Rove Indicted?

The not-always reliable Jason Leopold of TruthOut set hearts fluttering with his story that Rove has been indicted and Fitzgerald has met with Rove's attorneys to work on a plea deal.

TruthOut helpfully provides a compendium of Mr. Leopold's earlier work on this investigation, so we can see for ourselves how often Rove has been near indictment before.

Let's note that the latest story has already evolved slightly - here is the current lead:

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.

The original report gave Rove "24 hours"; the correction to "24 business hours" was inserted after, well, nothing had happened in 24 hours.  Personally, I have heard folks speak in terms of business days, but never "business hours" - if Federal guidelines require clerical overtime after an eight hour day, does this really mean that Rove has Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday to get ready?  Maybe that will be the next clarification.

And no worries - if nothing happens, no less a reporter than Steven Leser has already stepped up to explain that Mr. Leopold was the innocent dupe of a subtle yet vicious BushCo disinformation campaign.

Meanwhile, Rove spokesperson Mark Corallo has denied this to the NY Sun, Byron York, and (I'll bet) other news outlets who aren't going to dignify the initial report with any coverage. [UPDATE:  Good guess - Jeralyn Merritt runs a forceful denial from Rove spokeman Mark Corallo which includes this:

7.  He has received calls from the major papers on this and denied the story to all of them.]

All that said, I am personally predicting (with 70% probability)  a Rove indictment for this Friday, May 19, with a second guess of Wednesday, May 24.

Fortunately, I have no sources for that.  And as to track record I was OK with my predictions (but erring to pessimism) last fall, when I predicted indictments for Libby and two others, but not Rove.

MORE:  Jeralyn Merritt talks to Jason Leopold (and gets an astonishing rebuttal from Rove's guy Corallo) and articulates my own hunch, which is that Fitzgerald may have been negotiating with Rove's team about a *possible* indictment:

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?

It's hard to believe folks could get that wrong, but that may be the best reconciliation we get, unless someone (or lots of someones) are just making stuff up.

GOOD POINT:  Maybe "instructed one of the attorneys to tell Rove that he has 24 business hours to get his affairs in order" meant that Rove would have to surrender during the next episode of "24".  Boy, if Rove is threatend with missing Jack Bauer in action, he'll turn in a second.

OUCH: Making some stuff up and plagiarizing the rest?  No, not Ben Domenech, but Jason Leopold - Salon tells their story.

UPDATE:  The National Journal Hotline tells us that:

Rove Speaks!

WH DCoS Karl Rove spoke at the American Enterprise Institute this a.m. and to the surprise of some, he took questions. Asked about his role in the CIA leak investigation, he declined to comment, referring the questioner to a statement released by his attorney. Rove: "I have nothing more to add. Nice try, though."

Let's call that a tearful confession, then!  Meanwhile, who has received the statement from the attorney?

MORE:  Details here:

CORN: David Corn from “The Nation Magazine” on a different subject. Scott McClellan told the White House press corps, many who are here today, that he had spoken to you and you were not involved in the CIA leak. Can you explain why the American public, almost two and a half years later, hasn’t been given an explanation and don’t you think it deserves one for that misinformation because it does seem you were to some degree, though maybe disputed, involved in that leak?

 

ROVE: My attorney Mr. Luskin made a statement on April 26th. I refer to you that statement. I have nothing more to add to it. Nice try, though.

MAKING SENSE:  Peter Daou of Salon (Leopold's on-time employer) is spot-on with his skepticism:

My concern - and the reason I write this - is that Leopold's ubiquitous reporting has set expectations very high in the blog community. We're at a moment when blogs are under assault by prominent media and establishment figures. I wouldn't want to see him used as a cudgel to flog the progressive netroots as a bunch of conspiracy nuts. There's enough of that already. We don't need to provide ammo to our opponents.

No worries - like chipmunks, we can find the nuts easily enough already.

Comments

[kim]

Hmmm. Already sensing that the disinformation campaign may be a trap.
=================================

[kim]

Uh, I mean 'vicious disinformation campaign'.
=========================

[richard mcenroe]

Kim — "vicious Partisan disinformation campaign"

[Semanticleo]

"vicious Partisan disinformation campaign"

Is there any other kind?

