I’ve been seeing talk of a pending Rove indictment on some blogs…
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051306W.shtml
Please don’t jump up and down on the unreliabiliy of blogs, I was surfing blogs randomly and ran across it.
So, I just wanted to toss this out for discussion and speculation!
Not the unreliability of blogs – just the unreliability of this particular blog and blogger:
Here’s a statement from Salon on why they removed his stuff related to Enron back in 2002 - basically he makes stuff up:
http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/archives/000976.html
Here’s an interesting conclusion from the “talkleft” blog that Mr. Leopold, the blogger, might not have grasped the difference between a pending indictment and an anticipated indictment.
EXCERPT:
[i]I’m wondering: Did Jason’s sources understand the difference between Fitzgerald handing over a copy of the charges he said Rove would be indicted on if he refused the offer Fitz was making and an already voted-on Indictment? Was the “24 business hours” reference regarding Rove’s window to finalize his affairs really a warning that if Rove didn’t accept Fitzgerald’s offer by Monday it would be too late for Rove to do anything but make arrangements to surrender on the anticipated Indictment?
From a legal standpoint (and keep in mind Jason, and for all I know, his sources are not lawyers) it makes more sense to me that Fitz would want a final answer from Rove Monday so that he could prepare his final argument for the grand jury on Tuesday and seek its approval of the Indictment Wednesday. Even if Fitz submitted charges to the grand jury last week for its consideration, it doesn’t mean they actually voted on them. Perhaps they began discussion last week and continued deliberations until they met again this week.
I say this because legally, I just can’t understand how Fitz would not be violating Rule 6(e) pertaining to disclosures of matters before the grand jury by sharing a returned (voted on) Indictment with Luskin before it was filed or unsealed. Unless, as one lawyer commenter in an earlier TL thread noted, Fitz also filed a motion and obtained a court order to share it with Luskin and Rove. I’ve never seen such an order in my practice, but I also don’t see any reason why a Judge couldn’t grant such a motion at the request of a prosecutor.
Then again, perhaps Jason’s sources have it exactly right.[/i]
In this case, who knows – maybe Rove will indeed be indicted, as was Libby, for perjury in his grand jury testimony. But we’ll have to wait and see.
Here’s a denial…
Rove Indictment Report Denied
[i]
A spokesman for a top White House aide under scrutiny in a criminal leak probe, Karl Rove, yesterday vigorously denied an Internet report that the political adviser to President Bush was told that he had been indicted on charges of perjury and lying to investigators.
“The story is a complete fabrication,” the spokesman for Mr. Rove, Mark Corallo, told The New York Sun. “It is both malicious and disgraceful.”
A liberal Web site, Truthout.org, carried a report authored by Jason Leopold, alleging that Mr. Rove’s attorney, Robert Luskin, was given the indictment during a marathon, 15-hour meeting in Washington Friday with the special prosecutor handling the inquiry, Patrick Fitzgerald. The site also reported that Mr. Rove had advised senior White House officials that he would be indicted.
Mr. Corallo said there was no such meeting Friday, Mr. Luskin was not in his office that morning, and Mr. Fitzgerald was in Chicago. The spokesman said there was no indication that Mr. Fitzgerald has made a decision about whether to seek charges against Mr. Rove in the inquiry.
In response to a query from the Sun yesterday, Mr. Leopold defended the report. “This was a story that we had more than two sources on,” he said.
[/i]
More of a mainstream source, but not much being said…
Rove Said Unfazed by Chance of Charges
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060515/ap_on_go_pr_wh/rove_4
[i]
WASHINGTON - President Bush’s top political adviser, Karl Rove, arrives at the White House every day wearing a jovial smile that masks his boss’ political troubles and his own legal woes.
…
His friends and colleagues say he’s not fazed by his precarious situation.
…
Rove was asked about his legal problems Monday after a speech on the economy at a conservative think tank, the American Enterprise Institute. He ducked. “Nice try,” Rove told the questioner.
If the grand jury weren’t in the news, it would be hard to tell that Rove, a deputy White House chief of staff, is waiting to find out if he’ll be indicted.
…
Former White House counsel John Dean, who told prosecutors about his own role in Watergate in the 1970s, said Nixon aides who were fighting charges went through great anxiety and spent a lot of time to protect themselves during their final days.
“If Rove is operating as if nothing is going to happen, it is because he has been told nothing is going to happen,” Dean said. “Otherwise, he is faking it, and others are protecting him.”
