Rove To Talk To Fitzgerald, Again

My very preliminary thoughts are in an UPDATE to last night's post. 

MORE:  Some post-preliminary thoughts:

1.  The Ronnie Earle Factor

Following the DeLay debacle, Special Counsel Fitzgerald is under additional pressure to bring strong indictments of serious crimes.  So why accept Rove's offer to come back?  To give the grand jury one last look at him before they (a) indict Karl; or (b) rely on Karl's testimony, augmented by new information from Ms. Miller, to indict someone else; (c) pack up and go home.

And with (b), who might that someone else be?  Since Ms. Miller's testimony focused on Libby, let's guess it is him.  As to packing up and going home, my goodness, if Fitzgerald has gone on this long and still can't decide, he must not have a case.  So why the late theatrics?  I would not bet (c).

That said, the current state of play is that Rove was the second source for Novak and the first source for Cooper.  Is it plausible that others will be indicted but not Rove?

My pop psychology is weak - I am either blocking, or in denial, so I can't quite say it, but... if I were a Republican strategist paid to have contingency plans, I would start thinking to the day when Fitzgerald announces the indictment of Karl Rove.  It may not happen, but hope is not a plan.

2.  Where's Judy?

After Matt Cooper testified, he told his story in TIME and on Meet The Press.  And why not?  Witnesses are not bound by grand jury secrecy regarding their own testimony, and Cooper was not a focus of the investigation.

Judy Miller, on the other hand, has not published word one in the NY Times.  Is this because the NY Times is an ethically bankrupt news organization?  Don't rule that out!

But on the off chance that the Times still clings to a pretense of journalistic credibility, the reason for Ms. Miller's silence may simply be that she is a focal point of this investigation and her lawyers have bound her mouth and typing fingers with duct tape.

So why bring back Karl for more testimony?  There is no obvious and public link between his testimony and Judy Miller, but the fact remains, Fitzgerald is bringing him back.  Our crystal ball goes dark.

STILL MORE:  Steve On Line is interesting on the Libby/Rove scenarios.  And I can find some fellow headscratchers on the left - Kevin Drum points us to Lawrence O'Donnell, with an UPDATE here (Mr. O'Donnell's first post, asserting that Rove was a target, was contradicted by Rove's attorney, but don't let that affect your estimate of his credibility.)

His theme - Fitzgerald has moved to the plea bargain / roll-up stage.

We also continue our Murray Waas Watch:

Rove will appear voluntarily, but during tomorrow's session, Rove will be pressed about issues as to why his accounts to the FBI and grand jury have changed, or evolved, over time. He will also be questioned regarding contacts with other senior administration officials, such as then-deputy National Security advisor Stephen J. Hadley and I. Lewis Libby, the chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney in the critical week before the publication of columnist Robert Novak's column on July 14, 2003, which outed Plame as a covert CIA operative...

OK, that could explain the Libby/Miller connection.  Or it could fit with "One Last Look".

UNFORGIVEN:  Over two years later, No Bad Dude responds to my proposed wager - what a memory!

And what a man of honor - in my 2003 e-mail, I had proposed that I collect if Rove was still with the White House at the end of the year.  I assume the check is in the mail to me (although one might argue I didn't say *which* year...)

LOWER THE CONE OF SILENCE:  Here is the NY Times story.  Try to find their mention of Judy Miller.  Or is it pure coincidence that Fitzgerald has ignored Rove since July, hears from Miller, and wants Rove's testimony the next day?  The Times also tells us that Libby may be called back - gee, didn't some reporter recently testify about her contacts with him?  Maybe it is hidden behind Times Select [Actually, Miller, and other breaking news, appear in a subsequent revision].

The LA Times mentions Ms. Miller.  So does the WaPo:

As recently as a week ago, people familiar with Rove's role in the affair said they believed he was in the clear because, after Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper testified in July about his conversation with Rove, Rove had not heard back from Fitzgerald.

Rove offered then to come back and answer any questions that might arise from Cooper's testimony, Luskin has said.

...

Besides Cooper, at least two other people have testified before the grand jury since Rove last answered questions: New York Times reporter Judith Miller, who was questioned after initially refusing to appear and serving 85 days in jail, and Rove's secretary.

Under an agreement with Fitzgerald, Miller's testimony last Friday focused on her conversations with Libby. Libby's lawyer, Joseph Tate, did not return telephone calls seeking comment yesterday.

