I could be wrong about this, but as a prosecutor this sounds to me as if DoJ has moved from regarding Tamm as a possible defendant to a potential witness.

This may be a logical conclusion, but do Federal prosecutors normally inform a person being investigated by a grand jury that they are no longer a target by implying the will be subpoenaed, or is there a more formal process?

Also, I don't see the inclusion of the word "voluntary" in the letter (that you bolded) quite as sinister as you appear to. Obviously, he can't be compelled to incriminate himself in the grand jury. He can, however, be compelled to testify (if a judge agrees he is a material witness to a crime) but only if he is granted immunity.

Do you think it is more likely that the DOJ is going to grant Tamm immunity or that a federal prosecutor is just making vague threats and hoping the defendant is unaware of the law? My experience is that vague threats that play off of a person's lack of legal knowledge is law 101.

Far worse than unwarranted spying is outing Valerie Plame in retaliation for Wilson debunking Saddam's yellowcake. A Dubya appointed judge dismissed the civil case since Cheney was executing executive responsibilities. I see nothing in the constitution that enables a president to give away state secrets.

And their global control of all phones.

If the antisemite label doesn't stick, threaten to curb free speech.

Why do you hate America, Zoltus Newberryfeet?

If the people who disagree with you are innately evil, then it's a OK to murder them, right?

This is what makes your breed of thought downright toxic to the human race.

Nobody I know on my side of the fence thinks that your Democrat heros like Kookcenich and Madam Hairspray, Dianne Feinstein, are inherently evil. We really just think most of you, if you spent some time with what we called in college, "critical inquiry," yep, most of you would come around and see the light that big goobermint just breeds corruption and waste and can lead to totalitarian nightmares where the authorities decide that all of them innately evil ones need to be eliminated.

Many of the people you hatefully call "neocons" are neo because they used to embrace your politics, but let it go when they got fed up with all the bull shit posturing and ego tripping of left wing leadres, and when they got fed up with all the graft and corruption, and when they saw that our public schools in places like Oakland and Newark don't work but just feed a bureaucracy. Yet, many of you think good people like Leon and Amy Kass who were very brave freedom riders in Mississippi close to 50 years ago are now "innately evil."

Can't you see that thinking like that really really sucks?

Do you ever think, my frems? Go ahead and think. I promise it will not hurt one bit. It may even liberate you.

liberals are in favor of the fairness doctrine therefore liberals are opposed to free speech. the only speech liberals want is what is approved by the aclu. the aclu is the problem; they hate free speech; they hate freedom.

liberals want to stop conservative talk radio, but continue with the 6 tv networks that are radical left-wing and rarely allow moderate or conservative points of view. to balance things, we need have msnbc, cnn and nbc change into another FOX.

liberals sue everyone about anything they think they can get into court in their effort to eliminate free speech. glenn needs to write an article about the attack on the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights by the aclu.

"Oh, come now, there is plenty of blame to go around!"

You are so right1 Sorry for the hyperbole.

glenn needs to write an article about the attack on the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights by the aclu.

-- rockybalboa

No, rockybalboa needs to explain itself. What "attack on the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights" did the ACLU perpetrate?

I'm sorry, mooser, but your comedic ju ju don't even come close Rocky's little sompin', sompin.'

*Now somewhere in the black mountain hills of Dakota

There lived a young boy named Rocky Raccoon

And one day his woman ran off with another guy

Hit young Rocky in the eye Rocky didn't like that

He said I'm gonna get that boy

So one day he walked into town

Booked himself a room in the local saloon.

Rocky Raccoon checked into his room

Only to find Gideon's bible

Rocky had come equipped with a gun

To shoot off the legs of his rival

His rival it seems had broken his dreams

By stealing the girl of his fancy.

Her name was Magil and she called herself Lil

But everyone knew her as Nancy.

Now she and her man who called himself Dan

Were in the next room at the hoe down

Rocky burst in and grinning a grin

He said Danny boy this is a showdown

But Daniel was hot-he drew first and shot

And Rocky collapsed in the corner.

Now the doctor came in stinking of gin

And proceeded to lie on the table

He said Rocky you met your match

And Rocky said, Doc it's only a scratch

And I'll be better I'll be better doc as soon as I am able.

Now Rocky Raccoon he fell back in his room

Only to find Gideon's bible

A Gideon checked out and he left it no doubt

To help with good Rocky's revival.

*the beatles

bah.

liberals are in favor of the fairness doctrine therefore liberals are opposed to free speech.

How many times must we go over this? Can you name an elected representative who supports the "fairness doctrine"?

No?

See, this is what comes from 1 billion boxing movies where one is repeatedly punched in the head, takes steroids to correct the deficiency, and ends up here, mumbling about fairness doctrines, liberals and such. Go find Adrienne/Adrian. S/he will give you love.