Rove’s friends say he handles whatever pressure he feels by reminding himself that he can’t control the outcome
“He understands that it’s not his decision to make,” said GOP consultant Ed Gillespie. “He’s is just one who understands that this is beyond his control ? that he’s going to get through it and that it’s going to come to a resolution soon.”
Rove’s fate for now is in the hands of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, who must decide whether he thinks Rove lied or just forgot to tell a grand jury about a conversation with a reporter.
Rove first told Fitzgerald that he had spoken to conservative columnist Robert Novak in July 2003 before Novak published an article that revealed CIA officer Valerie Plame’s identity. Months later, Rove said he had failed to mention that he also had talked to Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper.
[/i]
I hope I’m not boring you too much, but being the political geek that I am (as if you couldn’t tell) I’m finding it fascinating… more mainstream discussion on a tangential point of view…
Web Report Of Rove Troubles Raises Rash Of Speculation
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2006/05/15/publiceye/entry1618732.shtml
[i]
Has Karl Rove been indicted? That was the big rumor sweeping the Web over the weekend, courtesy of a report on the liberal Web site Truthout.org. On Saturday, Jason Leopold reported on the site that President Bush?s political architect had been informed of a pending indictment:
[quote][b]
"Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald spent more than half a day Friday at the offices of Patton Boggs, the law firm representing Karl Rove.
During the course of that meeting, Fitzgerald served attorneys for former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove with an indictment charging the embattled White House official with perjury and lying to investigators related to his role in the CIA leak case, and instructed one of the attorneys to tell Rove that he has 24 business hours to get his affairs in order, high level sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said Saturday morning."
[/b][/quote]
The day before, Leopold reported that Rove had informed President Bush and White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten he would be indicted and would leave his White House post immediately once it was announced. The basis for these reports? “Sources,” of course.
Had either of these stories appeared on the front page of The New York Times, or in Newsweek magazine, we would be in the throes of a media feeding frenzy. The Sunday Show slates would have been hurriedly rearranged to capitalize on this new ?bombshell? and America would have woken up this morning to watch Rove make the quick walk-and-duck from his front door to his waiting car. But so far, Leopold?s story stands alone.
It?s not to say the report wasn?t noticed. At the conservative National Review, Byron York noted that the story was being checked out by other reporters who had not been able to substantiate it. York also reported that Rove?s spokesperson was denying the story. At CBS News, e-mails were sent out by correspondents reporting absolute denials of the story by named principles. And questions about Leopold?s past circulated on the Web.
Adding to the intrigue are comments suggesting he will reveal the names of his sources if the story does not turn out to be accurate. It?s something that has the blogosphere buzzing, but has yet to be verified independently. Presumably, we?ll know soon whether there is anything to this story. The fact nobody in the MSM has been able to verify it suggests the story is not accurate in some respects.
This is a curious story in so many ways. If it is true, why would Rove?s spokesperson issue such a strong denial? It would appear pretty silly to deny one day what is going to happen the next. Would Leopold really reveal the names of his sources should the story turn out incorrect? What is really the difference between the use of anonymous sources in this instance and the many un-named sources we see in the MSM? And just consider the possibility that Leopold?s story could turn out to be accurate. What would that mean to the world of journalism?
[/i]
Here is one blogger asking the source of the original speculation about what is going on… funny stuff!
Jason Leopold update on Rove Indictment Story
[i]
As editor of OpEdnews, I started wondering when Jason Leopold’s news that Karl Rove was indicted, which we made our main headline, did not show up in the mainstream news. He’s been superbly reliable and great and bringing news ahead of others. So I wrote to him:
[quote][b]
I’m getting emails asking why the mainstream media aren’t reporting on Rove’s indictment. And now, one of my Trusted Authors has written this article
Any word you can give me on what’s up?
Rob Kall
[/quote][/b]
Jason replied,
[quote][b]
Rob
I have now been turned into the story - again. Robert Luskin and Mark Corallo, Rove’s attorney and spokesman, are liars. Damned liars. I have five sources on this. In the news business when you want to discredit a reporter and an explosive report you call the spokesman and get him to issue a denial. My reports have gone way beyond the spokesman and the lawyer to get to the truth. I am SHOCKED that the mainstream have followed this up by simply calling a spokesman.
Best
Jason Leopold
[/b][/quote]
I responded to Jason, “Can I post this on our site? Or, do you want to write something on this?”