It would be a bonanza for the Admin., if true,
but has the scent of Karmic residue.

[richard mcenroe]

You FOOLS! Don't you SEE?!

Rove has alreay BEEN IN PRISON for six months! This is the bestest BushCo disinformation campaign EVER, helped along by the fascist toadies at the networks and the NY Times!

[Cecil Turner]

That Leser piece is past hilarious. He starts out by claiming Leopold is always right, and then slaps on the tinfoil beanie:

Assume for a moment that an internal White House investigation was conducted to ferret out those leaking information to Leopold. Once discovered, these individuals would be an excellent avenue with which to discredit Leopold by providing them false information which would then be transferred to the reporter.

He admits he's making some assumptions, but then brings it all together:

Let us take it one step further. Let us assume the White House sat on that information until an opportune moment presented itself. Such an opportune moment presented itself when it became clear that an embarrassing piece of evidence regarding Vice President Cheney was going to be submitted in a filing by Fitzgerald. The administration could provide a tasty bit of disinformation to Leopold’s sources and the attention of the reporter along with a fair amount of the progressive press would be turned to a story that would turn out to be false. This story and the rapid discovery that it was a hoax would overshadow the embarrassing filing by Prosecutor Fitzgerald.

Take notes Mr. Colbert . . . because that's funny.

I have heard folks speak in terms of business days, but never "business hours" . . .

Are we sure he didn't mean until the next 24 episode?

[Clyde]

One of my LLL friends sent me the TruthOut article with a "Haha, told you so." I told her I couldn't find anything about it in the drive-by media or on Drudge, so I would believe it when I saw it. I'm going to love it if Leopold got punk'd. She'd never live that down. Then again, she suffers from constant cognitive dissonance as well as a raging case of BDS. She'd forget about it within days. I, however, would not!

[maryrose]

TM: I disagree, Rove will not be indicted. The fact that the left actually believes Leopold got duped on his story proves this is wishful thinking on their part. If Fitz had the goods he would have indicted months ago.

[Specter]

Asked in the other thread and OT - but where has larwyn been?

[maryrose]

Larwyn has some trouble with allergies and is taking medicine for it.

[Specter]

Thanks maryrose - was just concerned we had not heard from her in a few days. She is a member of the family here.....

[cathyf]

Maybe we should stop teasing her when she "larwyns a thread" After all, she is handicapped both by the fog-inducing meds and the dialup connection from hell.

Nah, giving her a hard time is fun! ;-)

cathy :-)

[danking70]

TM,

You've been throwing that 70% prediction around a while now. How about putting up a bid on Tradespot?

I'm sure Clarice or many others would take the other side.

[Gary Maxwell]

Go read the posts on Talkleft about this. But put down you coffee and swallow first so you dont spill and spew. Its a hoot.

[topsecretk9]

--Nah, giving her a hard time is fun! ;-)--

I think she gets a kick out of Larwyn-ing the thread as much I do. Honestly, I think it is a hoot and love her OT Tank style too.

Larwyn, hope you are felling better!

[jerry]

Rove's on C-SPAN right now, talking at the AEI.

I thought that Merritt article was actually really good.

[Gary Maxwell]

No really Luskin was taking care of his sick cat when this marathon meeting was suppose to have occurred so one of the posters wants to depose the cat or something! I am alternating laughing and shaking my head in disbelief.

Categoric denials = jason's on to something. Maybe they just misposted and meant Jason ON SOMETHING.

[Neo]

This feels like the "high water" moment for a Rove indictment. Unless Fitz totes one out in the next 24 hours, there will be none.

[Chants]

I have confirmed based one multiple, more than two, sources, that patriot Larry Johnson has banned Seixon from sexion.com.

[Cecil Turner]

So Larry really does possess "skills," eh? That dirty so-and-so! Is there any evidence it's a Rovian plot? (And if not, should we invent some?)

[Dwilkers]

What do you think he's going to get indicted on TM? The Cooper convo, obstruction, both or something else entirely?

FWIW I think any Cooper related indictment would be incredibly thin and demonstrate some pretty poor use of prosecutorial discretion.

[topsecretk9]

No really Luskin was taking care of his sick cat when this marathon meeting was suppose to have occurred so one of the posters wants to depose the cat or something!

What?

