It's What They Leave Out That Makes It Interesting...

Jim Vandehei of the WaPo tackles the possibility of a Rove indictment:

Rove's Time in Limbo Near End in CIA Leak Case

By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, May 8, 2006; A01

Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald is wrapping up his investigation into White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove's role in the CIA leak case by weighing this central question:

Did Rove, who was deeply involved in defending President Bush's use of prewar intelligence about Iraq, lie about a key conversation with a reporter that was aimed at rebutting a tough White House critic?

Fitzgerald, according to sources close to the case, is reviewing testimony from Rove's five appearances before the grand jury. Bush's top political strategist has argued that he never intentionally misled the grand jury about his role in leaking information about undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame to Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper in July 2003. Rove testified that he simply forgot about the conversation when he failed to disclose it to Fitzgerald in his earlier testimony.

Fitzgerald is weighing Rove's foggy-memory defense against evidence he has acquired over nearly 2 1/2 years that shows Rove was very involved in White House efforts to beat back allegations that Bush twisted U.S. intelligence to justify the Iraq war, according to sources involved in the case.

The puzzle - just how did Rove testify about a conversation he didn't (and perhaps still doesn't) remember?  Jane Hamsher provides an excellent guess as to Rove's evolving testimony about his chats with Cooper.

The key helpful hint was the email sent by Rove to Hadley following Rove's brief chat with Cooper.  However, although it was responsive to several document requests, the email was not discovered for months, and was not available to jog Karl's memory.

And the excerpts we have seen don't mention Ms. Plame.  Maybe these are friendly excerpts suppressing that potentially incriminating tidbit, but if not, then Rove would have needed to remember that part of their chat independently.

Well - this VandeHei story seems to have everything except the juicy bits.  Rove's foggy memory was not detected for quite a while for three reasons:

(a) the phone logs that might have recorded the Rove-Cooper contact were not complete, ostensibly because Cooper was transferred from the main switchboard;

(b) the Rove-Hadley email was mis-archived; and

(c) Libby originally testified that he leaked to Cooper; when Cooper finally told his story about Libby in August 2004, he surprised Fitzgerald with his version, which was that he told Libby about Ms. Plame.  That prompted Fitzgerald to look for Cooper's original source, which turned out to be Rove.  Isikoff covered this recently, but, ahh, yours truly suggested this scenario last February.

If Fitzgerald can make the case that the emails and/or the phone logs were tampered with, Rove is in serious trouble.  On the other hand, if he can't show that, then the defense will marvel at the peculiar "conspiracy" that left so much evidence laying about, and insist that Rove is just a guy with a faulty memory and a bit of bad luck, since the normal memory supplements failed  (Don't ask me about Libby's testimony).  Either way, this will be key to the case, and Vandehei skips past it.

And speaking of skipping past the story, how about Jim Rutenberg of the NY Times?  He delivers a long story titled "Rove Is Using Threat of Loss to Stir Republicans", explains how Rove is tackling the 2006 election, and gives us one whole sentence on the possibility that Rove may both be otherwise occupied and a Democratic poster boy for Republican scandals.

And here is the sentence:

And Mr. Rove remains embroiled in the federal criminal investigation into the disclosure of a C.I.A. officer's identity.

One would not infer that the Paper of Record thinks an indictment is likely.

But what do they know?  I still think Rove will be indicted (let's call it a 70% chance to sound scientific).  I am not saying it will be a great case - Fitzgerald may well indict even if the techno-babble about email and White House servers does not implicate Rove.

I also don't understand VandeHei's lead, that Fitzgerald is close to wrapping up his investigation of Rove.  Why should Fitzgerald announce anything?  He is not going out of business, since he has the Libby trial to contend with, and maybe Libby (or somebody) will suddenly offer evidence relevant to Rove's situation.  Lightning may strike.

As a matter of fair play, Fitzgerald may announce that he is not actively pursuing a case against Rove or anyone else.  But if he announces nothing, I won't be surprised.

Comments

[Javani]

Of course Rove will be charged. That's what prosecutors do. And he will score political points. The Dems will remember, they need pay back for the Clinton sex witch hunt.

The laughable part of the Cooper imbroglio is that he is the one reporter who has a sense of decency. The others are liars, Novak is a tattle-taler. Rove said Cooper called about welfare reform. Cooper tells us he told the grand jury that was not so, but went back to his notes and found he had made a contact about welfare reform that week with a Rove assistant (or so). Cooper's testimony against Rove is impeached by his own honesty.

Lesson learned for Cooper - shut up, lie, and carefully garden national Democrat memes. Push the Plamegate-Bush lied-Wilson truthteller narrative. Rewards will be adulation and maybe even money.

[clarice]

Well, javani sooner or later those notes would have been part of the case anyway.