He replied,
You can add this:
[quote][b]
I am amazed that the blogosphere would lend credence to the statements of people who have consistently lied about Rove?s role in this case. This is a White House that denied Rove’s involvement in the leak. This is a White House that has lied and lied and lied. And yet the first question that people ask is “why would Rove’s spokesman lie?” Because they can, because they do, and because they have. This is an administration that has attacked and discredited their detractors. I am amazed that not a single reporter would actually do any real investigative work and get to the bottom of this story. Surely, their must be another intrepid reporter out there that has sources beyond a spokesman.
Jason Leopold
Reporter
[/b][/quote]
We also have word that Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame’s husband, also heard the same report of Rove’s indictment.
[i]
It turns out Cheney has written notes pertaining to the Plamegate affair which leads to the following speculation or musing on why we haven’t seen anything yet…
Another Spiral in the Plame Affair?
[i]
Rumors are swarming that Karl Rove either has been or will be indicted over the Valerie Plame affair. And it appears now that Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor in the case, is looking at Vice President Dick Cheney’s role in the matter. The rumors on Rove stem from his fourth appearance before a grand jury and reports of extended meetings between Fitzgerald and Rove’s lawyers. The information on Cheney originated in a court filing by Fitzgerald, noting that the vice president made handwritten comments on a copy of an op-ed piece written by Plame’s husband, Joseph Wilson.
We can’t verify that Rove has been or will be indicted, although by Washington rules, the specificity and breadth of the rumors tend to make us think they are true.
Being called in front of a grand jury four times does not bode well for the witness. It is not clear what Fitzgerald is trying to do with the Cheney material, nor what was discussed for several hours with Rove’s attorneys. Normally, indictments are used to squeeze the defendant to plea-bargain for a reduced sentence, in return for testimony against bigger fish. But there are precious few fish as big as Karl Rove in Washington. The only one, apart from the president, is Cheney. If Fitzgerald were not trying to squeeze Rove, there would have been no reason for a personal meeting between him and Rove’s attorneys.
There are lots of speculative links here, but at this point speculation is warranted. We don’t know that Rove is indicted, but it seems likely that he is or will be shortly. It is not clear that Cheney has done anything wrong, but if not, Rove is the top of the food chain: Indict and be done with it. So, let’s engage in empty speculation and wonder what would happen if Cheney were indicted in this matter.
…
[/i]
The grand jury indictments are done and sealed in envelopes as Fitz checks and rechecks his facts.
Fitz wants to see if Rove will offer up Cheney.
You can’t write a story this good!
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
The grand jury indictments are done and sealed in envelopes as Fitz checks and rechecks his facts.
Fitz wants to see if Rove will offer up Cheney.
You can’t write a story this good![/quote]
From what I excerpted above from Jeralyn Merritt:
[i]From a legal standpoint (and keep in mind Jason, and for all I know, his sources are not lawyers) it makes more sense to me that Fitz would want a final answer from Rove Monday so that he could prepare his final argument for the grand jury on Tuesday and seek its approval of the Indictment Wednesday. Even if Fitz submitted charges to the grand jury last week for its consideration, it doesn’t mean they actually voted on them. Perhaps they began discussion last week and continued deliberations until they met again this week.
I say this because legally, I just can’t understand how Fitz would not be violating Rule 6(e) pertaining to disclosures of matters before the grand jury by sharing a returned (voted on) Indictment with Luskin before it was filed or unsealed. Unless, as one lawyer commenter in an earlier TL thread noted, Fitz also filed a motion and obtained a court order to share it with Luskin and Rove. I’ve never seen such an order in my practice, but I also don’t see any reason why a Judge couldn’t grant such a motion at the request of a prosecutor. [/i]
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
The grand jury indictments are done and sealed in envelopes as Fitz checks and rechecks his facts.
Fitz wants to see if Rove will offer up Cheney.
You can’t write a story this good![/quote]
One can only hope…
[quote]gojira wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
The grand jury indictments are done and sealed in envelopes as Fitz checks and rechecks his facts.
Fitz wants to see if Rove will offer up Cheney.
You can’t write a story this good!
One can only hope…[/quote]
Foregone conclusion.
More rumors and innuendo – perhaps it’s not Rove who’s even being targeted, but Richard Armitage (something I had posted about on past threads).