[Gary Maxwell]

TS

Caravalo or whatever Rove's press spokesman's name is, told Merritt that Luskin was home with hi sick cat. Not good enough to one of her posters. I guess they want to see the kitty litter box and note if the stools are loose or something! The fact that he was not in his office totally escapes them and makes a 15 hour meeting story a larger stool deposit.

[Tom Maguire]

You've been throwing that 70% prediction around a while now. How about putting up a bid on Tradespot?

They quit listing "Rove indicted" after the Mar 31 ran out.

I have no imagination on the indictment - I assume it will be perjury/false statements obstruction on Cooper.

[Patton]

"""""Did Patrick Fitzgerald come to Patton Boggs for 15 hours Friday?
No.
Did he come to Patton Boggs for any period of time Friday?
No.
Did he meet anywhere else with Karl Rove's representatives?
No.
Did he communicate in any way with Karl Rove's representatives?
No.
Did he inform Rove or Rove's representatives that Rove had been indicted?
No.""""""

David Shuster and Chris Mathews would take these answers as confirmation of an indictment.

[Dwilkers]

I just don't see it man.

Cooper admits he doesn't remember and however long it took them to turn over the e-mail they did turn it over and correct. There's as much evidence that Cooper is in error (more actually) as there is that Rove is in error.

Basically Fitz will have to argue that Rove deliberately lied and then willingly turned over the evidence that he was lying - and which presumably he had been lying about creating the obstruction angle - to the prosecutor.

Thin. I mean it is just incredibly thin and "man I just forgot" is way more believable.

[maryrose]

Patton: LOL
Larwyn:
I hope you get well soon, remember 24 tonight!

[maryrose]

Dwilk:
Agreed and besides I thought if you said you forgot you were OK. It worked for Clinton.

[topsecretk9]

Gary

Thanks, got it.

[boris]

I mean it is just incredibly thin and "man I just forgot" is way more believable.

But as long as the fervent guardians of our civil liberties like Jeff and emptywheel approve, Fitz will get away with it.

Conviction isn't necessarily the intent. The new justice is punishment by indictment.

[topsecretk9]

Funny what seems to get lost here, is according to Larry at DU...(now confirmed by TalkLeft)

Joe Wilson is leaking secret GJ info to Larry and Leopold, I wonder how Fitzgerald feels about this?

Anyone got Samborn's email?

[jerry]

Actually Merritt has a subsequent post, that's the one which I think is very good - she talks to Luskin/Rove's spokesman... and he starts waffling about the denials. Turns out he called around to get the denial published, playing catch up with Leopold's sources within Luskin's law firm:

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014843.html

[paul]

Rove won't be indicted.

If things were going well for Fitz, maybe, but they are not-

a Rove indictment, without guarantee of conviction is career suicide.

[Neo]

Joe Wilson shouldn't know anything but his own experience with the GJ, which means he can talk to his hearts content about it.

[Neo]

I wouldn't call the miffing the direction of the contacts .. waffling about denials.
Sourcing of denials is part of their job, isn't it ?

[topsecretk9]

Neo

I am only taking Larry to heart...and I wonder how Mr. Fitzgerald feels that Mr. Wilson is leaking/and confirming secret GJ information about his case?

Now if Wilson is lying, then it is 2003 Op-ed all over again!

::wink::

Shouldn't we give the the bearer of all things honest the benefit of the doubt?

[Neo]

::wink:: ::wink::

:: know what you mean ::

:: say no more ::

[ed]

Hmmm.

Could someone give Fitz a good swift kick in the rear end? If he's going to indict anybody else, let's get this damn thing done and over with already.

What the hell is he waiting for? The 2008 bloody election? Can he really drag out this stupid indictment nonsense for two more years?

[ed]

Hmmmm.

Someone call up the DOJ and ask who the hell is supposedly supervising this numbnut.

[Bruce Hayden]

I listened to Druge last night on the radio (I was driving, and he was on the 50,000 watt KOA here, so it was one of the only things I could here), and he was almost livid about the supposed Rove indictment. Of course, he gets heated a lot on the air, but this was exceptional even for him.

His sources, which he trusts, were telling him just the opposite, that Rove had not been indicted yet. Then he reminded us about 8 years of imminent Hillary indictments that never materialized.