[Javani]

"Well, javani sooner or later those notes would have been part of the case anyway."

Really? He didn't bring them to the grand jury apparently. He seemed to be responding to something that jarred his memory at his inquisition.

Afterwards he shows his memory might not be perfect, whether or not he remembers. A Rove prosecution based on Cooper will be an acquittal. No skin off Fitz' back, he only wins with charges filed.

In a way, the Repubs will win too if the result is getting Rove out of the White House. 1. Might get Bush on a popular platform on immigration, jobs, energy, less Norquist money influence, and 2. Give Pelosi and the Dem chattering classes something to obsess about, taking away the smidgen of a chance the Dems might take a detailed policy position and gain votes. For six years they've been running on their brand name and collective elite BDS. In a three party system their guaranteed 45% would be easy prey.

[Carol Herman]

Okay. Let's go with the scenario that Rove is indicted. What would "Ditz"mas do IF the President went on National TV and said these legal tactics are a disgrace?

And, he's telling Rove not to step down?

And, he offers to take Libby back into the White House. Sorry that the press is so antagonistic; but witch hunts aren't on the Republican agenda.

Just a thought. The President can actually give the donks more tzuris than not. And, what can they do about it? Race to impeachment? Even better.

The President is standing up to Congress. And, I think most Americans are more angry at the congress critters than you can imagine. To compare them to polls on Bush, they fell off the radar screen. Into negative territory.

Crying lawyers would make Most Americans laugh. ANd, what can the black judge, Walton, do? President Bush could tell him to stop arguing about our going to WAR. BINGO.

If this were a tennis match the LOVE would be obvious.

And, a few of the donk's female witches would melt.

Is there are dead pool on fitzgerald's chances for his own career surviving? Nah. I didn't think so.

[Neo]

It will be interesting to see how Fitz can spin master political spinmiester Rove into master e-mail non-archiver techno-wizard Rove.

Shoot, even the "inventor of the Internet," Al Gore was able to successfully lose his e-mail while at the While House. Chances that a lesser techno-mortal, like Rove, could lose a e-mail are just plain astronomical.

[clarice]

Javani, don't you suppose those notes had been subpoenaed? If not, why not.
As I understand from the last Libby filing Cooper had no notes of his conversation with Libby. Did he have none of his conversation with Rove either or were they not subpoenaed? Was this information in something else--like an email to his confederates--uh--colleagues? If so, why didn't Fitz subpoena them?
Do you suppose for one second that whether or not Fitz subpoenaed them, the defense would fail to?

[clarice]

Just a hint here from what we know, it would be the better part of valor for all the journo prosecution witnesses to impeach their own testimony before the defense gets its hands on them in the courtroom.

[Jane]

I don't think Rove will be indicted. I think Fitzy is up to his eyeballs trying to survive Libby, and he is not going to make the muck twice as deep.

I'm assuming he is not being pressed by either side - which might be a bad assumption.

[kim]

It must be a special brand of hell for some of them.
================================

[Javani]

"Javani, don't you suppose those notes had been subpoenaed? If not, why not."

Maybe the notes weren't subpenaed and when Fitz got what he wants why would he thereafter ask for records that only could risk impeaching his valuable witness.

Cooper screwed up the game plan with his honesty. Kudos to him. Kudos also to him for risking jail, I think Miller feared she have to reveal contacts other than Libby. When Fitz played his card he would limit questions to Libby he signaled he wasn't interested in rooting out the leaking but bagging Libby on a perjury charge.

[maryrose]

Probably the seventh circle of hell. I think journos should spill the beans now-get out in front of this evolving scenario so we can get a look at the real behind the scenes players. Rove will not be indicted-there isn't enough evidence against him because if there was he would have been indicted a long time ago. Sorry Vandehei et al Wishing doesn't make it so.

[Appalled Moderate]

If Rove is charged, it won't be a Cooper vs Rove situation.

The case, instead, will focus on evidence that Rove's memory is not as foggy as he says it is, and that he had warning that, if he did not change his story, he'd be facing a perjury charge.

This is actually a rather different situation from one that Libby faces, and one that would have to focus on an effort by Rove to cover up the truth of what he said to Cooper.

I can see why Fitz does not want to let go of this one. It's very germane to the sort of thing he wants to investigate, even if the charge itself is not that impressive.

(I don't see how you get past reasonable doubt. It's reasonable that a man would forget the conversation he had before he went on vacation. It's also reasonable for an e-mail to get lost.)

[Cromagnon]

Looks like its pucker-factor time for Turd Blossem... Karl, meet your new roommate, Bubba. He'll be addressing you as 'bitch'

[kim]

Hey, cro, is your 'o an 'e?
==================================

[clarice]

Fitz will fall first. He has been stupid..a pawn in a far bigger game.