Rove's secretary was questioned about why a phone call from Cooper to Rove in 2003 was not recorded in White House phone logs, according to sources familiar with the probe. She reportedly explained that Cooper called the main switchboard and his call was not logged because it was rerouted to Rove's office.

One apparent conflict between Rove's and Cooper's accounts centers on Rove telling the grand jury that he and Cooper talked primarily about welfare during their conversation, according to lawyers familiar with Rove's account. Cooper has said the grand jury asked him repeatedly about the welfare portion of his discussion with Rove, but Cooper said that, although he left a message for Rove about welfare reform, their conversation that day centered on Wilson.

OK, these points are fresh in our minds.  First, we had some fun with the mystery of the unlogged phone call here. 

That same old post tackles the question of whether Cooper really did chat with Rove about welfare reform, but here we go again:  in his TIME piece, Cooper expressed surprise at a line of questioning in the grand jury, and wrote "To me this suggested that Rove may have testified that we had talked about welfare reform, and indeed earlier in the week, I may have left a message with his office asking if I could talk to him about welfare reform. But I can't find any record of talking about it with him on July 11, and I don't recall doing so."

However, regardless of the quality of Cooper's notes or memory, part of the evidence trail is an e-mail from Rove to Hadley, then deputy national security advisor.  It was written just after Rove spoke with Cooper and described the call:

"Matt Cooper called to give me a heads-up that he's got a welfare-reform story coming," Mr. Rove wrote Mr. Hadley, who since has risen to the top job of national security adviser.

"When he finished his brief heads-up, he immediately launched into Niger. Isn't this damaging? Hasn't the president been hurt? I didn't take the bait, but I said if I were him, I wouldn't get Time far out in front on this."

Sure, maybe Rove planted this odd welfare reform cover story two years ago.  Or maybe Cooper forgot.  Byron York was on this; as another tidbit, welfare reform was in the news that week.

If that is all there is to this, Rove can exhale.  I said "IF".

SUMMING IT ALL UP: Laura Rozen excerpts the LA Times, and we steal this insight into what the news means for Rove:

"Certainly, it's not particularly good," said the Justice Department official. "What, exactly, the significance is, I can't say. But it can't be good."

Comments

[freaknik]

The aspens are turning.

[cathyf]

So, does anybody else see an update to last night's post?

cathy :-)

[kim]

This is moving so fast that the latest thinking can't be posted because it wouldn't be any longer.
==================================================

[Jerkweed]

Kim, when has the inability to post actual "thinking" ever bothered you before you.

[topsecretk9]

cathy, I can't either...was wondering if it was cryptic but then I do that way too much

[kim]

I think therefore I am I before I.
==============================================

[topsecretk9]

TM wrote this last night referring to lefties atwiter...
Kremlinologists note Rove's absence from the recent Miers events, and conclude that space aliens have called him home he has been handed a target letter and is being eased out the door.

this was today, for what is worth
Rove played an active role in selection of Miers
By Joseph Curl
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
October 6, 2005

Senior Bush adviser Karl Rove was "very involved" in President Bush's Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Miers, who was selected in part because she has no judicial track record, according to a Republican with close ties to the administration.

[topsecretk9]

update, up and working

[mark]

The leaks appear.

This request of Rove, to reappear is troubling. Apparently reports of the letters going out is false, but there may be the case that the letters are being prepared to go out...and someone is giving a list.

Rove would be most likely going to do damage contol for someone, other than himself. Otherwise, why risk the appearance and get further into trouble. Libby is going to be on the block, maybe.

Rove changed his mind shortly after Miller tesifies. He must have gotten wind that there were some inconsistencies with the Libby v. Miller versions.

He may be going back to establish that Miller knew Plame's identity before her reported conversation with Libby, to take the heat off of him.

This is a distinct sign that the Miller testimony did not got as planned for the Whitehouse.

[Keith]

Rove offered in July to return to the grand jury for additional testimony and Fitzgerald accepted that offer Friday after taking grand jury testimony from the formerly jailed New York Times reporter Judith Miller.

The offer to testify was made back in July and was just now accepted.

[topsecretk9]

however, Ms Miller has yet to write word (then) and now, unlike Cooper and the NYTimes only late word is lllaaaamme...

this could be more about Judy...and trouble for her!

[topsecretk9]

by the way...has anyone read the "Macmind" blog linked/trackbacked to this post (above, at top) and the thread there?

I just noticed it and it is interesting indeed.