See: http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2006/05/in_the_crosshai.html
ADDENDUM: But see: danieldrezner.com :: Daniel W. Drezner :: My quasi-inside (and, apparently, incorrect) dirt on the Plame Game
Perhaps Rove is still the target. But again, everything points to focus on perjury charges, not on anything related to the underlying L’affaire de Plame (pas).
Another week, another promised indictment, another lack thereof…
But this is an interesting substory related to the blogger who broke the latest “Rove indictment” rumor:
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
gojira wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
The grand jury indictments are done and sealed in envelopes as Fitz checks and rechecks his facts.
Fitz wants to see if Rove will offer up Cheney.
You can’t write a story this good!
One can only hope…
Foregone conclusion.[/quote]
Man, that popcorn sure must be stale by now…
So much speculation, so little factual back up.
You may as well eat up.
Rove’s lawyers just said Fitzgerald told them Rove won’t be indicted – there’s a banner at the top of WSJ online, with a note that an article is coming later.
Here’s a link to one of the many stories on this.
I’m glad Luskin chose the NYT to break the story – gets it out to all the right readers first. Too bad this was held until after the Yearly Kos convention in Vegas – would have been funny to hear the wailing all the way back here in DC. I can hear the tin foil crumpling now…
The guy is a creep. Even if he isn’t charged.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
gojira wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
The grand jury indictments are done and sealed in envelopes as Fitz checks and rechecks his facts.
Fitz wants to see if Rove will offer up Cheney.
You can’t write a story this good!
One can only hope…
Foregone conclusion.
Man, that popcorn sure must be stale by now…
So much speculation, so little factual back up.
You may as well eat up.
Rove’s lawyers just said Fitzgerald told them Rove won’t be indicted – there’s a banner at the top of WSJ online, with a note that an article is coming later.
[/quote]
There are more than plenty of scandals in DC to keep Orville makin’ fat cash.
Rove ratted on someone in the State Department.
I would have done the same thing.
You fail to see the irony in the fact that a fellow right wingnut ‘escaped’ indictment.
He should never have put himself in that spot to begin with. It really is not hard to stay above the fray.
i.e. Report says, “I heard Wilson’s wife, who work at the CIA on WMD, suggest he be sent…”
Rove replies, “I don’t know what you are talking about.”
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
There are more than plenty of scandals in DC to keep Orville makin’ fat cash.[/quote]
I’m sure there are, but as you have been guaranteeing a Rove indictment and general governmental implosion for some time now from this non-scandal, I would have thought the air going out of this balloon might have dismayed you more.
But then again, the fact that your repeated predictions are wrong doesn’t really affect you one way or the other.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Rove ratted on someone in the State Department.[/quote]
Or more likely Fitzgerald decided he didn’t have enough of a case – particularly when Rove’s statements are juxtaposed with those of Richard Armitage, whom Fitzgerald was not going to charge.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
I would have done the same thing.
You fail to see the irony in the fact that a fellow right wingnut ‘escaped’ indictment.
He should never have put himself in that spot to begin with. It really is not hard to stay above the fray.
i.e. Report says, “I heard Wilson’s wife, who work at the CIA on WMD, suggest he be sent…”
Rove replies, “I don’t know what you are talking about.”[/quote]
True, he could have done that. But it’s entirely beside the point of why Rove’s not going to be indicted.
If he were to have been indicted, it would have been for lying under oath to the grand jury (for failing to recall a specific conversation with Matt Cooper) – not for anything related to the substance of the conversation.
This whole thing will end not with a bang, but a whimper.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Rove ratted on someone in the State Department.
I would have done the same thing.
[/quote]
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTE5MzJhNWNlZWU1YTUxZjQ2M2JhNGExZmE3MzMyNDY=
ROVE, FITZ, AND THE LEFT’S LATEST GREAT HOPE [Byron York]
There has been much speculation in the pro-indictment community that Karl Rove made some sort of deal with CIA leak prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald in which Rove promised to cooperate in return for not being indicted. (The hope is that somehow Rove agreed to help nail Vice President Dick Cheney.) I just talked to defense spokesman Mark Corallo, who told me, “There are no conditions to this action by the special prosecutor. There has never been any talk of conditions, of cooperation, of anything that could even be construed as conditions. This just simply reflects the fact that the special prosecutor found Mr. Rove to be a truthful and credible witness from the beginning.”
Posted at 3:34 PM
LOL, now that’s some spin Boston! Regardless, he is indictment free… which is certainly good news for him and the administration.