Reuters On Plame: Ready, Set...

On the Plame leak story, Reuters tells us to brace for... something:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The federal prosecutor investigating who leaked the identity of a CIA operative is expected to signal within days whether he intends to bring indictments in the case, legal sources close to the investigation said on Wednesday.

As a first step, prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald was expected to notify officials by letter if they have become targets, said the lawyers, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.

Fitzgerald could announce plea agreements, bring indictments, or conclude that no crime was committed. By the end of this month he is expected to wrap up his nearly two-year-old investigation into who leaked CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity.

Lefties are atwitter over rumors that Fitzgerald is poised to indict twenty-two people; 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.

Indicting twenty-two people would be great news for all those baseball managers who are dismissed with the explanation that "we can't fire all the players".

UPDATE:  Rove will testify again:

        Federal prosecutors have accepted an offer from presidential adviser Karl Rove to give 11th hour testimony in the case of a CIA officer's leaked identity but have warned they cannot guarantee he won't be indicted, according to people directly familiar with the investigation.

The persons, who spoke only on condition of anonymity because of grand jury secrecy, said Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has not made any decision yet on whether to file criminal charges against the longtime confidant of President Bush or others.

The U.S. attorney's manual requires prosecutors not to bring witnesses before a grand jury if there is a possibility of future criminal charges unless they are notified in advance that their grand jury 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.

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.

Before accepting the offer, Fitzgerald sent correspondence to Rove's legal team making clear that there was no guarantee he wouldn't be indicted at a later point as required by the rules.

Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, said Thursday he would not comment on any ongoing discussion he has had with Fitzgerald's office but that he has been assured no decisions on charges have been made. Rove would first have to receive what is known as a target letter if he is about to be indicted.

"I can say categorically that Karl has not received a target letter from the special counsel. The special counsel has confirmed that he has not made any charging decisions in respect to Karl," Luskin said.

Let's assume Fitzgerald is speaking in good faith - it seems odd that he is still unsure of what to do with Karl, but there it is.   

Apparently, Rove offered to re-testify in July, but Fitzgerald wanted to hear from Ms. Miller first - why?  Did she and Libby discuss Rove?  Or did her testimony resolve a "he said/he said" dispute between the testimony of Rove and Libby?

Might it be that Rove's new testimony, coupled with what we assume is new Miller evidence, signals trouble for Libby?

And is there trouble in paradise - might there be a division between Bush's team and Cheney's?

Comments

[steve sturm]

I could be wrong by the time I wake up tomorrow, but for right now, me thinks indictments are not coming...

Supposedly, the only thing Fitzgerald has been doing lately is waiting for Miller to break her silence and testify... which means either (1) that Fitzgerald has had everything he needed to indict someone and simply was in no hurry to act or (2) he was waiting because he didn't have everything he needed to bring indictments and needed Miller to provide whatever he was missing.

As for (1), I have no idea if Fitzgerald is the kind of prosecutor who would sit rather than act... but I'll risk it and guess that he would act as soon as he had enough for an indictment, especially given the status of the people involved.... so, since he hasn't acted yet, I would conclude that he didn't have enough information prior to Miller's testimony to indict anyone. Another point: he didn't know when Miller would finally agree to testify, or even if she ever would.... which would make his waiting to indict until after she testified even more unlikely.

As for the possibility of (2), since Miller's testimony was supposedly limited to conversations she had with Libby, this ought to indicate that Rove and everybody but Libby faced no exposure from anything Miller had to offer. There is one exception: Libby implicated Rove or someone else and Fitzgerald needed Miller as a corroborating witness.... but I discount this since, if Libby did implicate Rove, it is likely that the Bush White House would have been told and Rove would have long been eased out to pasture.

And since Libby reportedly wanted Miller to testify, my guess is that Fitzgerald needed Miller to absolve Libby of wrongdoing, and not to provide testimony critical to indicting Libby.

As I said, I could be proven wrong real soon... I hope I haven't jinxed myself.

[AT]

When I heard this rumor earlier today, it was that 22 reporters were pleasuring themselves in the corner.

[BurbankErnie]

So, Plame, Wilson, a couple more CIA Flackies and a handful of Reporters indicted is my guess. But I will be proven wrong when Nobody gets indicted.

OK, I covered my bases, proven myself a Bush Disciple, and jinxed myself.

Hey, this is fun!

[mcg]

AT, for a minute there I thought you were talking about 22 of the bloggers on The Corner, but then I realized that there was no way they were pleasuring themselves; they are too busy whining about Miers.

[kim]

Let's see 22 defense lawyers to ask Judy questions.