Only slightly off topic. CIA Run Amok

The editors of NRO point out how critical it is to continue the work of routing out the Fifth Column in the CIA. In addition to some things we’ve already noted about the considerable perfidy at the agency (such as allowing the head of its counterterrorism book to publish his anti-Bush screed Imperial Hubris), they note this:

Meanwhile, the CIA used its funding clout to underwrite Bush’s opponents. From 2001 through 2004, the agency’s Counterterrorism Center provided more than $15 million for various studies led by former Clinton officials (such as Richard Clarke) and Bush critics (such as the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace). The resulting products, according to a CIA spokeswoman, were aimed to bolster “our analytic product.” A 2004 investigation by the Washington Times found that the Counterterrorism Center had not funded any research by organizations supportive of the administration’s foreign policy.Most damaging of all, however, has been the CIA’s incorrigible leaking. Again and again, it has demonstrated that it is more dedicated to harming the Bush administration’s war effort than to protecting its own secret activities. On the eve of the 2004 presidential debates, for example, the CIA selectively leaked a report claiming that it had warned in early 2003 that a joint Baathist-jihadist insurgency would follow a U.S. invasion of Iraq. The report—which turned out not to have said much of anything about an insurgency, and to have been wrong in its core prognostications—was written by Paul Pillar, who has been happy to rip the Bush administration in the press, identifying himself as “a top national intelligence officer.”

In May 2005, CIA officials leaked to the Washington Post details of a covert operation in which airplanes owned by CIA front companies were being used for various activities, including the renditions of top al Qaeda operatives. Six months later the Post, again relying on agency insiders (among others), reported that the CIA was using secret prisons in Eastern Europe to detain and interrogate high-level al Qaeda prisoners. This leak gravely jeopardized the cooperation of allied governments, whose own security and intelligence gathering were imperiled by the disclosure.

On the eve of a critical congressional vote on Patriot Act renewal, the New York Times sensationally broke a story it had been sitting on for a year: According to intelligence-community sources (which almost certainly included CIA officials), the NSA had, since 9/11, been intercepting international communications between suspected al Qaeda terrorists and persons stationed inside the United States. Aside from delaying the Patriot Act’s extension for months, the NSA leak has taught the enemy about our methods and submerged a vital program—an effort to create an early-warning system to avoid another 9/11—in a sea of legal controversy.

Faster please. Clarice Feldman 5 08 06

[Javani]

"The case, instead, will focus on evidence that Rove's memory is not as foggy as he says it is, and that he had warning that, if he did not change his story, he'd be facing a perjury charge."

Warned through his lawyer? Someone else? Interesting idea but please elaborate.

[kim]

Should be, 'Ey Cro.
===========

[Appalled Moderate]

Javani:

See the discussions of V Novak on this blog regarding whether Rove was possibly "warned" that evidence existed that not all his testimony was accurate.

[ed]

Warned through his lawyer? Someone else? Interesting idea but please elaborate.

V. Novak and Cooper saying he'd testify to start.

[kim]

The fact is, all of this is going to have to be explained patiently, over and over again, to the incredulous. You mean, Bush didn't lie?
====================================

[kim]

But why did they say he did? Did they think we wouldn't find out? Do they think we are fools? We'll see who's the fool.
====================================

[TallDave]

OK, clearly they're not going to indict the actual leaker, the original purpose of the investigation.

So I say enough investigating the investigation. It's time to investigate the investigation of the investigation!

And then, we'll need to investigate how THAT went.

[Lew Clark]

Bush would have lied! He's just to stupid to understand what's going on and come up with a convincing lie. If he was smart, like Clinton, he would have come up with a convincing lie and gotten away with it!

[TallDave]

The irony in all this is that the person most responsible for outing Valerie Plame is VALERIE PLAME.

She sent her husband on the most publicized African trip since Roots, then let him write breathtakingly dishonest NYT editorials (sorry for the redundancy) about the CIA-sponsored trip. Not the actions of someone trying to stay "covert," which she wasn't anyway.

[topsecretk9]

---She sent her husband on the most publicized African trip since Roots, ---

HEH

[ordi]

the fools won't even put it in print when Fitz clears Rove.

[Semanticleo]

It must be a special brand of hell for some of them.

"bonitas non est pessimis esse meliorem"

[Neo]

Speaking of the Clinton Administration ..

David Barrett, the last active Independent Counsel still has not released the "Barrett's Report" on the Henry Cisneros investigation.

I wonder if Hillary really wants to drag out the release any closer to 2008, but of course we are still working on 2006.

[owl]

She sent her husband on the most publicized African trip since Roots

That ought to be a headline.

[Cecil Turner]

It's also reasonable for an e-mail to get lost.

