Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Saturday, June 17, 2006

Strategy of Sealing Names in Grand Jury Indictment

What could be the reason Fitzgerald has sealed both parties in the indictments?

There may be a strategy involved.

Note: This is just speculation.
* * *

Let's consider a potential strategy for sealing both names. Under rule 603, a grand jury can return an indictment against an official, and this would trigger the House to examine the indictment, then vote whether to investigate and/or impeachment.

The ruse would be to seal both names this time, even though there is no actual change. When the public learns there has been no change, should Fitzgerald seal both names again (even though there might be a real change, and list the Grand Jury, not the US as the party), the public will have no indication of Grand Jury charges against the President or Vice President.

* * *

In a broad sense, recall the response the special prosecutor gave when asked about his new website. The way the staff responded was as if there were just a few loose ends. Little did we realize that there were indictments, further investigations, and more case filings. The same could be happening now.

Rather than tip their hands in the future over what could be a grand jury indictment or motion against a specific party (as opposed to a motion by the US government), Fitzgerald may want to do something now that will not top what the Grand Jury may be doing.

* * *

Here's what could be happening:


Here are several points related to what may be happening. Note, the points overlap and you will notice they tend to repeat themselves:

  • Format change: Make a change now in format, but there is no real change in parties -- (it could be still US v. ____);

  • Seal both parties, even if it is US v. ____, so that the public is not clear whether the indictment is from the US or the Grand Jury;

  • Use the same format in the future: Seal both parties;

  • Get the public to believe that there is simply a decision to seal both parties, yet there is no change in parties; in fact, there could be a future change in parties, and that change can be important information;

  • The public is not aware whether the moving party is [a] the US or [b] the Grand Jury;

  • Prevent disclosure of any information before unsealing: When there is a real change in parties, there will be no new information revealed on who the indictment is against until the indictment is unsealed;

  • Minimize speculation on election-related information: By hiding who the indictment is from, the public has no advance information before the election whether the President or Vice President may be indicted by the Grand Jury

  • The public is in the dark over whether rule 603 may be invoked

  • By sealing both parities, the public gets no information on whether the Grand Jury may be making charges against the President or Vice President, or the goal of invoking rule 603

    * * *


    Let's consider the details. On the issue of sealing both names, Fitzgerald's thinking could be along these lines: [a] If he wants to muddy the waters on a potential Grand Jury indictment [in Grand Jury V. ___ format], he may have done the opposite in this round, and sealed both parties, even though it is, as usual, US v. ____. [b] When the format is publicly revealed [that it is actually US v. ____], watchers may think, "Oh nothing has changed."

    In the future, should Fitzgerald hope to invoke 603 and the Grand Jury as a party, the next indictment may again seal both names (Grand Jury v. Cheney/Bush); by sealing both parties this time (where there is no real grand jury as a party) and then by subsequently revealing the US, not the Grand Jury is a party, the public will think that he's simply sealing the parties, without the desire to hide the Grand Jury Connection to either the VP or President.

    This would prevent the Grand Jury from signaling to any Member of Congress or voter what could be happening (that the other party is not the US, but actually the grand jury, invoking 603) and otherwise affect the November election.

    However, if this is true, the question would be: "Why didn't he do this with Libby, and seal both then?" A response could be that perhaps Fitzgerald and the Grand Jury didn't know about 603 until after the Libby indictment was already sealed.

    * * *

    Firey Dogs--t Laketurdblossom

    The word is spreading on FDL cult. FDL visitors looking for more free time chasing sparrows.


    JP Fans, and other former fans of the demented family.

    P. S. Have you taken your medication, Jane?