Maybe it's 22 more grand jurors Fitz is seeking.
=================================================

[TM]

Well, it it happens, it happens.

But if it doesn't, the silliest part of the lefty logic will be this:

The last time the wires buzzed this loud — that Tom DeLay would be indicted and would step down from his leadership post in the House — the scuttlebutters got it right.

Uh huh. Of course, Texas prosecutor Ronnie Earle was leaky Dem, which may have had something to do with it.

Do these guys think that 22 lawyers representing WH aides all leaked?

Or that Fitzgerald finally broke his silence?

[kim]

'Close to the investigation' probably means within the Beltway.
==================================================

[kim]

Besides, 22 could only be a wide-ranging CIA plot.

Well Tenet did leave in a hurry.
==================================================

[kim]

I'll tell you something else, if 22 are to be indicted it's coming as a big surprise to all of them, or there would be bleating already.
===============================================

[Jeff]

I find it inconceivable that 22 people will be indicted, or even that 22 counts will be handed down, and let's never let Ockham's razor get in the way of Rove's brilliance. Plus, the point about the silliest part of the lefty logic is well taken, even if there are indictments. But unless it's evil genius Rove at it again, it is suggestive that this Reuters story showed up on the evening of all those rumors, and hedged its bets (at least) by using the past tense in the second paragraph after having used the present in the first. There is also a plausible story as to why Fitzgerald's folks would finally break their silence: If you were the special prosecutor seeking to make deals with those lower on the totem pole, a combination of rumors of indictments and a news story much like the Reuters story seems like a sensible way to highlight and simultaneously offer ways out of prisoner's dilemmas (to say nothing of prison) for those low members of the totem pole. Then too, identiftying sources as "legal sources close to the investigation" and then "the lawyers" seems to pin the story on Fitzgerald's team, no? Though Fitzgerald has the integrity Ken Starr always lacked when it comes to politically motivated leaks (:-]), we learned from Fitzgerald's letter to Tate that he is well aware of the role that the media may play as the conveyor of legal signals in all of this.

[kim]

It's got to be end times, Jeff, I agree with you.
=================================================

[Jeff]

But I bet it's only with my first line. But I'll do even better: I'd qualify my disbelief by saying: it's inconceivable 22 people will be indicted, unless it encompasses both administration folks (on Plame stuff) and their antagonists like Wilson (on Niger-uranium classified more general stuff). But I'd still bet against that.

[kim]

No, I think it is possible that Fitz is about to start a roll-up. I doubt that the lawyers 'close' to the investigation were though. They were probably Reuters bloghounds following the case closely.

Again IF 22, it'll be a CIA plot(hope springs eternal). There aren't 22 possible players from any other segment of suspicion, and I doubt this will be a catholic prosecution. There was a central crime, and Fitz may have found it.
===============================================

[kim]

With any luck he'll indict the whole TimeSelect panel for conspiracy to commit fraud.
==================================================

[topsecretk9]

Stop Kim

"With any luck he'll indict the whole TimeSelect panel for conspiracy to commit fraud."

now you are just teasing people with your ideas!

22? sounds like a red herring to keep people from looking at the checky and awkward Gore with WH Spy photo, no>

[topsecretk9]

AT, for a minute there I thought you were talking about 22 of the bloggers on The Corner, but then I realized that there was no way they were pleasuring themselves; they are too busy whining about Miers.

Posted by: mcg | October 05, 2005 at 09:22 PM

Blog idea

I wish there were a blog thats purpose was to highlighted super entertainging (and profound) com! I am stopping there and not giving it away!

[topsecretk9]

oh wow, I am still acclimating to my new lap top key board.

that would be

"that's purpose was to highlight" and "entertaining"

[BumperStickerist]

You're forgetting the "Katrina Effect".

What starts off as twenty-two indictments including that of Karl Rove, will ultimately turn out to be a memo from Fitzgerald to the White House asking the White House to have Accounts Payable reimburse one of his aides for copying charges.

[Neo]

I think that it is important to note that Patrick Fitzgerald is not a "Special Prosecutor" in the mold of Ken Starr et al.
In his "less that special" DOJ position, Patrick Fitzgerald will not be issuing the typical report that accompanied the end of "oh so many" Watergate-like investigations, because , alas, that type of investigation ended with the law that experienced a bipartisan death.

Most likely this will end with a whimper

[SaveFarris]

Fitgerald is clearly missing out on a tie-in. He should indict 23 people. Or 42. Or 16. or 8.

[kim]

23 might be a slam-dunk, or perhaps a game winner at the buzzer.
========================================

[Pollyusa]

The rumors are 22 indictments, not 22 people.