Later, he did back away a little, and admit that, though he didn't believe that there had been an indictment, he throught that, based on his sources, that it was highly unlikely, but that, yes, it was possible.

[Neo]

What the hell is he waiting for?

Shoot.

I'm still waiting for the the last active Independent Counsel, David Barrett, to release the report on the Henry Cisneros investigation.
After $21 million and finished since August 2004, the "Barrett Report" has reportedly been blocked by Hillary et al who doesn't want to see it made public.

[clarice]

http://www.seixon.com/blog/archives/2006/05/defending_the_s.html Have fun with out own dear Seixon.

[jerry]

Sorry, I'm getting really screwed up about the Talk Left posts. Just go to her site, most all the articles there are really good/responsible.

[Gary Maxwell]

Really Jerry?

Here is the most recent post at talkleft:

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014843.html>Most recent Merritt Post

Anyone see any waffling or noncategoric denials here? What the hell are you smoking and do you share a dealer with Jason?

[Pete]

"What the hell is he waiting for?"

I think he is doing it methodically and the right way. Had he wanted to influence the elections, he could have leaked a lot of politically damaging information before the 2004 elections.

[paul]

"I assume it will be perjury/false statements obstruction on Cooper."

Cooper is weak a witness.

Refusing to give up sources, but then changing his mind. The husband of Mandy Grunwald(daughter of Time editor) former advisor to HRC. Factor in the deceased Time editor, who declared that the information on Plame was not a secret.

The jury will have to decide if Cooper is honest or not, and had something to gain. Perjury is easy if the prosecution witness is unimpeachable. Cooper isn't in this class.

Using Miller against Libby was a piece of (yellow)cake, becuase she is seen as sympathetic to Libby. The same cannot be said for Cooper.

Fitz' delay on the indictment for Rove, if there is to be one, signifies the difficulty in relying on a witness lacking the appearrnace of impartiality.

[cathyf]

I think he is doing it methodically and the right way. Had he wanted to influence the elections, he could have leaked a lot of politically damaging information before the 2004 elections.

*snort* So he releases the politically damaging info before the 2006 elections.

cathy :-)

[pollyusa]

More from Tom Edsall
Washington Post National Political Reporter on "Post Politics Hour"

Miami, Fla.: The blogs are abuzz with reports of Karl Rove's impending (some say actual)indictment. What's the story?

Tom Edsall: I think we will know very soon, perhaps as soon as early afternoon. No guarantee, however.
WaPo 5/15/06

[Neo]

the deceased Time editor, who declared that the information on Plame was not a secret

Did I miss this before ?

[pollyusa]

More from the WaPo

Tom: Is it true that Patrick Fitzgerald met with Karl Rove and his people at Rove's firm of Patton, Boggs over the weekend to try and reach a "deal"? I heard it from reliable sources and also heard that no deal was reached and that Fitzgerald could be indicting Rove as early as today. What have you heard?

Thanks!

Tom Edsall: Jim VandeHei, who has been ahead of his competitors on this story, has been trying to track down every rumor, including the one you cite. We have not been able to confirm the kind of detail you describe.

[clarice]

I doubt that Rove would be indicted without his attorneys being given advance notice. And I doubt that Corallo would destroy his reputation by the unambiguous denials he's made.

[windansea]

Tom Edsall: I think we will know very soon, perhaps as soon as early afternoon. No guarantee, however.

gee that's a real bomb shell...

[windansea]

OT NSA leaks

Federal Source to ABC News: We Know Who You're Calling

May 15, 2006 10:33 AM

Brian Ross and Richard Esposito Report:

A senior federal law enforcement official tells ABC News the government is tracking the phone numbers we call in an effort to root out confidential sources.

"It's time for you to get some new cell phones, quick," the source told us in an in-person conversation.

ABC News does not know how the government determined who we are calling, or whether our phone records were provided to the government as part of the recently-disclosed NSA collection of domestic phone calls.

