Natasha Rothschild of truthout,org; Rove definitely will be indicted

[killerbush]

I wrote a blog on my personal political blog tonight, not a DU blog, that I thought it strange that Jason Leopold was the only reporter reporting that Rove was going to be indicted. I also said that this story was so big that why aren't more of the MSM reporting on it. Apparently, Jason did a lot of digging, and here is part of what Natasha e-mailed back to me.

Truthout had 3 sources. 2 close to Fitzgerald, and a former high ranking state department official who reported communications with a source who had "direct knowledge" of meetings with Patton Boggs. In both instances, substantial detail was provided and matched. then and only then, did we run with the story. Karl Rove will be indicted!! Read more of what she had to say;


http://smearmachine100.eponym.com/blog/_archive/2006/5/15/1959533.html#comments

[Canuckistanian]

1. 2 sources close to Fitz? Good enough for me.

Then it looks like the "getting affairs in order" phase is now operative.

[Pachamama]

32. Actually, close to Fitz sounds suspicious to me...Fitz is known to be

close-lipped/mouthed on everything. This is the first time I have even questioned the news from Truthout and Jason re. their sources.

Well, I'm reserving any "judgement" on this whole thing until there is any news...but "sources close to Fitz" didn't ring true to me...

[IndianaGreen]

2. No, Jason Leopold said that Rove had already been indicted

which by now it is obvious that this is not so!

[mucifer]

3. agreed, the internets are not always reliable

[killerbush]

4. IndianaGreen, my mistake. He has been, not will be

I fixed it. Thanks!!

[Demobrat]

5. He could have been given a few days

to turn himself in. That would give him time to clean out his WH office, etc.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

6. It doesn't work like that

Where do these ideas come from, I wonder?

If and when an indictment is handed down, it becomes a matter of public record and is announced.

That's it. That simple.

No one knows anything. There are no leaks out of Fitzgerald's operation. Never have been.

So, no one knows anything.

The Internets are playing tricks on you people.

[feistydem]

11. Couldn't a sealed indictment be issued that would not be made public?

...just asking.

I'm married to a old lefty, social justice lawyer who seems to think so --although he doesn't see any reason to seal a Rove indictment (unless Fitz is using an indictment as leverage for Rove to testify against someone else ... like Cheney)

I agree that Fitzgerald's team doesn't leak. He's very deliberate and doesn't appear to be moved by politics or a hungry media.


:hi: Just a quick hello to the NSA.

[Justice Is Comin]

38. There is another possibility.

I don't believe the sealed indictment terminology as accurate here either in the strict sense of how it's usually used.

But I believe it's possible the judge could authorize Fitzgerald by special order to disclose information to the target for the purposes of pleading to charges ready for indictment. This is a very sensitive case and involves the highest level of the government.

This would not be a public filing.

I don't think this is unequivocally out of the realm of possibility.

[IndianaGreen]

7. Nope, Fitz would have taken the grand jurors to the courtroom

(which is in a different floor from the small room used by the grand jury) to meet the judge who would then seal the indictment. This is what happened in the Scooter indictment, and this is what is yet to happen.

You wouldn't have Fitz filing new papers on the same day he is getting a new indictment.

[Tempest]

8. The link above says he was indicted

From the link:

The story is accurate, and Karl Rove's attorneys have been served with an indictment.

In short, we had two sources close to the Fitzgerald investigation who were explicit about the information that we published, and a former high-ranking state department official who reported communication with a source who had "direct knowledge" of the meeting at Patton Boggs. In both instances, substantial detail was provided and matched.



Not all indictments are announced immediately.

From the story Leopold filed, Fitzgerald gave Rove time to get his affairs in order. That could mean Fitzgerald is holding off on the announcement until Rove's lawyers have a chance to read the indictments.

[IndianaGreen]

9. Leopold's story is bunk!

In short, we had two sources close to the Fitzgerald investigation who were explicit about the information that we published, and a former high-ranking state department official who reported communication with a source who had "direct knowledge" of the meeting at Patton Boggs. In both instances, substantial detail was provided and matched.

We had confirmation. We ran the story.

Two sources close to the Fitzgerald investigation? That is so laughable! Is there is anything that is true about Fitzpatrick is that there has never been a leak from that investigation. None, zilch!

The other source is even more incredible. You might as well say that a well positioned janitor overheard the grand jury deliberations.

Wishing won't make it so!

[Media_Lies_Daily]

18. Yep....here we go again. The naysayers just can't resist....

...trashing Leopold, his article, and whoever comes forward in support.

Wishing that there is NO indictment doesn't make it so, either.

Sorry, but I'll take what Truthout is reporting over posters that have no sources whatsoever.

[Tempest]

21. You're wrong

Leopold's sources (assumed to be the same) leaked Libby's indictments and Leopold was the first to report them.

There have been other leaks as well. Like the fact that Rove was a person of interest, Cheney's handwritten notes and portions of Novak's testimony.

To claim there has never been a leak is naive and wrong.



Regardless of what anyone believes, only time will tell who's right and who's wrong.

Everything else is window dressing.

[onenote]

34. do you have a link?

