Time Reported:
Luskin had just received a fax from Patrick Fitzgerald, the special counsel in the case, saying that he was formally notifying Luskin that absent any unexpected developments, he does not anticipate seeking any criminal charges against Rove.
http://www.time.com/...
It is the word "seeking" that is bothering me. There is a big difference between the burden of "probable cause" (necessary for an indictment) and beyond a reasonable doubt (necessary for a conviction). Criminal law is not my field, but I am sure that there must be a way for a prosecutor who obtains an indictment from the grand jury to refuse to file or hesitate to file the case because he does not think he yet has proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Or maybe a prosecutor could refuse to file or delay filing formal charges just to use the indictment as a hammer for turning state's evidence.
More after the flip.
So what did Luskin mean when he said that Fitzgerald did not anticipate seeking charges? Did he mean that Fitzgerald did not anticipate going to the grand jury to indict a ham sandwich? Or did he mean that Fitzgerald, who had obtained an indictment from the grand jury, was not going to file formal charges? It seems to me that the next step after an indictment would be to draft the requisite pleadings to file with the court, and maybe Fitzgerald had decided to hold off. I could see how an indictment from the grand jury would put tremendous pressure on Rove to turn state's evidence, but yet if no case is filed and the indictments are sealed, Rove could not be impeached with filed formal charges.
As I said, criminal law is not my field. But inquiring legal minds want to know if it is possible both Leopold and Luskin could be right and if so, the particulars of how it would work.
And if there was an indictment without formal charges being filed, how is the indictment sealed? (Leopold clamed there was a sealed case within the time frame he predicted an indictment). Truthout is right to demand the mainstream media ask to see Luskin's letter since they have bought Luskin's comments hook, line and sinker. The media won't ever get the letter but they could sure press for more answers.
Criminal law experts weigh in please!