Other sources have told us that phone calls and contacts by reporters for ABC News, along with the New York Times and the Washington Post, are being examined as part of a widespread CIA leak investigation.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/05/federal_source_.html

[Gary Maxwell]

I doubt that Corallo would destroy his reputation

Factor in the unfolding story of Slate trying to get supporting info out of Leopold and his evasiveness and nonresponsiveness to their queries leading them to pull his article as unsupported, and you might get a pretty good odds with a lefty on this one. They want it to be true so bad that they will forget Leopold's past. Clean a lefty out day is Wendesday

[Neo]

Perhaps it's not the government.

[Jane]

The funniest part of the Leopold story was the reaction at Merritt's blog. Folks there actually suggested that the antique media were holding the story until after Bush's speech tonite. Ahhh the manners.

I was also a bit flabberghated that Merritt actually called Rove's attorney at 10:00 PM Sat nite, presumably at home. I'd never ever ever do that to an attorney I don't know, about a case I'm not involved with. She was fummoxed by Luskin's denial of the story since she didn't identify which Leopold piece she was referencing (just that it was written by Leopold - which given his resume is surely enough). It's as if Merritt thinks Luskin is not actually following what is going on out here, and wouldn't know exactly what Leopold was proclaiming.

If nothing else, the woman needs a course in manners.

I still don't think Rove will be indicted. Since the Libby case appears to be crumbling, Fitzy would need to actually have something on Rove to go forward; and if he did he would have gone forward a long time ago.

[Cecil Turner]

What the hell is he waiting for? The 2008 bloody election? Can he really drag out this stupid indictment nonsense for two more years?

It's not at all clear what information Fitz claims is protected by an ongoing investigation, but in the May 5 hearing, there was some discussion about it (using Rove for an example), during which Fitz said:

We would not be turning over materials if the person is an innocent accused or a subject of an ongoing investigation.

FWIW, I think he'll "press-to-test" the weak case against Rove as soon as it's no longer tactically advantageous to keep it under wraps. And that day is fast approaching. (I also agree with those who say it's an abuse of prosecutorial discretion . . . but it won't be the first.)

[Specter]

Gary,

No waffling there at all. But the comments section...man I fogot my NBC Suit. Gotta take a shower now....

[Tom Maguire]

Actually Merritt has a subsequent post, that's the one which I think is very good - she talks to Luskin/Rove's spokesman... and he starts waffling about the denials.

My favorite "waffle" was this:

During their second conversation Sunday, Corallo told Jason he wasn't sure that Fitzgerald had not been in D.C. Friday, it was just what he had been told.

You mean Corallo was not in Chicago with Fitzgerald? Or even checking his luggage at the airport? Then throw him out.

To help Jerry out, that was in the Merritt/Leopold post, NOT the Merritt/Corallo post. I sure didn't see any waffles there.

[windansea]

articulates my own hunch, which is that Fitzgerald may have been negotiating with Rove's team about a *possible* indictment:

hmmmm

how do you square the above with this?

Did Patrick Fitzgerald come to Patton Boggs for 15 hours Friday?
No.
Did he come to Patton Boggs for any period of time Friday?
No.
Did he meet anywhere else with Karl Rove's representatives?
No.
Did he communicate in any way with Karl Rove's representatives?
No.
Did he inform Rove or Rove's representatives that Rove had been indicted?
No.

[clarice]

Perhaps they borrowed the Comey-Fitz ESP machine anc negotiated by brain waves.

[paul]

Neo-

I'm scrambling for the article.

The first mention of the Time mag editor was in a WSJ online column-maybe Taranto?

Basically a long time editor(Time) had submitted a letter to the judge stating that Plame's identity was known among the press, and appearred to be trying to help Cooper avoid a subpoenae.

TM linked to it at the time, but I'm scrambling to find it...

check back.

[lurker]

"During their second conversation Sunday, Corallo told Jason he wasn't sure that Fitzgerald had not been in D.C. Friday, it was just what he had been told."

HHuummm...how is this different from Libby's statements, such as "I heard that, too"?

If not, then will Fitz consider indicting Corallo for causing damages to Jason Leopold for leaking the Rove indictment story or rumors?

HHHmmm...

[clarice]

Don't forget in the Miller case, the press counsel filed a pleading saying Plame was well known to the press.

[lurker]

"Basically a long time editor(Time) had submitted a letter to the judge stating that Plame's identity was known among the press, and appearred to be trying to help Cooper avoid a subpoenae."