Yes, and what's not reasonable is for Rove to've had any part in its being lost. And for all the speculation about the phone logs, I have yet to hear a plausible explanation how Rove disappeared that entry (or why he would go to the trouble and then immediately preserve the conversation for posterity through the e-mail). Absent some interesting new information, this one makes even less sense than the other conspiracy theories.

[maryrose]

It doesn't make sense. Fitz's idea about Rove strains credulity. The simplest explanation which has benn given in 5 gj appearances is in fact what happened. Let's accept the common sense explanation and move on to destroying Fitz's non-case against Libby.

[ed]

Actually, the simplest explaination was not given in five grand jury visits, as in the first one Rove made no mention of the email or the Novak rumors. In fact the "simplest explanation" would have been givin in only the last visit, as more twists were added to Rove's story as recently as October.

[noah]

Probably been discussed ad nauseum but somehow I missed it:

How come Fitzpatrick is not facing charges of prosecutorial misconduct in light of his false statement that the first leaker was Libby when he knew about UGO for months prior to his press conference?

[Javani]

The issue is not Fitz' knowledge but when UGO spoke to Novak. UGO presumably spoke to Novak after the Wilson's article was published. Libby leaked before that.

I bet lots of people were talking about the Wilsons.

[Sue]

Noah,

I'm assuming the UGO conversation with Novak happened after the June 23rd conversation between Libby and Miller. At the time of the press conference, Fitz did not know UGO talked to Woodward in early June.

[noah]

ok. Thanks! I'll sleep better tonight!

[topsecretk9]

--Yes, and what's not reasonable is for Rove to've had any part in its being lost. --

Am I missing something, or did I not read in the Feb. 24 transcript there was an office of Administration archival problem, so that perhaps Rove's missing email alerted to this problem?

I know the email thing is sexy, but I have not seen or with just basic knowledge of general data storage process managed via independent contractors who archive whether people want them or not, is the basis for a Rove potential indictment.

Or I am not going to believe something more sinister because Jason Leopold says.

[SueIII]

http://www.eff.org/bloggers/

[clarice]

UGO talked to Woodeard in mid-June, before the conversation between Libby and Novak. Fitz didn't know that before he indicted--probably because he never asked, but he knows it now and now says it doesn't matter.

He knew before he subpoenaed Miller and Cooper, however, that Libby was not the person who leaked to Novak.

[Wilson's a liar]

Fitz will be a laughingstock if he indicts Rove after all this time and 5 voluntary GJ appearances. It will be worse than Ronnie Earle's phony-baloney indictments of Tom DeLay. And unlike DeLay, Rove will not resign if indicted. If he thought he had anything to hide he would have quit the White House a long time ago.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

At the time of the press conference, Fitz did not know UGO talked to Woodward in early June.

And herein lies the true problem with Fitz. What kind of investigation brings an indictment when it didn't even know the most salient fact of all facts being sought? The Libby prosecution is ludicrous and fraudulent based on this alone.

[topsecretk9]

---UGO presumably spoke to Novak after the Wilson's article was published. Libby leaked before that.

I bet lots of people were talking about the Wilson's.---

This is interesting because I think in the Feb. 24 hearing regarding the "everyone knows" transcript ( I think this is where I caught it) but Libby's lawyers said to the effect...

UGO spoke to "2" reporters in early June (Woodward and Novak)

I commented, I had not known that Novak spoke to UGO that far back

So that is why I got on a wild theory about Novak/UGO especially since the NYT's just reported Novak just testified to the GJ this last December...is this true still? No NYT's correction?

[clarice]

No correction.

[topsecretk9]

See that is what bugs me...Novak said he did not know Plame's *name* on July 9th when he talked to Rove, but he DID know her name was *Valerie* on July 8th when he bumped into Wilson friend.

[topsecretk9]

and then way after, Novak pulls out the "Who's Who"....

[topsecretk9]

Since no one is really following up on Novak's appearance in December 05 AFTER WOODWARD shows up...

Why would Fitz call Novak in AFTER Woodward?

Pure speculation, but Fitz could be taking a closer look at UGO but maybe even a closer look at Novak...and this latest Rove appearance could have been a result of new Woodward information that contradicted earlier Novak/UGO explanations.

I am pretty sure the NYT's in the first story about Rove's latest appearance (the one before the Novak GJ tidbit) said Rove testified about Novak contacts.

[clarice]

Isn't all our information about the July 8 meeting from Wilson's anonymous friends? Just saying, ts.

[Sue]

I think the NYTs' article should have been Viveca Novak and they are just lazy and haven't corrected it. If it had been Robert Novak, that would have been news and everyone would have been reporting it.