[SteveMG]

Time to really start the guessing game (as opposed to what we've been doing before now):

Conspiracy charges against: Rove, Libby and Fleischer.

No charges on violations of IIPA. Maybe some other charges on handling of classified documents.

Let the games begin. . .

SMG

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

If I were Joe and Valerie Wilson or Matt Cooper, I'd be awfully uncomfortable about now.

[topsecretk9]

conspiracy to obstruct a Federal investigation against Cooper and Miller (and maybe more journo types)

out on a limb guess- maybe some stiffer charges for a certain couple of non admin unexpected(s)

remember, the target is usually not asked to testify and if so, is timely warned

Subpoenaing a subject or target

Department of Justice policy
The grand jury may subpoena and question a target or a subject.(146) However, because of possible prejudice in requiring a target to invoke the 5th Amendment before the grand jury, a target should not be subpoenaed unless the United States Attorney or appropriate Assistant Attorney General specifically approves.(147) Moreover, if both the target and his attorney signify in writing that the target will invoke his 5th Amendment privilege if called, then ordinarily, the target should be excused from testifying.(148)

Target letters
In most cases, the Division attorney should notify a target of an antitrust investigation a reasonable time prior to seeking an indictment to afford him an opportunity to testify before the grand jury. The target notification letter should include the following:

(i) the date on which the target may appear; (ii) that the target is advised to consult with counsel about the matter; (iii) that the target will have to waive his 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination explicitly prior to testifying; (iv) that, should he testify, the target will have to consent to a full examination under oath, to be conducted by attorneys for the Government and/or by the grand jurors themselves; and (v) that anything the target says before the grand jury may be used against him.(149)
The Government is under no obligation to notify a target prior to indictment and, of course, should not do so in the rare case where such action might jeopardize the investigation or prosecution because of the likelihood of flight, destruction or fabrication of evidence, endangerment of other witnesses, undue delay or otherwise would be inconsistent with the ends of justice.(150)

[Keith]

The U.S. attorney's manual requires that prosecutors not bring witnesses before a grand jury if there is a possibility of future criminal charges unless the witnesses are notified in advance that their testimony can be used against them in a later indictment.

Rove has already made at least three grand jury appearances and his return at this late stage in the investigation is unusual.

The prosecutor did not give Rove similar warnings before his earlier grand jury appearances.

I'm not a lawyer, from the fact that Rove wasn't warned before his previous testimony but was warned before this testimony tells me that he is now likely to be indicted--target letter or not.

If not, can someone explain to me how?

[Cecil Turner]

"Time to really start the guessing game . . ."

I'll play: no indictments, no indication a crime was committed. (At least on the central issue . . . on the ongoing leakfest, including those from the grand jury, no bets.)

[topsecretk9]

Keith I am no expert, but it is my understanding that the what Rove has received this time is pretty standard boilerplate " advice of rights"

So I just see this a stretch on the part of the press to paint something that is standard into something suspect...which is really what they do with everything when you think about it

[Cecil Turner]

" . . . from the fact that Rove wasn't warned before his previous testimony but was warned before this testimony tells me . . ."

I'm also not a lawyer, but a letter saying they "cannot guarantee he won't be indicted" would hardly qualify as a "warning." (At least in the sense of warning a witness who is under suspicion of his Fifth Amendment rights.) If Fitzgerald is playing it straight, he hasn't decided to try for a Rove indictment . . . yet.

[Syl]

" . . . from the fact that Rove wasn't warned before his previous testimony but was warned before this testimony tells me . . ."

Actually I think the difference is that earlier they asked Rove to testify. The requests had the built-in assumption that Rove wasn't a target simply because the prosecutor made the request.

In this case Rove volunteered to testify some more, in which case a warning would be SOP.

[cathyf]

If I were Joe and Valerie Wilson or Matt Cooper, I'd be awfully uncomfortable about now.

I dunno. If Fitzgerald has really been conducting an investigation into what Wilson or Plame did this would require him to collect evidence agaisnt them, not just collect evidence about what Rove or Libby didn't do. This grand jury has leaked like a sieve, and it's hard to imagine he did all that in secret. Unless he is bringing charges against one or both and all of the evidence is documentary and there were no witnesses. I think, though, that it's unlikely to be Wilson or Plame.

cathy :-)

[topsecretk9]

have there really been a lot of leaks?

