/* trackback code -- i added this */

Tuesday, July 12, 2005

Subjective Interpretation?

Check out this quote from Byron York at NRO:
Luskin also addressed the question of whether Rove is a "subject" of the investigation. Luskin says Fitzgerald has told Rove he is not a "target" of the investigation, but, according to Luskin, Fitzgerald has also made it clear that virtually anyone whose conduct falls within the scope of the investigation, including Rove, is considered a "subject" of the probe. "'Target' is something we all understand, a very alarming term," Luskin says. On the other hand, Fitzgerald "has indicated to us that he takes a very broad view of what a subject is."
The fact that Luskin concedes that Rove is a subject could be significant, given what Lawrence O'Donnell wrote a week ago:
Subject is a scary status. Prosecutors have to attach an "Advice of Rights" form to all grand jury subpoenas served on any "target" or "subject" of an investigation. Here’s what the form says:

* You may refuse to answer any question if a truthful answer to the question would tend to incriminate you.

* Anything that you do say may be used against you by the grand jury or in a subsequent legal proceeding.

* If you have retained counsel, the grand jury will permit you a reasonable opportunity to step outside the grand jury room to consult with counsel if you so desire.

Mere witnesses don’t get those forms attached to their subpoenas. Was it attached to any one of the three subpoenas Rove got from the grand jury? Three trips to the same grand jury is frequently an indicator of subject status.
All of this stuff makes it easy to see why some bloggers have suggested that Fitzgerald may be investigating a conspiracy. And again, it would also help us understand why Luskin went out of his way over the weekend to claim that Rove was not part of an "organized effort to disclose Plame's identity".


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home