Would be nice to know exactly what the press knew about Plame's identity: classified, NOC, covert, unknown, or whatever! :)

[windansea]

TM

now Jeralyn has talked with Carollo

Jason is making it up on the fly

My Conversation With Mark Corallo Re: Leopold on Rove

Karl Rove's spokesman, Mark Corallo, called me at 8:20 a.m. Mountain Time today. He said someone had read him my post over the phone about my conversation with Jason Leopold (and he had picked up my voice-mail from Saturday night) and he wanted to respond. Here is Mr. Corallo's version:

1. He has never spoken with someone identifying himself as "Jason Leopold." He did have conversations Saturday and Sunday along the lines I described, but the caller identified himself as Joel something or other from the Londay Sunday Times. The calls were to his home number. At one point during their last conversation, he offered to call Joel back, and was given a cell phone number that began with 917. When he called the number back, it turned out not to be be a number for Joel.

2. Josh Gerstein and Byron York called him, not the other way around.

3. There was no meeting or communication between Luskin and Fitzgerald on Friday. Bob was not in the office on Friday at all. He was home, taking care of a sick cat.

4. Karl Rove did not tell the President he would resign.

5. Karl Rove has not been indicted nor told he would be indicted. As far as Corallo knows (and he is in contact with Luskin) Fitzgerald has not yet made up his mind as to whether to charge Rove. There are no charges.

6. He says there is not an ounce of truth to anything Jason wrote. He says he made it up. He also denies that Jason left him a message before the article ran.

7. He has received calls from the major papers on this and denied the story to all of them.

Mr. Corallo's tone was not angry. He was friendly and seemed sincere. If anything, he sounded somewhat bewildered and incredulous at how Jason could have written his article.

So, there you have it. A full and complete official Camp Rove denial of everything in Jason's article.

Now we wait and see. Jason has said if the story is false, he will publicly disclose his sources.

Mr. Corallo gave me his cell phone number for future questions. I asked him how late I could call him and he said up to 11 pm was fine for routine matters and any time if it was breaking news.

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014843.html

[Other Tom]

Jerry: Did you and I read the same Merritt post? Seems clear to me that (a) Corallo was returning her voice-mail call; (b) the post contains no assertion that Corallos was calling around to get the denial published; and (c) there is no "waffling" of any kind--his denials are entirely unambiguous. For my part, I know nothing of Leopold other than what I have read today, but it seems to me almost inconceivable that he could be making this up out of whole cloth.

[cathyf]

A senior federal law enforcement official tells ABC News the government is tracking the phone numbers we call in an effort to root out confidential sources.

Is it a condition of employment if you have a security clearance that security people have access to your phone bill? It's certainly way less intrusive than agreeing to submit to polygraphs as a condition of employment. I once worked for a long-distance phone company and one of the conditions of employment was that you had to use them as your phone company. I worked for an investment bank, and a condition of employment (for US employees) was that you did all of your personal trading and investing through their brokerage arm -- and I believe that SEC regulations required the bank to do data-mining on their employees' trading to search for securities-laws violations.

If security has access to the phone bills of the employees with the security clearances, then they can figure out who is calling reporters pretty quickly. (Somehow the leakers are never as smart as Deep Throat when it comes to this stuff. I'm guessing that they're blabbing it all to reporters on their cell phones in their seats on the Metro going home, and everybody who was in the same car of the train already knew it before they read it in the WaPo.)

cathy :-)

[paul]

Neo-

Got it.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110007488

"Among the letters submitted by [Time's Matt] Cooper [to the judge considering whether to compel his testimony] was one from a former Time White House correspondent, Hugh Sidey. "In this case it seems to me the protection of a source transcends the other considerations,which do not seem to threaten national security," he wrote.

Mr. Sidey said in an interview that the identity of the CIA operative, Ms. Plame, was widely known--well before Mr. Cooper talked to his sources. "You know this game as well as I do," Mr. Sidey said. "That name was knocking around in the sub rosa world we live in for a long time."

Sidey is now deceased. (please no conspiracy theories-he was 78-and had outlived his usefullness by democratic standards)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/21/AR2005112101478.html

[clarice]

Thanks, Paul. Now that you posted it, I do recall that.

