Karl Rove To Be Indicted in Plame Leak Case

BREAKING | Jason Leopold: Karl Rove Indicted on Charges of Perjury,
Lying to Investigators
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051306W.shtml

Jason Leopold reports that on Friday, May 12, 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 hours to get his
affairs in order, high level sources with direct knowledge of
themeeting said Saturday morning.

 

I have tried to check back through sources, as (I'm sure) have several thousand others.

The story was broken on Saturday by Truthout (truthout.org), which in turn cited independent investigative journalist Jason Leopold. Leopold cited "two unnamed officials" in the Administration.

When Truthout was swarmed with inquiries Monday, it released the statement that it had confirmed the story with Leopold and one other source, and stood by it.

I can't discover anything beyond that.

My guess is that the indictment was in fact handed to Rove's attorney, Luskin, and that what then happened was some last-second maneuver by Rove/Luskin vis-a-vis Fitzgerald. I think there's some kind of showdown going on between Fitzgerald and Bush/Rove, akin to what happened between Nixon and Archibald Cox leading up to the "Saturday night massacre".

Maybe it's not that dramatic.

 

Update on the Rove Indictment Story

By Marc Ash,

Wed May 17th, 2006 at 12:52:48 PM EDT :: Fitzgerald Investigation


For the past few days, we have endured non-stop attacks on our credibility, and we have fought hard to defend our reputation. In addition, we have worked around the clock to provide additional information to our readership. People want to know more about this, and our job is to keep them informed. We take that responsibility seriously.

Here's what we now know: I spoke personally yesterday with both Rove's spokesman Mark Corallo and Rove's attorney Robert Luskin. Both men categorically denied all key points of our recent reporting on this issue. Both said, "Rove is not a target," "Rove did not inform the White House late last week that he would be indicted," and "Rove has not been indicted." Further, both Corallo and Luskin denied Leopold's account of events at the offices of Patton Boggs, the law firm that represents Karl Rove. They specifically stated again that no such meeting ever occurred, that Fitzgerald was not there, that Rove was not there, and that a major meeting did not take place. Both men were unequivocal on that point.

We can now report, however, that we have additional, independent sources that refute those denials by Corallo and Luskin. While we had only our own sources to work with in the beginning, additional sources have now come forward and offered corroboration to us.

We have been contacted by at least three reporters from mainstream media - network level organizations - who shared with us off-the-record confirmation and moral support. When we asked why they were not going public with this information, in each case they expressed frustration with superiors who would not allow it.

We also learned the following: The events at the office building that houses the law firm of Patton Boggs were not in fact a very well-guarded secret. Despite denials by Corallo and Luskin, there was intense activity at the office building. In fact, the building was staked out by at least two major network news crews. Further, although Corallo and Luskin are not prepared to talk about what happened in the offices of Patton Boggs, others emerging from the building were, both on background and off-the-record. There were a lot of talkers, and they confirmed our accounts. We do have more information, but want additional confirmation before going public with it.

THE 24 HOUR THING

We reported that Patrick Fitzgerald had, "instructed one of the attorneys to tell Rove that he has 24 business hours to get his affairs in order...." That does not mean that at the end of that 24-hour period, Fitzgerald is obliged to hold a press conference and make an announcement. It just means that he has given Rove a 24-hour formal notification. Fitzgerald is not obliged to make an announcement at any point; he does so at his own discretion, and not if it compromises his case. So we're all stuck waiting here. Grab some coffee.


Source: Truthout (truthout.org), 5/17/06

 

Good question. It's at the discretion of the grand jury, which in this kind of case probably delegated it (as it can) to Mr. Fitzgerald.

On a more mundane level, such as with a county grand jury hearing much more low-key matters, I've seen it happen where NO public announcements were made until the jury's term expired, at which time only a brief summary appeared in the local newspaper. But I think that's only if there have been no indictments. Hmmm...

 

UPDATE

Hmmm, sounds as if there might be even BIGGER fish to fry about to come out!

Information Sharing on the Rove Indictment Story

By Marc Ash,

Sun May 21st, 2006 at 11:58:26 AM EDT :: Fitzgerald Investigation


I'd like to break this posting into two categories: What we know, and what we believe. They will be clearly marked.

We know that we have now three independent sources confirming that attorneys for Karl Rove were handed an indictment either late in the night of May 12 or early in the morning of May 13. We know that each source was in a position to know what they were talking about. We know that the office of Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald will not confirm, will not deny, will not comment on its investigation or on our report. We know that both Rove's attorney Robert Luskin and Rove's spokesman Mark Corallo have categorically denied all key facts we have set forth. We know we have information that directly contradicts Luskin and Corallo's denials. We know that there were two network news crews outside of the building in Washington, DC that houses the offices of Patton Boggs, the law firm that represents Karl Rove. We know that the 4th floor of that building (where the Patton Boggs offices are located) was locked down all day Friday and into Saturday night. We know that we have not received a request for a retraction from anyone. And we know that White House spokesman Tony Snow now refuses to discuss Karl Rove - at all.

Further, we know - and we want our readers to know - that we are dependent on confidential sources. We know that a report based solely on information obtained from confidential sources bears some inherent risks. We know that this is - by far - the biggest story we have ever covered, and that we are learning some things as we go along. Finally, we know that we have the support of those who have always supported us, and that must now earn the support of those who have joined us as of late.

We now move on to what we believe. (If you are looking for any guarantees, please turn back now.)

We believe that we hit a nerve with our report. When I get calls on my cell phone from Karl Rove's attorney and spokesman, I have to wonder what's up. "I" believe - but cannot confirm - that Mark Corallo, Karl Rove's spokesman gave Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post my phone number. I believe Howard Kurtz contacted me with the intention of writing a piece critical of our organization. I know that Anne Marie Squeo of the Wall Street Journal attacked us and independent journalism as a whole in her piece titled, "Rove's Camp Takes Center of Web Storm / Bloggers Underscore How Net's Reporting, Dynamics Provide Grist for the Rumor Mill." We believe that rolling out that much conservative journalistic muscle to rebut this story is telling. And we believe that Rove's camp is making a concerted effort to discredit our story and our organization.

Further - and again this is "What We Believe" - Rove may be turning state's evidence. We suspect that the scope of Fitzgerald's investigation may have broadened - clearly to Cheney - and according to one "off the record source" to individuals and events not directly related to the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame. We believe that the indictment which does exist against Karl Rove is sealed. Finally, we believe that there is currently a great deal of activity in the Plame investigation.

We know that this story is of vital interest to the community, and that providing as much information as we can is very important to our readers. We want you to know that this is challenging territory and that we are proceeding with as much speed as the terrain will allow.

Marc Ash, Executive Director - t r u t h o u t
[email protected]

 

Update from Truthout

The Continued Interest in the Rove Indictment Story

By Marc Ash,

Wed May 31st, 2006 at 07:21:40 PM EDT :: Fitzgerald Investigation
(140 comments)

We are still getting a high volume of email inquiries on our Rove indictment story from May 13, 2006. We greatly appreciate your interest, and are well aware of the right of all Americans to know what is happening here.

So again, for the record: We stand by the story. TO's staff is treating this story as our highest priority and will be following up with additional information as it becomes available.

Clearly the question is: "If Karl Rove has been indicted, why has there been no official announcement?" Right now we have only general indicators as to why an announcement might not be made when an indictment has been returned. And even though these indicators do exist, we need to more clearly understand exactly what is happening in this case before we can report on them.

This a unique situation, and frankly a stressful one. We would like to thank all of those who have offered their support during the course of this ordeal. We fully intend to press on.

Marc Ash, Executive Director - t r u t h o u t