[topsecretk9]

this is a lawyer type question, but do these things lead to other Grand Juries for other crimes learned during this grad jury?

just wondering...because I don't quite understand how Fitzgerald would know that Judy had other sources? Sources for what, she didn't write anything, so why would he (or how) would Fitz know this?

also strange that Fitz would be all hard ass on Judy and Coop (jail) but pussy foot Rove/Libby to the end, when he could have indicted a while ago?

[try hang gliding]

A dollar says Rove just wants to clarify whether or not he actually had a conversation with Cooper about welfare reform.

[TM]

Sorry about the confusion on the UPDATE. The original UPDATE got crashed out; I then posted a short explanation here, and that got eaten as well.

Good point earlier about Judy by topsekret at 2:09, who thinks she may be in trouble.

Normally, I would figure a journalist would be in the clear, but:

(a) she never wrote a story;

(b) she still has not explained her situation.

As Jay Rosen noted, Matt Cooper told his tale in TIME and on Meet The Press immediately after testifying; we have had nothing from Judy.

And there is no bar on a witness disclosing their own grand jury testimony.

SO, either (1) Judy and the NY Times are bankrupt as news agencies (possible!), or (2) Judy is not in the clear, and her lawyers have duct-taped her.

My other guess - let's invoke a "Ronnie Earle factor" - Fitzgerald is under extra pressure ot bring a serious indictment and a strong case.

SO, he brings back Rove so that either (x) the grand jury gets one last look before indicting him (or not); or (y) Karl puts the final nail in someone else's coffin, possibly by simply repeating/reaffirming earlier testimony suported by Miller that contradicts someone else, presumably Libby.

Enough guesses? I feel the way I do about playoff baseball versus the regular season. IN July, its fun to talk about what we need for a stretch run; in October, let's just play the games.

[jerkweed]

Oh please. Go read Murray "go to guy" Waas' post on this.

Rove is coming back to "explain" his earlier testimony. Draw your own conclusions.

[clarice]

Uh--Maybe at the time Fitzgerald postponed taking up Rove on his offer (3 months ago), he was still trying to get Miller to testify more broadly and anticipated getting unredacted notes..Now that he settled for the redacted notes and heard her testimony (only) about Libby, he invited Rove in just to tie up everything..

And, maybe--Cooper whose bosses quickly turned over his unredacted notes was caught in the short hairs of his own lies and Rove is being brought in for the final blow?

[Jim E.]

A few people above have asserted that the grand jury has been guilty of leaks. Any examples?

Seems to me that the investigation side of this drama has been pretty quiet (at least compared to, say, Starr and Co.) and that the overwhelming preponderance of leaks has been coming from administration sources and their lawyers.

[Jim E.]

TM,
Since your including other speculation (like O'Donnell's) on your main page, you might want to take a quick look at Josh Marshall. No new evidence, but interesting speculation over there.

[Geek, Esq.]

They're bringing him back to essentially cross-examine him.

[SteveMG]

Geek:
"They're bringing him back to essentially cross-examine him."

Relying on spectral evidence again?

Ye olde wish is father to the thought.

Dammed, you guys on the left are really hungry for Rove's scalp (among other parts).

Still need policies and a program even if old Karl is strung up from the Washington Monument.

SMG

[Geek, Esq.]

They have all the information from Rove that he's willing to give that they want.

The only reason they call him at this point is to get him to say something that he's been trying to avoid saying.

[Keith]

The funny thing about the liberals wanting Rove so bad is that taking him out of the administration is probably a good thing for Bush in the long term. Can anyone remember when Bush made a good political move as far as passing his agenda is concerned? Who's idea was Social Security? Who thought of Harriet Miers? Karl Rove had a hand in all of those things. He can win an election, but he hasnt' proven himself to be good at governing.

[Keith]

From the NYTimes writeup:

The prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, has held discussions in recent days with lawyers for several Bush administration officials suggesting that that he is considering whether to charge them with a crime over the disclosure of an intelligence operative's identity in a 2003 newspaper column.

But some of the lawyers said Mr. Fitzgerald indicated that he had not yet made up his mind about whether to accuse anyone with wrongdoing and would use the coming weeks before the grand jury expires on Oct. 28 to decide the issue.

Mr. Fitzgerald's conversations with lawyers since late last week have left an ominous cloud hanging over the inquiry, sweeping away assurances from a number of officials and their lawyers that Mr. Fitzgerald was unlikely to find criminal wrongdoing.

