David Shuster transcript from Countdown

[Catherine Vincent]

From Raw Story http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/MSNBC_reporter_I_am_convinced_that_0508.html

Olbermann: What are you gathering on these two main points. Is the decision by Mr. Fitzgerald coming soon, would it be an indictment?

Shuster: Well, Karl Rove's legal team has told me that they expect that a decision will come sometime in the next two weeks. And I am convinced that Karl Rove will, in fact, be indicted. And there are a couple of reasons why. First of all, you don't put somebody in front of a grand jury at the end of an investigation or for the fifth time, as Karl Rove testified a couple, a week and a half ago, unless you feel that's your only chance of avoiding indictment. So in other words, the burden starts with Karl Rove to stop the charges. Secondly, it's now been 13 days since Rove testified. After testifying for three and a half hours, prosecutors refused to give him any indication that he was clear. He has not gotten any indication since then. And the lawyers that I've spoken with outside of this case say that if Rove had gotten himself out of the jam, he would have heard something by now. And then the third issue is something we've talked about before. And that is, in the Scooter Libby indictment, Karl Rove was identified as 'Official A.' It's the term that prosecutors use when they try to get around restrictions on naming somebody in an indictment. We've looked through the records of Patrick Fitzgerald from when he was prosecuting cases in New York and from when he's been US attorney in Chicago. And in every single investigation, whenever Fitzgerald has identified somebody as Official A, that person eventually gets indicted themselves, in every single investigation. Will Karl Rove defy history in this particular case? I suppose anything is possible when you are dealing with a White House official. But the lawyers that I've been speaking with who know this stuff say, don't bet on Karl Rove getting out of this.

[SayitAintSo]

1. YEEE HAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

Thanks for the recap - I missed it ....dang! Music to my ears....waiting for that frog march!!!!

:bounce:

[stop the bleeding]

2. Nominated!

Thank you ;)

[Catherine Vincent]

5. Well you're welcome!

But I was waiting on you or KPete to post this but my fingers got itchy. :hi:

[Klukie]

3. Thanks......

for this beautiful post!!!!!

[fearthem]

4. Thanks for posting this important report! I feel Fitzgerald is far too ..

proud to waste so much time on this, particularly knowing the multitudes are watching, unless he planned to indict -- the time spent is indicative that he's going for it -- just takes time to massage the grand jury.

[Roland99]

6. Pfffft....John Fund says Wilson has no credibility. This is a tiny blip

of a scandal.

[Stevendsmith]

7. Yeah, I saw that desperate plea today. What a joke! (n/t)

[NewJeffCT]

18. I saw that, too

Then the other guy kind of agreed with him (David Ignatius?) It was up to Tweety to say that it really was something serious.

[yellowcanine]

27. All those who don't give a shit what John Fund says say "aye"

Aye.

[yellowcanine]

28. AYE.

[Catherine Vincent]

29. Aye!

:)

[Catrina]

8. I don't trust Rove or his lawyers. I have a question. Since Fitzgerald

is supposed to find the leaker, and we know that Rove, (despite his many lies) could not be the leaker, he didn't have the clearance at the time, would it be possible that he could make a deal to testify against Cheney, eg, (who was named by Libby, as well as Bush as the original leakers) so that the real target of his investigation can be indicted and convicted? Iow, would Fitzgerald be willing to make a deal that would forego indicting Rove in order to get the real leaker? Or, is he obliged to indict Rove for lying, regardless of his possible willingness to cooperate?

I read the article by Rove's friend Bill Israel today, who also says that his friend, Rove will be indicted. But he too must be getting that information from Rove or his lawyers. He also said that Rove teaches that expectations are everything in politics. Wouldn't it be very beneficial to Rove, if he has made a deal with Fitz., to let 'liberals' think he will be indicted and act like a victim when he isn't? I doubt he would testify against Bush, but he might be willing to hand over Cheney.