[topsecretk9]

--Isn't all our information about the July 8 meeting from Wilson's anonymous friends? Just saying, ts.--

Well Bob Novak has never contradicted the accidental friend

--I think the NYTs' article should have been Viveca Novak and they are just lazy and haven't corrected it. If it had been Robert Novak, that would have been news and everyone would have been reporting it.--

You know what, you are probably right...which gives new meaning to the adage -- don't believe everything you read--especially if it's in the NYT's

I really would like to give them the benefit of the doubt, that what they print is accurate so that I can have my own wild speculations, darn it.

[clarice]

They clearly said ROBERT Novak.

Some tidbits from F.R. about Corn, the man who first sprung the "outing of a covert agent" theme and who was never questioned by Fitz:

"From Wilson:

"In February (2003), I had lunch with David Corn, the articulate and determined critic of the war. I had become acquainted with him when we kept bumping into each other in the "green room" at Fox. I shared with him my concerns about the imperial nature of the administration's drive to war, and he asked me to write an article for the Nation. He felt my "establishment" credentials would lend credibility to the point of view espoused by the magazine - a point of view I hasten to add, that, by and large, I had come to share. I agreed and the piece, entitled "Republic or Empire," was published in mid-February."

Page 318, The Politics of Truth

Post #50, by Fedora:

David Corn writes that Bush's "obsessive focus on Saddam Hussein, transformed the 9/11 recall-a-thon into a prep session for war. They have exploited a terrible event for their next crusade. And on their watch, the horror of that day has been used not to lessen the distance between America and the rest of the world but to increase it, as other nations recoil from and fear Bush's march to war. [A friend in Europe wrote]: "One year ago, everybody here was with the American people, suffering and sympathizing [with them]... Can the Bush administration be for one minute aware of the solidarity and sympathy capital it has wasted?...People here are more afraid of George Bush than of Saddam Hussein." Euro-hyperbole? Perhaps. But on the same day, Joseph Wilson... the last US official to meet with Saddam, also sent me an email and observed, 'It is criminal that the world now fears American jingoism more than Saddam.' Bush has tainted a tragedy." http://www.davidcorn.com/

They were email buddies and had known eachother since at least Feb, 2003. Do you suppose Munchausen told Corn what he told Vallely in the same green room?

[Sue]

Clarice,

I know they clearly said Robert Novak. I think whoever wrote the article probably thought Novak meant Robert Novak. I personally think it should have said Viveca Novak. If Robert Novak had testified, other news agencies would have found that newsworthy.

[maryrose]

The part I find bizarre is this friend of Joe's meets up by chance with Novak to push Joe's agenda. What is this ? an episode of Alias? This whole scenario is clandestine and prearranged and so Wilsonian. How in God's name did Fitz miss all this?

[clarice]

Who knows if it was a NYT error or an incurious press? Don't you think if it had not been R. Novak, he would have contacted the NYT and we'd see a correction?

[topsecretk9]

---I think the NYTs' article should have been Viveca Novak and they are just lazy and haven't corrected it.--

Did she go before the GJ? I didn't think it was before the GJ he went body preserve, bone picking?

[loki]

Section 1623. False declarations before grand jury or court

(a) Whoever under oath (or in any declaration, certificate,
verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted
under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code) in any
proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the
United States knowingly makes any false material declaration or
makes or uses any other information, including any book, paper,
document, record, recording, or other material, knowing the same to
contain any false material declaration, shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
(b) This section is applicable whether the conduct occurred
within or without the United States.
(c) An indictment or information for violation of this section
alleging that, in any proceedings before or ancillary to any court
or grand jury of the United States, the defendant under oath has
knowingly made two or more declarations, which are inconsistent to
the degree that one of them is necessarily false, need not specify
which declaration is false if -
(1) each declaration was material to the point in question, and
(2) each declaration was made within the period of the statute
of limitations for the offense charged under this section.
In any prosecution under this section, the falsity of a declaration
set forth in the indictment or information shall be established
sufficient for conviction by proof that the defendant while under
oath made irreconcilably contradictory declarations material to the
point in question in any proceeding before or ancillary to any
court or grand jury. It shall be a defense to an indictment or
information made pursuant to the first sentence of this subsection
that the defendant at the time he made each declaration believed
the declaration was true.
(d) Where, in the same continuous court or grand jury proceeding
in which a declaration is made, the person making the declaration
admits such declaration to be false, such admission shall bar
prosecution under this section if, at the time the admission is
made, the declaration has not substantially affected the
proceeding, or it has not become manifest that such falsity has
been or will be exposed.
(e) Proof beyond a reasonable doubt under this section is
sufficient for conviction. It shall not be necessary that such
proof be made by any particular number of witnesses or by
documentary or other type of evidence.

Rove testimony is not material if it is discovered that others leaked Plame's name.