[cathyf]

BumperStickerist, you need a new nick. Every time I finish laughing at your jokes I think, "that was funny, but if he tried to get all those words on a bumper sticker I'd have rear-ended his car getting close enough to read it!"

cathy :-)

[topsecretk9]

Drudge scream..
Rove Said to Testify in CIA Leak Case
Oct 06 3:16 PM US/Eastern

By JOHN SOLOMON
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON

Federal prosecutors have accepted an offer from presidential adviser Karl Rove to give 11th-hour testimony in the case of a CIA officer's leaked identity but have warned they cannot guarantee he won't be indicted, according to people directly familiar with the investigation.

The persons, who spoke only on condition of anonymity because of grand jury secrecy, said Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has not made any decision yet on whether to file criminal charges against the longtime confidant of President Bush or others.

The U.S. attorney's manual requires prosecutors not to bring witnesses before a grand jury if there is a possibility of future criminal charges unless they are notified in advance that their grand jury 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.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/06/D8D2NGH80.html

No expert, but why would they exept an offer rather than "compel" a witness?

[topsecretk9]

accept, duh

[topsecretk9]

Update, make that NO target letter

Rove Said to Testify in CIA Leak Case
Oct 06 3:21 PM US/Eastern

By JOHN SOLOMON
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON

Federal prosecutors have accepted an offer from presidential adviser Karl Rove to give 11th hour testimony in the case of a CIA officer's leaked identity but have warned they cannot guarantee he won't be indicted, according to people directly familiar with the investigation.

The persons, who spoke only on condition of anonymity because of grand jury secrecy, said Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has not made any decision yet on whether to file criminal charges against the longtime confidant of President Bush or others.

The U.S. attorney's manual requires prosecutors not to bring witnesses before a grand jury if there is a possibility of future criminal charges unless they are notified in advance that their grand jury 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.

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.

Before accepting the offer, Fitzgerald sent correspondence to Rove's legal team making clear that there was no guarantee he wouldn't be indicted at a later point as required by the rules.

Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, said Thursday he would not comment on any ongoing discussion he has had with Fitzgerald's office but that he has been assured no decisions on charges have been made. Rove would first have to receive what is known as a target letter if he is about to be indicted.

"I can say categorically that Karl has not received a target letter from the special counsel. The special counsel has confirmed that he has not made any charging decisions in respect to Karl," Luskin said.

He said that Rove "continues to be cooperative voluntarily" with the special counsel investigation and "beyond that, any communication I have or may have in the future are going to be treated as completely confidential."

now going back to my ebonics 101 class

[Geek, Esq.]

What's Karl Rove's favorite TV show?

Flipper!

[Jerkweed]

"The special counsel has confirmed that he has not made any charging decisions in respect to Karl"

While he waits to see how hard Karl will flip!!!

[freaknik]

Flipping is yesterday's term. Rove is turning.

Just like the aspens are turning.

[topsecretk9]

am I missing the "update"

[dan]

Murray Waas is on the Rove story and he has better sources than the AP: http://whateveralready.blogspot.com/

[topsecretk9]

Dan

No offense but Waas's post isn't all that presuasive because it blurs accuracy

it is helpful to re-read Coopers "What I told the Grand Jury" to see this

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/071705X.shtml

[topsecretk9]

no offense Dan

but Waas' post isn't all that persuasive in that it blurs accuracy

it is helpful to re-read Coopers "what I told the grand jury" to see this

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/071705X.shtml

[Ozark]

Isn't breaching Grand Jury Secrecy a crime. Its one thing to protect a source with anonmitiy for fear of reprisals agasinst that source, its another altogether to protect a source because he or she is commiting a crime by divulging the information. Couldn't Mr. Solomon find himself in deep doo doo by facilitating or abetting a breach of Grand Jury Secrecy.

[Anonymous Liberal]

Ozark,
It's not a crime to talk about the investigation unless you are in Fitzgerald's office or are a grand juror. Grand Jury witnesses can tell the press whatever they want (hence Matt Cooper's tell all story). The source for the AP article was almost surely Robert Luskin, Rove's attorney. He wanted to break the information so that he could put his own initial spin on it.

[topsecretk9]

AL--

I don't buy that because the initial story (spin) was no good for Rove...then the story was "updated" to iinclude "no target letter"

[owl]

If this sting goes down, you can definitely score a big one for The Media. Finally. They acted as if this was the first time they ever heard any info passed. Shocked that anyone did such. They needed a prosecutor to talk it out with, and talk it out with. Shocked, I tell ya!