[Other Tom]

Someone who knows, please correct me if I'm wrong: it's my understanding that law enforcement can obtain phone records (revealing the calls made from a particular phone) without a warrant of any kind, and that it is done routinely. (I'm relying on my experience watching "Law & Order.")

[clarice]

I think Mac cited to such a law a few days ago. CELA or something like that. You might ask him because he doesn't have an archive posted that I recall.

[boris]

Clearly not wrong, now an expert from watching '24'!

[clarice]

I'm wrong. Mac does have an archive, but I can't find the reference. Maybe you should email him.

[paul]

Actually the info that the NSA was 'reportedly' working with is consistent with what private companies have already been selling.

http://www.epic.org/privacy/iei/epicfccreply.pdf

Apparently at least 12 private companies are already selling the info.

[lurker]

Change of topic but speaking about confidential sources, check this link:

http://macsmind.blogspot.com/2006/05/rockefeller-did-you-teller-xxii.html

"A pattern of phone calls from a reporter, however, could provide valuable clues for leak investigators."

In Rambo speak - You leak, "We're coming after you".

As for the Rocky "road show"?

As long predicted, the preliminary coming forward:

Violation of the Logan Act.

NEXT: Winding down.

PS: Freedom of the Press is NOT freedom to devulge classified information no matter if you agree with it or not. Just in case you were wondering."

[windansea]

BRIAN DICKERSON: Rove rumor red meat to blue state audience

FREE PRESS COLUMNIST
Was it an improbable outside-the-Beltway scoop on the ultimate inside-the-Beltway story? A criminal leak concerning the grand jury investigation of a criminal leak? Or just a red-hot rumor that caught fire in the dry tinder of too many trial attorneys?

Whatever it was, the news that White House adviser Karl Rove had been indicted for perjury electrified the 700 or so lawyers, judges and elected officials (including featured speakers Gov. Jennifer Granholm and U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.) gathered at the Dearborn Hyatt Regency for Saturday night's annual banquet of the Michigan Trial Lawyers Association.

Until they found out that maybe he hadn't been.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060515/NEWS05/605150380/1007

[Neo]

There is another indictment in the Duke rape case, but I far as I can tell Karl Rove wasn't involved.

[Tom Maguire]

articulates my own hunch, which is that Fitzgerald may have been negotiating with Rove's team about a *possible* indictment:

Oh, I can't square the utter absence of contact with Leopold's story. I just wouldn't be shocked if Fitzgerald had drawn up a hypothetical indictment to serve as the basis for discussions about a plea deal. As to when it was discussed, or where, or for how long (or even whether), that would be a Leopoldian fantasy.

[JM Hanes]

R/S/S not involved? Of course he was: the Duke case was set up to keep the media occupied as the case against him heated up, and the President's prime time speech on immigration was arranged to keep the cameras occupied while he's being frog-marched from the White House.

[windansea]

Thanks TM...that's what I thought

more on the premature ejaculation by Hillary & friends...I hope there is video :)

WASHINGTON - Some Democrats have already celebrated the downfall of Karl Rove.

At a Michigan Trial Lawyers’ Association dinner Saturday night in Dearborn, Mich., the group's vice president Robert Raitt announced — according to the Detroit Free Press — that President Bush’s longtime strategist had just been indicted. The announcement reportedly prompted a standing ovation by the crowd of 700, which included Sen. Hillary Clinton.

Strange then that a relaxed-looking Rove – not indicted, not out on bail, and wearing a business suit, not orange prison garb -- was in person at the right-wing think tank, American Enterprise Institute Monday morning.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12799420

[paul]

Actually, the WH is planning on finding Natalie Holloway in Iraq, late October 06.

[maryrose]

windansea:
Do we have actual footaage or audio of the dems reaction to the false statement about Rove?

[patch]

Sorry, no indictment of Karl Rove in the offing.

Intrade/Tradesport doesn't even offer a contract.

Wish they would, I love taking money from people who foam at the mouth when the "Evil" Karl Rove is invlolved.

[clarice]

JMH part of that --the immigration speech as deflection--was already posted by one of the geniuses who haunt LJ's site.

TM I hope that along with the draft indictment, Fitz prepared a diagram of the case this time. The last indictment seems more like a pointillist sketch.