[Specter]

Hey - everybody who watches Las Vegas, Law & Order, or CSI would agree that it's very possible for Rove to be a techno-wizard. I mean c'mon - can't everybody just access secret, encrypted, secured government databases? LOL

[Jeff]

loki - That's funny. That section you've highlighted is exactly Rove's problem. There can be no question that Rove's false testimony had substantially affected the proceeding, so his best hope is to argue that he admitted his earlier testimony to have been false without it being manifest that such falsity - here, in the form of the prospect, seemingly imminent, of Cooper's testimony - was going to be exposed.

[Sue]

Top,

Where is the article where the Times mentions Robert Novak? Do you have a link handy? If not, I'll search for it...

[Tom Maguire]

On the seemingly contradictory notion that (a) there was no techno-conspuiracy to suppress Rove's email and phone log and (b) Rove remembered his Cooper chat and email to hadley, yet (c) Rove did not testify about the Cooper chat: one reconciliation *could*be that Rove simply reviewed with his attorny all Rove-relevant responsive doscuments sent to the investigators prior to his FBI and GJ trstimony.

Since he didn't see the Hadley email or any phone log of a Cooper call he said, hey, my lucky day, and went with it.

Its a weird, ad hoc strategy - why 'fess up about Novak and lie about this? Maybe two leaks looks like a pattern? Or because the tip to Cooper was more forthcoming than "I heard that, too" to Novak?

And why did he think that these things would be lost forever? What was the fall-back if Cooper eventually testified, or the email eventually turned up? Was the whole point simply to kick this past the Nov '04 election and then let the chips fall where they may?

I think Fitzgerald has a big problem with reasonable doubt (subject to any unleaked bombshells), but my guess is he will let a jury make the call, rather than punt himself.

Sort of like Nifong in Durham with the Duke debacle.

[Kate]

As TM mentions in the post, the NYT only devotes one sentence to Rove's possible indictment.

Also, ABC's The Note had a sarcastic comment referencing VandeiHei's article. Essentially, if everyone who forgot a phone call from Cooper went to jail the prisons would be full.

My sense is perhaps the media, except for MSNBC and their partners, are tiring of this scandal. Sure it might be fun to see Rove indicted...

But, which Republican White House will trust the media again, and, Bush's numbers are low, do they need this?

But Fitzgerald has not demonstrated any discretion. He's had numerous opportunites to walk away from this case and hasn't.

[maryrose]

If the jury makes the call to indict Rove than they are idiots that can't grasp what this potential charge is all about. Rove is too smart to kick the case past the 04 elections he always takes the long view-and knows that reporters aren't bullet-proof from revealing their sources. He's always 3 steps ahead in any high stakes poker game. He simply forgot about Cooper and since Fitz had Cooper in his sights anyway Rove did not Obstruct anything. Fitz obstruction charge is just his excuse for his critically bad investigation.
Matthews wants Rove indicted so bad he can taste it-he's literally foaming at the mouth today.

[Specter]

Kate,

What that may say is that Fitz is relying on his ego rather than the facts. Unless there is something we do not know - as TM noted - Fitz has got to know his case is weak. To continue on is simply an ego issue - especially in light of some of the other failures he has had in the last few months.

[maryrose]

Fund says Rove will not be indicted.Wilson will be shown to be not a trustworthy person. Ignatius also doesn't think Rove will be indicted. Matthews still going back to war issue.

[clarice]

OT: Did anyone take a good liik at Heden--Yup. He's R/S/S/ for sure.

[clarice]

**lOOk***

[Kate]

Don't understand Matthew's desire for Rove's indictment. I can't imagine Chris wants the topic of his show's potential anti-semitism highlighted (ok that's Libby). Nor can he desire the poor memories and bias of NBC/MSNBC's ace reporters showcased.

He's probably just thinking ratings. The fact is this is a boring scandal. Very few people are interested or understand it.

Perhaps this a Rovian plot to motivate the base. Nothing but a triffling indictment by a partisan, bumbling prosecutor to get everyone back in line. Plus Wilson is hateable.

[Kate]

Specter - agree. Fitz has been at this for well over 2 years. He could have indicted Rove at any time. It's a weak case, but he wants to make it. Poor Fitz, he's pouring over all the transcripts looking for a discrepency. He can't let it go.

[loki]

I agree it would be a weak case.

[Marianne]

The "well over 2 years" argument works both ways. Rove hasn't yet been able to clear himself. Fitzgerald hasn't yet convinced a grand jury to indict. Does this long period of time favor the prosecutor or the person suspected of having commited a crime?

[patch]

Karl Rove lost some e-mails?

Hell, I do that all the time. People are forever saying to me,"I sent an e-mail." I go back, look, can't find it, say "Send it again."

After, I read it, I remember getting it, but can't figure out where I filed the damn thing.

Fitz better get a jury full of people that never use e-mail if he decides to indict Karl Rove, it would be the only way to get a conviction.

