Tuesday, September 13, 2005

Are grand jurors the target market for this story?

Just wondering, after I read this story in the Washington Post today, why it was written. Just a human interest piece or more?

I recall reading something recently on the workings of grand juries and how there are no limitations on jurors reading news stories...the point may even have been made that they are indeed encouraged to read and investigate the matter before them. And so I thought that this piece would fall into that category.

It serves as a reminder to the grand jurors that the "little people" working in the White House, now and in the past, are subjected to tremendous financial burdens when called to appear before a grand jury. The figures presented here estimate the cost to be between $10,000 and $100,000 for legal advice. An incredible debt to take on for anyone.
The latest White House staffer to face the grand jury is Susan B. Ralston, assistant to White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, who gave testimony to the committee investigating the leak of the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame.
Wonder if the burden that she is taking on, financially and emotionally, for her boss, , is being spotlighted to remind the grand jury of the serious impact their deliberations have taken on such staffers. And that Rove's actions, whatever they were, took a serious toll on her as well. Perhaps as they are "winding up" their deliberations, as reported, it is appropriate to have such a reminder.