Just trying not to get too excited, or to fall into a Rove trap ~ so I guess I'm trying to figure out if to save himself, he could have made a deal that would let Fitz get the person he really wants.

[H2O Man]

9. I'm not sure

what you mean by "...we know that Rove, (despite his many lies) could not be the leaker..." That is not accurate. We know, in fact, he was one of the leakers.

[H2O Man]

11. Part 2 ....

Also, regarding potential deals, keep in mind that Scooter was in negotiations with Mr. Fitzgerald before he was indicted. It is known that the reason he did not accept the deal, is because he would have had to accept significant jail time.

[Catrina]

12. Regarding Part 2: Yes, I remember that. ~ and that was the reason

I asked the question. It seems that Fitz is not the kind of prosecutor who is willing to let someone off completely even in exchange for information that might lead to the main target of his investigation.

At least, as you pointed out, he was not willing to do so regarding Libby. But then, he may have felt he had other options, such as Rove, Hadley and others who may have had the same information that Libby had. Also, Libby was in a more responsible position than Rove at the time and Libby is a lawyer. Maybe Fitz felt he should be held to a higher standard?

Regarding Part 1 of your question: Rove could not have leaked the information about Valerie Plame's ID or her cover company at that time because he did not have the clearance to get the information himself. That means it was given to him by someone higher up the chain who did have the clearance.

Doesn't that mean that there are at least two degrees of leaker? I believe it was Henry Waxman who initially explained the legal position of people like Rove, who did not have clearance and of those like Cheney/Bush/Tenet eg, who did.

While they are all required not to reveal the ID of covert agents, the culpability and the legal consequences are greater for those with clearance as I recall.

That's what I meant when I said that Rove was probably not Fitz's ultimate target. But you're right, he did leak the information. So did Libby, so why didn't Fitz charge Libby with that crime? And will he charge Rove? Or, does he feel he cannot because they were following the orders of someone else and does that excuse them from this charge?

My own opinion is that it might even have been Rove's idea, but how could Fitz prove that? Ultimately though, the greater crime of outing a covert agent has to have been committed by Bush/Cheney/Tenet or anyone who had clearance.

Rove lied, we know that. But he couldn't have committed the greater crime even if he wanted to, because he didn't have the means to get the information on his own. That's what I meant.

It was after I read this article: http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/shoptalk_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002464254 by Rove's friend, Bill Israel, that I became a little worried that Fitz might have made a deal with Rove. I'm probably wrong, but Israel's description of Rove's tactics made me worry that we might be being misled. Even Israel himself, might have been misled in order to make Rove's 'enemies' look bad. That is what Israel describes as a tactic Rove uses.

Sorry to take so much space to answer the questions you asked, but I hope that clarifies what I meant and I why I asked the original question re Rove making a deal in my other post!

[Polemicist]

13. On what do you base your "Rove's clearances"...

determination? He has worked inside the White House since 2000. Do you think anyone is placed in that position without very, very high security clearances? I know that he was promoted to Deputy for Policy after 2004, but we don't know for certain that this required any increase in Rove's security clearance levels.

Rove was a principle in the White House Iraq Group during the time in question, who set political action to support the President's Iraq War. I doubt he could perform that function without a Top Security Clearance.

I've tried to keep up very closely with the Plame indictments. And I've never seen anyone previously state that Rove had anything other than the very highest security clearances possible for someone working in the White House and working so closely with the President. You just couldn't do the job without the very highest security clearances.

[Catrina]

15. Rove was a Sr. Advisor to Bush in 2003. He did not have Top Security

Clearance. He did, like everyone else who worked in the WH have clearance and he could have received classified information, but only on a 'need to know' basis. He could not have gotten it himself. Only Bush, Cheney, Tenet, Bolton (two of his aides, Hannah and Wurmser were supposedly told by Fitz that they would go to jail unless they cooperated with his investigation. Most people think they did) could have given such information to Rove.