[Kate]

When I said this case was boring, I meant it was boring to most people, but not to us! Because we understand it and find it fascinating.

I forget stuff all the time. And that statement "I said too much already". That's just a statement you say after gossip when you're tryint to make the person feel important. It's like:

I shouldn't say this..
Promise me you won't repeat this...
You're the only person I've told this to...
I've said too much already (you new clever, reporter, you..look what you got out of me!)

Isn't funny what gossips the men are in this!!

[Specter]

good point patch (what a screen name). And in this case remember that it was the job of an underling of an underling of an underling within a bureaucracy of thousands handling the archiving of thousands and thousands of emails every single day. And only one got lost? Oh that's right - 250 got lost. Still a pretty small number.

[topsecretk9]

--Last bit - today's NY Times piece duly notes that Rove testified to contacts with Bob Novak; they sort of dropped that yesterday.---

Sue

Here are to links webs to the 2 times stories via TM

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2006/04/the_times_on_ro.html

[Sue]

If Rove even said it. There is nothing released publically, that I'm aware of, that backs up what Cooper claims Rove said. And even if Rove said it, he could have merely been talking about the fact that later that day Tenet was going to discuss the trip and he shouldn't talk about it before Tenet did.

[Sue]

Top,

I guess I'm missing it. Where does the NYTs mention that Robert Novak testified?

[Cecil Turner]

I think Fitzgerald has a big problem with reasonable doubt (subject to any unleaked bombshells), but my guess is he will let a jury make the call, rather than punt himself.

I think he does, too. In fact, I think a conviction is vanishingly unlikely. I also tend to believe he'll "bring it," but my estimate is based on a poor opinion of Fitz's integrity, rather than any expectancy a jury will see it his way.

[Sue]

Okay, found http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/27/washington/27inquire.html?ex=1303790400&en=68ca6a709ebf8213&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss>it.

No one has been charged with the underlying crime of revealing classified material. Mr. Fitzgerald is seeking to establish whether any crimes were committed with the disclosure of Mrs. Wilson's identity, which first appeared in a column by Robert D. Novak — no relation to Ms. Novak — in July 2003. The identity of Mr. Novak's original source for the column that triggered the entire case is still unknown, at least to the public. Mr. Novak has testified to the grand jury since Mr. Rove's last appearance in October 2005.

According to this article, Viveca Novak has only given a deposition. So maybe I'm wrong and it isn't a mistake.

In a telephone interview on Wednesday, Ms. Novak, who no longer works for Time, said she had not had any contact with Mr. Fitzgerald since her deposition in December.

So why isn't anyone else reporting this?

[topsecretk9]

I'm sorry Sue, wrong link (my bad)

The identity of Mr. Novak's original source for the column that triggered the entire case is still unknown, at least to the public. Mr. Novak has testified to the grand jury since Mr. Rove's last appearance in October 2005.

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2006/04/buried_lede_du_.html

BTW, May 5 corrections for April 23rd story:

Correction: May 5, 2006
A front-page article on April 27 about grand jury testimony by the White House aide Karl Rove in the C.I.A. leak investigation misstated the circumstances under which his lawyer Robert D. Luskin has been questioned. Mr. Luskin gave a deposition; he has not testified before a federal grand jury.
The article also referred imprecisely to an account by Viveca Novak, a former reporter for Time magazine, who said she told Mr. Luskin in early 2004 that she thought Mr. Rove had been a source for another reporter at the magazine. She has said that she mentioned this once in the course of several conversations with Mr. Luskin; she did not say she had mentioned it several times.

[topsecretk9]

too, late...sorry for that egg hunt.

--So why isn't anyone else reporting this?--

Well, Sue like the INR Reporting (Marked Secret!!!) and the Feb. 24 Hearing (woefully misleading and incomplete reporting) something about this revelation is inconvenient to the all bad for Rove, all the time or their is some uncomfortable aspect they rather not *report* on.

But I am trying to figure out why Mr. Fitz needed to talk to Novak IN FRONT of a GJ AFTER Woodward.

[Sue]

Who knows? After reading that article this weekend at the NYTs, I am still not convinced this article is correct, even though she specifically uses Mr. in context with a paragraph about Bob Novak. Sloppy reporting is the steady diet from the NYTs.

[windansea]

AJ Strata points out a strangely factual post at alternet

Is Judith Miller headed back to jail?

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/1774#comments

[Seixon]

It's the power of omission!

[topsecretk9]

Sue
I think you are probably right.

Just to be the nuisance I am, I do not think Fitz is going to indict Rove and I think Fitz is looking closer at UGO, but more specifically Novak...and this little sentence got by in the WAPO linked to report today

It is unclear if anyone other than Rove remains under investigation.

