How strange...CNN Breaking News Alert for Cynthia McKinney vs Karl Rove

[Catherine Vincent]

CNN Breaking News Alert--

-- Grand jury in Washington decides not to indict U.S. Rep. Cynthia McKinney in altercation with Capitol police officer.

This was received last friday. I say it's strange because I received a breaking news alert for the non-indictment of McKinney but didn't receive one for the decision not to indict Karl Rove. I wonder why?

[dogday]

1. One statement comes from the Grand Jury

the other from Rove's Attorney Luskin...:shrug:

[Catherine Vincent]

2. Good point!

So why didn't we get a statement from the GJ regarding Rove?

[dogday]

3. Is the Grand Jury still sitting?

I had heard on MSM (David Shuster) that if that is the case with Rove, the GJ should be dismissed shortly after.. I have not heard anything from Fitzpatrick's office or if the GJ is still sitting. Have you?

[Igel]

4. Perhaps because the

McKinney GJ was asked to indict and said 'no' while the Rove GJ wasn't asked and therefore has no on-the-record opinion on the matter.

Of course, the alternative is that they said yes and the result was sealed pending the expiration of some deadline or another. But if they said no, it would have been public (I seriously have trouble imagining a GJ's 'no' being sealed, but if I work at it ...).

[kayice]

5. I read that Fitz would like to know what is in"his letter to Luskin" too.

Could be then that Luskin never even received a dang letter from Pat Fitzgerald? Did he offer proof of it?