He was obligated not to reveal such information, however, and if he did, he would have violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. But, he would have to have known that what he was leaking was classified. Iow, his superiors who had access to the material, could have given it to him without telling him it was classified and then told him to give the info to the press. That makes it difficult to charge him with a crime under the IIPA. If he did know, but told the prosecutor he didn't, how can it be proven?

That's why I said he probably wasn't a target of the investigation in the beginning. Fitz called him as a witness, as far as I can tell. But then he lied and that's probably what he will be indicted for. The question is though, why did he lie, why not tell the Grand Jury the truth? That we don't know.

This article explains it fairly well:

Who Leaked to the Leakers?

What if Karl Rove isn't guilty of knowingly leaking Valerie Plame's name as a covert CIA agent involved in nuclear proliferation issues? What if Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, is correct when he says that he's been assured by prosecutors that his client is not a target of the ongoing investigation into Plame-gate? I'm going to swim against the tide, here, and against the expectations of my readers, by suggesting that this investigation isn't about Rove..

......

What also seems fairly clear is that Karl Rove would not have had direct knowledge of Plame-Wilson's covert activities on behalf of the CIA, and that only a very few people high up in the national security bureaucracy had the clearance to get access to her name. So who was it? If Rove leaked to Novak, and half a dozen Washington reporters, then who leaked to the leakers?

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=6677

I hope that answers your question ~ it is complicated and we don't know that much about what Rove did or didn't know. We do know that if he had not lied to the Grand Jury, he could have avoided being indicted. Why he lied is another good question ~

If he was fooled into breaking the law though, he may be very angry at whoever did that, and might be willing to cooperate with the prosecutor, in exchange for not being prosecuted himself. That was my original question. I was really just speculating when I asked the question.

[Polemicist]

32. I still don't see a definitive determination...

As to Rove's security clearance status and if that status was changed or upgraded after the 2004 elections. I think Justin is speculating. All security clearances are based upon a "need to know" basis. Just because you have a Top Secret or higher security clearance, doesn't mean you get to just be turned loose to rummage through whatever top secret information you wish to look at. There are very strict protocols for security of documents with even particular paragraphs being classified higher than the rest of a document. There is a code for this familiar to anyone who has such clearances. And it's all on a "need to know" basis.

Again, it's most likely that Rove had as high a security clearance as anyone else in the White House from day one. He just didn't have the pull that a principle would have to request classified information. The chain of custody of the identity of Valerie Plame came from Vice President Dick Cheney, who requested a "work up" on Wilson and in the work-up, Wilson's wife's identity as a CIA agent in the Counter-Proliferation division was disclosed to the Vice-President. Rove might not have had authority to order such a work-up, but he did have the necessary security clearances to view said workup, if the VP thought Rove had a "need to know".

This information was shared by the VP with Scooter Libby. Remember, this was prior to the Novak column. I believe Cheney/Libby shared this information with the entire White House Iraq Group (WHIG) which was the group tasked with the political response to any criticisms of Bush's Iraq war policies. That's likely where Rove first learned of Plame's CIA career.

But for that matter, the President could have told Rove. I believe that this information about Wilson/Plame was widely shared within the White House. The "work up" was done by INR in the State Department and is the famous document that Secretary Powell took on Air Force One to Africa at the time this outing of Plame was occurring.

Rove certainly could have been involved from the git-go. He could have been the original source, learning what he knew from either the President or Vice President. Don't let any talk of a security clearance issue throw you off track. That's likely a red herring planted by Rove's attorneys. And I believe Fitzgerald has treated Rove as a primary suspect from day one. And rightfully so.

The Intelligence Agent Identity Protection Act (IIPA) isn't the only law applicable there. The 1917 Espionage Act is likely more suitable for this prosecution. Additionally, all White House employees are given security safeguard agreements to sign when they begin employment at the White House that covers disclosure of classified information. It is a criminal act to violate that agreement.

I don't think the "Rove as less guilty" line of thought is accurate in any way.