Now it would be unclear to a media unconcerned with Fitz investigation unless it was about Rove and so their reporting reflects so, but I think (if the NYT's Novak stuff is true) it is clear that Fitz is at least looking into something Woodward revealed.

I think the email business is just the only thing the media can conceive would be left to perplex Fitz, but come on...7 months and he still confused about that?

Nope. I think Fitz is perplexed with Robert Novak.

[topsecretk9]

I forgot to add an "HOWEVER" between the first and second sentence...and I am perfectly aware that I have a high chance of being wrong.

[topsecretk9]

Also, part of the reason I think this goes to the CW an attorney letting their client go before the GJ again, for a 5th time...since he did, I just wonder if their was no hesitation because Rove is being called as an actual aide to Fitz and if so i can see Rove not wanting to broadcast he was the Novak spoiler.

[clarice]

Whole Lot of scrubbing going on.
Sweetness & Light reviews the big shift in Wilson's story after May 2. He notes the Senate Democratic Policy Committee meeting which he attended has been scrubbed from its otherwise complete site. This is the meeting where Wilson and his wife met Kristof and his story changed.

The next meeting of the group featured the VIPers.http://www.sweetness-light.com/

Do you think the Rockefeller memo was the beginning or the end of the plot to mususe intel for partisan purposes?

[narciso79]

One recalls that the funding to Clarke's Atlantic Counsel, entailed writing the dystopian "Ten Years After" scenario in
the Atlantic, and his oddly pro Al Queda
roman a clef

[clarice]

From the S & L article--I love this pre-May interview with Wilson on CNN:

[quote]
SAN MIGUEL: So how do you play this, then? I mean, what, do you admit it, do you just move on? Do you try to get these things verified if you do believe, indeed, that Iraq was trying to buy this material from Niger? I mean, how do you handle this? What's the damage control on this?

WILSON: I have no idea. I'm not in the government. I would not want to be doing damage control on this. I think you probably just fess up and try to move on and say there's sufficient other evidence to convict Saddam of being involved in the nuclear arms trade..b/[/quote]

Wilson was asked specifically about the Niger forgeries, and he says there was "sufficient evidence to convict Saddam of being involved in the nuclear arms trade" without them.

[Semanticleo]

What? No, "Yet more with David Shuster'?

You're gonna love the smell of bacon in
the morning.

[windansea]

You're gonna love the smell of bacon in
the morning.

I'll pass...an ice cold mango smoothie served along with huevos divorciados sounds better

[topsecretk9]

--He notes the Senate Democratic Policy Committee meeting which he attended has been scrubbed from its otherwise complete site. --

Why is there so much internet airbrushing going on?

[Sue]

You know what is frustrating? If Bush hadn't invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam, the same evidence being used against him now would be used against him if something had happened. There is just enough, in both directions, to use it either way. If Bush had not pushed the issue with Saddam and Saddam had transferred knowledge or weapons to terrorists, these same people who are crying foul over cherrypicked intelligence would be cherrypicking it to show how everyone told him. Wilson would be out there saying I told them about the contact, they ignored it. It was a win-win situation for them. If we had found WMDs they would be tooting their own horns...with the same intelligence they are using today to bash Bush. Just like they did with pre/9-11 intelligence.

[topsecretk9]

Sue

True that.

[clarice]

Yes..

[windansea]

Why is there so much internet airbrushing going on?

Joe is melting....his magic ruby slippers fell off

[topsecretk9]

OT, but do not miss this, friggin Colbert hilarity and this thank you, notice the other thanks you..

[Rocco]

OT..."The leak had wider effects, therefore, than just ruining one woman's career. It had serious national security implications, which have astonishingly enough been ignored by red-blooded backers of Washington's war party. The question thus becomes: who in the government would have stood to gain by ruining a CIA investigation into rogue nuclear trafficking, and in what ways?"

Since Plame was charged with investigating rogue nuclear trafficking, perhaps the bigger question thus becomes: who in the government would have stood to gain by covering up an attempt by Iraq to buy yellowcake from Niger?

http://www.antiwar.com/deliso/?articleid=8091

[Lew Clark]

In order to read articles at some sites, you have to subscribe. Apparently I subscribed to Robert Novak at some time because I get emails from Bob pretty frequently. I usually don't open any of this "Spam" unless the title looks interesting. But! since I do get a lot of emails from Robert Novak, what if he spilled all the beans to me, and I deleted it without reading. Karl Rove isn't the only one with email regret!

[Pete]

I think that Chris Matthews knows personally a lot more about this story than many of the posters here. After all Karl Rove told Matthews that Plame was fair game.

Regarding WMDs, the Bush administration would have been better served by being honest and forthright, presenting an honest picture to the people and letting the people decide. They chose to exaggerate the case for war and hide the exculpatory evidence.