[maryrose]

A standing ovation eh? Well it reminds me of their cheering at the SOTU when Bush mentioned their failure to fix social security. There's some great material for advertisements this fall.

[paul]

The 'crimes' of Rove are actually the same problems with Cooper.

IF Fitz wants to indict Rove based on Cooper's statements, then the oportunity to examine the two faces of Cooper becomes a easy defense strategy.

Face one: Coooper doesn't want to be subpoenaed. Sidey writes a letter to the judge saying Plame's identity is already known.

Face two: He is subpoenaed anyways, and now Plame's identity isn't known.

Ted Wells could very easily ask of Cooper: When you sought to avoid a subpoenae, your lawyers submitted a statement from Hugh Sidey that Plame's identity was known among Washington press. When you were subpoenaed you decided to change your position regarding Plame's identity. Can you explain your misrepresentation?

Cooper is the only thing Fitz has on Rove, and Rove's attorney has the goods on Cooper. Finding 12 poeple to agree on the veracity of one of these gentleman over another is unlikely.

[lurker]

"Rushing to a negative judgment of Jason is unfair until all the facts come out." Quoted from Stephen Leser's article...

1. Jason Leopold was wrong about the timing...more than once.

2. If Rove never gets indicted, then what facts are we talking about?

Now that you mentioned standing ovation: Lucianne.com had an interesting post about the "final word":

"In November, Republicans will be doing a standing ovation for Karl Rove for delivering the majority to President Bush .... ".

[windansea]

windansea:
Do we have actual footaage or audio of the dems reaction to the false statement about Rove?

don't know but I bet PIAPS minions have probably scrubbed all copies...

[windansea]

hilarious exchange at the DUmp

Is Leapold's career over if this story is false?

No -- he will start a restaurant franchise with Jayson Blair

Scoopers and Dupers?

:)

[clarice]

Is Shuster's career over if Leopold's is? And what ever will Chris Matthews talk about if Rove is not indicted?

[Dwilkers]

Well.

As long as Rove doesn't get indicted there are at least 2 1/2 more years during which "Rove to be indicted this Friday" stories can be written.

That's 52 + 52 + 26 = 130 more weekly stories.

[lurker]

ROFL!

So we have to wait til tomorrow, Wednesday, Friday, and May 24th.

TM, what makes you think Rove will be indicted, and for which counts?

[PeterUK]

Meanwhile intehran the Mullahs are laughing,do the Democrats think that if they damage the Bush administration sufficiently to win the election that Iran will respect them.It took decades to wipe out the debacle of Vietnam,failure here would mean the loss of influence in the Middle East for the forseeable future.
Democrats are not excused the forces of history,a Democratic president will be tested just as JFKennedy,Jimmy Carter and George Bush were,it is the way of the world,there is no way you can sit this one out.
The idea,"We are Democrats,we are different" is not worth the thought bubble,you are all Americans,that is what the world sees.

[windansea]

I predict I will eat a ham sandwich sometime soon but am not sure what type of mustard will be used....

[maryrose]

Iran has already dealt with an ineffective democratic president in Jimmy Carter during the hostage crisis. Of course Iran and as Kerry stated other foreign governments want the democratic candidate to win. That should give all American voters pause.

[JM Hanes]

TM

Almost nothing really squares, starting with terminology. You get "served" with subpoenas. Indictments get filed. Ditto for the 24 (business) hours to get his affairs in order. Rove would be frog-marched off to booking, not to jail; he'd have plenty of time for tidying up post photo-op. Leopold is giving us what "high level sources with direct knowledge of the meeting" reportedly said. But to whom? You'll notice he doesn't claim he spoke to them himself, or that said folks ever told him anything directly.

I think Fitz would be truly out of his mind to indict Rove, but if he does, I just hope he puts off his presser long enough for Leopold to out his actual sources, as promised. Interesting how fast Larry Johnson & Joe Wilson showed up. Downright bizarre, in fact, when you really think about it.

[clarice]

If you want to smear the Administration and dispirit irs supporters, the gambit is no so odd. It just takes a journo who'd hungry and has a lousy rep to be your sword bearer.

[clarice]

***dispirit iTs supporters, the gambit is noT so odd.***************

[Sue]

Interesting how fast Larry Johnson & Joe Wilson showed up.

Where did they show up? I missed it.