[disndat]

30. Remember R. Novak?

He shouted at reporters chasing him, after the Fitz's grilling of Woodward, "If you want to know who in the WH leaked (about Plame), ask Bush."

[Catrina]

31. I didn't know about that, but he did say that Bush knew who the leaker

was in an interview a few months ago, I remember. So it seems Novak and now Libby are both pointing towards Bush ~ (Libby's testimony before the GJ). I wonder who else? We do know that both Hannah and Wurmser were threatened early on by Fitz and supposedly they decided to cooperate. They were aides to Bolton at that time.

I wonder also, will Fitz indict someone other than Rove this time? What about Andrew Card who, like other WH officials, left right before being indicted? Card resigned around the same time that we heard about the emails I think. And Card was the one Gonzalez communicated with during those 12 hours he delayed before telling the WH staff not to remove anything because of the investigation.

Could Andrew Card be the one who either erased some emails, or ordered someone else to do so after Gonzalez contacted him that night? And were these newly discovered emails retrieved from a hard-drive? I think Jason Leopold said that Rove was the one who told the prosecutor about them.

Anyway, all those coincidences, Card leaving, the retrieval of the emails and the GJ meeting and Rove testifying again (maybe he answered questions about those emails?) made me wonder if Andrew Card may also be about to be indicted.

[me b zola]

10. Buh-bye kkkarl

:hi:

[Justice Is Comin]

14. There is no question

in my mind that Patrick is furious with Rove, the way he tried to play him.

I think he would have indicted him when he brought down Libby but he didn't want to rush and his jury was expiring. That's why he had this other jury raring and ready after being back only two days in Washington.

I think they drilled him like an oil derrick. And what was in those 250 new emails that were finally pried out of the clammy hands of that Spanish sleaze bag, was probably a gold mine.

I think the only thing that is being finalized right now is how many counts he's going to hear in the announcement. Because Fitz will select only those that he is iron clad sure he'll convict and send Rove to the sex for sissies slammer.

[Gin]

16. God help us all if he isn't indicted...............payback will be worse

than the hell he has already created.

[Disturbed]

17. Damn! I hope Shuster is correct.

My question is: Who had access to know about Brewster Jennings, which was divulged in Novak's second article?

[Coexist]

19. :: VIDEO! :::

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1135527

[corbett]

36. Thank You! Love Schuster! Hard News! Can't Believe Tweety Uses Him! (n/t)

[partylessinOhio]

20. Rove should be indicted and convicted!

Rove's smugness and the damage he has done to this country needs to be "rewarded" with the appropriate punishment.

:applause: :spank: :applause:

[yellowcanine]

21. Rove is on Fitz's "Official A" Team. His mother must be so proud.

Heh.

[Roland99]

22. "I pity the fool!"

[yellowcanine]

24. More "blasts from the past." Now HIM I remember! Stupid show though.

[Roland99]

25. Biteth thy tongue!

:P

[Mr_Scarecrow]

26. yeah but do you remember this

http://www.geocities.com/nkpatel/mrt/

[dogday]

23. I shall wait patiently for

this indictment......:evilgrin:

[caledesi]

33. VIDEO: http://www.crooksandliars.com/ n/t

[chill_wind]

34. In.Every.Single.Investigation.

"And in every single investigation, whenever Fitzgerald has identified somebody as Official A, that person eventually gets indicted themselves, in every single investigation."


Such a beautiful single sentence. Such poetry.

Better than a haiku.

[Disturbed]

35. "that Spanish sleaze bag,"

I am guessing that this refers to AG Gonzales. His parents came from Quatamala. No matter what his ethnic background he is an unethical tool of Busholini and the Neo Fascists.

[Imagevision]

37. Rove fir3ed by Sr. Bush will be lame-duck schmiuck by *

[Ksec]

38. Chickens coming home to roost

Gotta love it when a plan to decieve backfires and hits THEM square in the face.