Can we assume Rove has received a target letter now?

[darkstar]

From following various Rove/indictment threads, I noticed that the target letter looms large in the sequence of events. Most informed DUers seem to think that a letter comes when indictment is imminent, i.e., days away. But does it come A) after charges are handed over to the GJ or B) after they've returned an indictment?

In other words, given the breaking news, are we to assume Rove has now recieved a target letter? If so, does A or B above hold?

But I must confess I'm confused about the target letter thing. I thought it was a much longer process. I worked on a campaign in which we tried to get a de-targeting letter from opposing candidate for a number of weeks (5-6?). Such is a letter from prosecuter explaining that while testimony was reqired from an individual, the individual is not the target of the investigation. This seems to imply that target can be twisting in the wind for a period longer than mere days. But I'm no lawyer. Anyone?

Thanks in advance and a huge primal scream of unmitigated joy.

:toast:

[Shakespeare]

1. I'll second that primal scream of joy.

I'm thinking the same scream from The Who's "Won't Get Fooled Again."

[darkstar]

2. Yep...that'll do

I appreciate the response, Bard-ner. Any ideas on the target letter biz?

:party:

[alcibiades_mystery]

3. You can assume whatever you want, it seems to me

Since the person who reported the target letter is the same person who is reporting the imminent indictment, however, any such assumptions would seem weirdly circular.

[darkstar]

4. Right you are on the bigger picture, I think

I should say, with the stipulation that story is factual, how does the process work?

As I said in my note, a_m, many here talk about the short term existence of a target's status. Do you know if this is true? Do you know exaclty what a targeting signifies in terms of where things stand in the process? Like I said, my only brush up against this sort of thing gave me the impression that it could be months or weeks out.

Thanx...

[Spazito]

5. Here is some info I found re 'target letters', etc

Due to the potential for unfairness and misunderstanding in making a person who is likely to be indicted testify or produce documents before a grand jury, prosecutors must first attempt to get the target to voluntarily appear. If that doesn’t work, the prosecutor must get the approval of the grand jury and the United States Attorney or the responsible Assistant Attorney General in order to issue a subpoena. (I suspect this is why Rove appeared before the Grand Jury for yet a FIFTH time, if he had not "volunteered", he would have been subpoenaed.

If you’re a “target” (loosely defined as a person against whom the government has evidence of an involvement in a crime for which you may be charged) or a subject of a grand jury investigation, the government may want to question you about your involvement in the crime under investigation. In that case, the United States Attorney’s Manual requires federal prosecutors to advise you in writing of your right to counsel and to use your privilege not to incriminate yourself if you so choose.


If you think you’re the target or subject of a grand jury investigation, you might consider getting a lawyer to open communications with the prosecutor. Sometimes the prosecutor will confirm her intention to indict you, engage in plea negotiations before the indictment, or agree to surrender instead of arrest when the indictment is returned. Other times, the prosecutor will request that the indictment be sealed by the court until your arrest, to reduce the chance you’ll flee to avoid prosecution.

http://www.lawyers.com/lawyers/A~1001633~LDS/FAQ+CRIME+...

Edited to add:

9-11.153 Notification of Targets

When a target is not called to testify pursuant to USAM 9-11.150, and does not request to testify on his or her own motion (see USAM 9-11.152), the prosecutor, in appropriate cases, is encouraged to notify such person a reasonable time before seeking an indictment in order to afford him or her an opportunity to testify before the grand jury, subject to the conditions set forth in USAM 9-11.152. Notification would not be appropriate in routine clear cases or when such action might jeopardize the investigation or prosecution because of the likelihood of flight, destruction or fabrication of evidence, endangerment of other witnesses, undue delay or otherwise would be inconsistent with the ends of justice.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/...

I have little doubt Mr. Rove received such notification from Mr. Fitzgerald regardless of what Mr. Luskin may say.

[pdxmom]

6. A target letter isn't a requirement. That is one method that could

be used, but it doesn't necessarily have to be done. Fitz has had sit down meetings with Rove and Luskin. You can guarantee that it was pretty clear in those meetings what was up.

[HereSince1628]

7. It's always safe to wait until there is an independent confirmation

before you put it completely in the bag.

I haven't seen that...yet.