the revelation of Plame's identity or that Fitzgerald is investigating various people for obstruction of justice, false statements or perjury. That is the menu of risk for Rove."
It's possible, of course, that Rove is returning to the grand jury in the hope of saving someone other than himself. Conversely, it's also possible that he's testifying in the hope of implicating someone other than himself.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by beltman713