As I recall, the day that the Libby indictment was announced (Friday Oct 28), a lot of news outlets and bloggers were reporting that the announcement was going to be made that afternoon. Do you have a link to something earlier from Leopold? The only thing I could find was a Lepold piece dated the date of the indictmenty, and there is no way to tell if it was the first or just one of the many. One of the oddities about that story, btw, is that it says that sources revealed one of the indictments the previous Wednesday, but I can't find any story from Leopold (or others) before Friday.

BTW, that story also stated that Rove was going to be indicted at the same time.
http://www.countercurrents.org/us-leopold281005.htm

As I've said before, if it turns out that Leopold was correct in reporting that Rove was indicted sometime last week, kudos to him. But I'm pretty skeptical about that claim.

onenote

[johnfunk]

31. If the indictmen't been sealed, Rove's been indicted...

... and I'll bet that's the case

[peacetalksforall]

10. Can you have an indictment on perjury and still be working on a plea

for obstruction of justice?

[Laura Heuchan]

12. Wednesday?

I'd guess that the indictment comes before any talk about pleading, I don't know.

Steve Clemons says that the Plame Grand Jury meets again on Wednesday. See what he says here, remember he reported early on about the coming Libby indictment:

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/

I was hoping the Rove indictment would be tomorrow, now I'm thinking Wednesday.

[feistydem]

13. Friday, after the news cycle, reduced to a crawler until Sunday talk-news

Fitz is not a grandstander.

...but my "Rove Indictment" champagne is chilling for the moment it's announced.

[Laura Heuchan]

14. Champagne

I live in WV, will be in Baltimore tomorrow night and was hoping to celebrate with National Bohemian beer and steamed crabs. When I get back home on Wednesday, if there is still not an indictment, I'll buy some good champagne and have it waiting.

I've been waiting for this for 6 years or so, what's a few more days?

[feistydem]

15. French champagne for Karl, although we could add tequila shots now that

his fine political consulting work has pissed off Latino's too. I may ask my indictment party guests to bring something from each country/ethnicity the Bush Admin. has offended. We'd have a helluva buffet!

[Laura Heuchan]

16. indictment party

I'm having a get together Thursday night, maybe it will turn into an indictment party. I think we'll have hamburgers and hot dogs. After all, the country most insulted by the Bush admin. is the USA.

I hope I wake up later this morning to some more breaking news regarding this indictment.

[Binka]

24. Hi Laura! Welcome To DU!

:toast:

[Hubert Flottz]

26. I think I'll stay in WV and have some Hot Dam and deep fried...

Perch...

Do we have a seat belt law that covers an emotional roller coaster ride? Hot Dam...the suspense is crippling me!

Welcome to Du Laura!

[wryter2000]

33. Welcome to DU

:hi:

[newyawker99]

35. Hi Laura Heuchan!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[badgerpup]

17. Actually, methinks that no news is GOOD news.

If there was DEFINITELY no indictment and Rove was going to walk...don't you think that it would be being trumpeted from MSM and Rove himself would be publicly doing the
"Ain't Never Gonna Catch Me" boogie?

The silence and 'no comment' and tenterhooks is actually a favorable sign if you think about it.
:bounce:
I hope.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

19. You and I are thinking along the same lines.

[MindMatter]

36. Remember that Rove plays hardball

If Leopold's story is true, then Fitz made his move on Friday or Saturday.

The key thing to remember is that Rove has access to a vast amount of political power and untold IOUs he is calling in right now.

It is possible -- likely, actually -- that the Rove team is working night and day to come up with a counter-attack that will make life very uncomfortable for Fitz. I'm not sure what Rove would do in this case, but to assume he's just sitting around waiting for the Grand Jury to work is laughable.

What I'm trying to say is that it is possible that every word of Leopold's article is true AND Rove might still slip the loose.

[Critters2]

20. Well, I, for one, was deeply disappointed

to turn on C-SPAN this morning and find the fat little pig giving his speech at the American Evil Institute.

Indict the SOB already!!

[rodeodance]

25. yes. I was very disappointed.

[mwb970]

28. I heard the fat little pig is looking kind of thin these days.

Maybe he's "off his feed" for some reason.

[IMSA]

22. I'll believe it when I see it.

Too many false alarms. Remember the Downing Street memo hype that amounted to nothing?

IMSA

[Maddy McCall]

23. TO claimed he had already been indicted.

The blogger says this, too:

While I still believe Rove will be indicted, I have heard stories over the past 24 hours that make me less sure about it. The next time for the grand jury to meet is Wednesday. If nothing happens, then it will be Friday. If nothing happens then, then I might have to come to the conclusion that Rove will get off the noose. And knowing that would simply piss me off no end!!!

[The Backlash Cometh]

27. Do you all think this is the reason Specter caved on the NSA thing?

Because they know that without Rove, very, very bad things are going to happen to the Republican party?

[MindMatter]

37. Rove isn't going anywhere

We all hope he is indicted. But even if he is, his lawyers will still be posturing a year from now. Meanwhile Rove will be free to walk the streets.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

29. From Has been indicted to Will be indicted? nt

[Chomp]

30. Sorry, this thread is a mess

The link shows Natasha Rothschild saying:

"What everyone is asking right now is how accurate is the story? Has Rove in fact been indicted? The
story is accurate, and Karl Rove's attorneys have been served with an indictment."


The thread title is "will be".

People are arguing about 7 different things.