Does anyone who knows about such things draw the same "ominous" conclusions that the the Times does? Does the fact that Fitzgerald has been meeting with administration lawyers in recent days provide any clues? Does it really "sweep away assurances"? Does the Times know more than it's letting on?

[topsecretk9]

"The prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, has held discussions in recent days with lawyers for several Bush administration officials suggesting that that he is considering whether to charge them with a crime over the disclosure of an intelligence operative's identity in a 2003 newspaper column."

again, I am no expert, but on first blush...the idea that Fitz is meeting opposition lawyers to hymn and hah about charging their clients doesn't (at least from my own experience in legal matters) seem likely. That he is meeting with them seems to me a bit strange, no?

[Keith]

"That he is meeting with them seems to me a bit strange, no?"

Yeah, it does. That's why I'm wondering what it might mean. The Times seems to take it as a sign that bad things are ahead for the Bushies, but I wonder if it might not mean exactly the opposite. Why would Fitz be tipping his hand in personal conversations if he was about to try these people in court?

But I'm not a lawyer--I have no idea.

[topsecretk9]

anyone else get the feeling that the press--the ones involved--and the ones who've been reporting on this from the beginning have essentially been Katrina-ing this story?

[Sensible Mom]

I don't believe Ronnie Earle is a factor for Patrick Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald is a professional, Earle is not, and everyone knows that.

I don't think Plame or Wilson will be indicted. From the leaks we've heard everything has revolved around what Rove, Libby, Cooper, Russert and Miller have known and said.

I don't believe Plame or Wilson were ever interviewed by Fitzgerald, although I can't think of why not, but I don't believe that's an indication that they're the ones being investigated.

My gut tells me this is very bad news for Rove and/or Libby. The media will get a pass even if they informed the administration of Plame's so-called covert status.

I do find it interesting that Judy Miller has not spoken about her interview. For months the NYT has hinted at Rove's role and Miller's martyrdom. The fact that they haven't claimed her innocence from the rooftops gives me pause. Then again, she may have been told to be quiet so as to ferret out someone else.

[topsecretk9]

Keith

yes, I don't buy it. I just isn't plausible "listen fellows nice of you to come, well I just not sure if I am gonna indict your clients"

and yes, is does appear that the NYT has it own take, and suprise it's ominous and cloudy for Rove!

[Sensible Mom]

I meant to say the NYT celebrated Miller's martyrdom.

Why is everything in italics?

[Keith]

Tom, you might want to edit my messed up italics sign in my previous comment and then delete this one. Sorry!

[topsecretk9]

Keith

TM is forgiving on the broken tags...ahem I just know ahem

[sensible mom]

I also don't believe that Fitzgerald will end this without indictments. If there wasn't a crime, he would have wrapped up the investigation long ago.

He will indict at least one person.

[Keith]

yes, I don't buy it. I just isn't plausible "listen fellows nice of you to come, well I just not sure if I am gonna indict your clients"

So what was going on in those meetings? Why do prosecutors usually meet with lawyers of people who are being investigated, or who are at least involved in an investigation, right before they're supposedly about to conclude their investigation? I'm trying to read tea leaves.

[topsecretk9]

okay I know I am going out into crazy land here, but I don't even know if I believe anything in the press anymore...at this point I am so jaded I wouldn't be surprised if revolves around a lawyers observed outside the building of Fitz, becomes meetings...

but thats silly...I know

unless Rove and Libby are really prosecution witnesses, so meeting with Fitz and the NYTimes is grasping for spin

[c]

tag not closed above ok now?

[Gary Maxwell]

Lawrence ODonnell who hasn't been right about anything since around Jimmy Carter's Presidency? Loony Larry is the the scooper here. Listen if he say put your money on the pass line, a wise man would go against the shooter.

Think about it. If there really is some real risk to Rove, his lawyer would never allow him to trudge back into the Grand Jury room where his counsel can not even be present and his words can be used against him.

Fitzgerald has bupkus or he has reporters in his crosshairs. I am betting two years and millions spent with this whole thing going clockwise down the drain.

[Jim E.]

In terms of the meetings described in the NYTimes, perhaps FitzGerald is looking for people to flip or plea bargain with?

[Jim E.]

Gary M,
O'Donnell was the first major scribe to publicly and confidently say Rove was Cooper's source. He was right about that.

What do I win?

[topsecretk9]

C--- did you close it? If so, how? for future goof up would love to know how? pretty please