MSNBC: Rove's legal team expects decision 'at any time'

[blogslut]

via RawStory:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/MSNBC_Roves_legal_team_expects_decision_0522.html

MSNBC's David Shuster declared Monday evening that Karl Rove's legal team expects Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald to announce a decision "at any time" in the ongoing CIA leak investigation and that new documents put Cheney's former chief of staff in the hot seat...

[Greeby]

1. Snack time

:popcorn:

[Jersey Devil]

4. LOL, you made me spit my coffee

Woowoo, here we go again!! :nuke:

[mcscajun]

5. If this thing *Finally* breaks, I'm going for bigger snacks....

[JuniperLea]

32. NUM!!!

This would indeed call for a HUGH pizza and beer bash!!! I'm series!

[tblue37]

140. Don't you mean

This would indeed call for a HUGH pizza and beer bash111 I'm series1
??

[driver8]

131. Oh man, that looks good. I am going to add this:

[mcscajun]

143. I knew someone would

But would a cold frosty mug be a better image? :)

[IChing]

6. I'm sick of the advertisements and trailers I want the damn movie to start

:popcorn:

I might need to go back to the concession stand for more Popcorn.

[NanceGreggs]

33. I'm going outside for a smoke ...

... hold my seat, and call me when the credits start rolling.

:smoke:

[Sydnie]

66. Hey Nance ....

can I bum one of those? I have no nails left to substitute!

[mcscajun]

38. Let's all go to the Lobby! Let's all go to the Lobby!

Let's all go to the LOBBY to get ourselves a treat!

:rofl:

And please, turn off your cell phones and pagers.

[The Witch]

147. I guess that makes us Lobbyists.

Better than being Libbyists.

Yes, the pun police does have a file on me a foot wide.

[mike_c]

26. this calls for a super size....

[malaise]

63. Save a bag for me

Come on Fitz

[Arugula Latte]

54. Sugar and caffeine are always a good combo in these situations

:donut:

[Mr_Spock]

56. lol - I actually made some popcorn after reading this

Oh, and I'll be glad when this story is put to rest.

[SoCalDem]

95. I'll join ya.. "The Dueling Websites"... wet noodles at 20 paces

[MissWaverly]

2. Postive vibes everybody

we must use the power of the force to defeat the evil empire, where's those light sabers
when we need them.

[woodsprite]

3. Well, at least it's mainstream media.

I'm home recovering from surgery and I have one more week left until I go back to work. I was hoping that something would happen before I head back so I can be on DU to get the scoop totally unhindered by upper management looking over my shoulder ;)

[kstewart33]

8. Woodsprite, you timed it just right.

I'm betting that Fitz will act (or not act) before Memorial Day. He seemed to be quite busy with Libby last week. So you're in prime position.

Hope the surgery wasn't too big a deal.

[stevedeshazer]

23. I think you may have hit the jackpot

Not that recovering from surgery is a piece of cake; but it's shaping up to be a very interesting week!

Hope you have a good recovery.

[faithnotgreed]

51. hope youre ok woodsprite - just in time to jump for joy

i hope anyway

take good care

[texasleo]

7. let's wish Karl Rove the best

in his new home.


:evilgrin:

[kstewart33]

11. I'll second that. nt

[DoYouEverWonder]

9. Anytime

like maybe, 10 days ago?

[LA lady]

10. Today? or last Monday?

I thought I saw this last Monday

[Jersey Devil]

17. Maybe it's a continuous loop

Hopefully Raw Story wasn't watching last week's show on TIVO

[XboxWarrior]

22. Margarita por mi por favor.......

[mike_c]

47. damn you....

(Salivates) That looks really yummy. I haven't mixed one of those in a couple of years....

[KoKo]

105. WHO THE HELL...Fed Leopold Pack of LIES on this? Trashing "TO?"

Here are the posts from a DELETED THREAD about this:

KoKo01 (1000+ posts) Mon May-22-06 06:37 PM
Original message
Which set of lawyers fed "TO" the information they "RAN ON?"

Edited on Mon May-22-06 06:55 PM by KoKo01
Was it Rove's, Cheney's or Libby's lawyers...who fed stuff to Leopold and "Truthout" and if they "took the bait" does it mean that they are "HEROES" because they knew they would put PRESSURE on ROVE to divulge more info to keep from being indicted...once again?

Those who've followed this will understand that Fitz might have been getting ready to indict Rove with Libby until Rove divulged all those "e-mails" he'd been saving.

But, now that the Libby case is "ongoing" and we know that Cheney and Rove have "high powered lawyers" along with Libby who has kids and is looking at some "time in the "Federal Spa" then what are we to make of this.

I don't doubt that Leopold had some "buzz and chatter and that David Schuster heard the same and reported it to Matthews who was the only M$M to seem to think...something was coming.

But...in THIS CASE we have HIGH POWERED LAWYERS on Cheney/Rove/Libby's SIDE who have MILLIONS to support their Client.

The Public Relations SPIN must be INCREDIBLE given that amount of money.

So ...TruthOut get's the shaft as a TOOL in this whole process. They became an "outlet."
HOPE is the thing with feathers that perches in the soul,and sings the tune without the words,and never stops at all-- Emily Dickinson (1830–86)
Alert | Add to my Journal | Hide Thread | Recommend Topic for Greatest Page (0 votes) Printer Friendly | Permalink | Edit | Reply | Top

Replies to this thread
good question grasswire May-22-06 06:43 PM #1
Sow chaos, Rove says. Hosea says .. DemoTex May-22-06 06:50 PM #4
Who are the leakers? Go ask Alice... TorchesAndPitchforks May-22-06 06:47 PM #2
So let me get this straight... Scoody Boo May-22-06 06:48 PM #3
everything Clovis Sangrail May-22-06 06:53 PM #6
are you ignoring the fact Jason Leopold has a history of lying? RDU Socialist May-22-06 06:51 PM #5
I don't think TO was "Rathered". I think the story was cooked up. Taxloss May-22-06 06:57 PM #7
You have a point Vinnie From Indy May-22-06 07:27 PM #8
I don't think ANYONE fed him ANYTHING... ShaneGR May-22-06 07:29 PM #9
It's likely quite that simple; any extra energy unexpended. n/t jarab May-22-06 07:35 PM #10
Locking. pinto May-22-06 07:36 PM #11

grasswire (1000+ posts) Mon May-22-06 06:43 PM
Response to Original message
1. good question

It seem pretty obvious that TO was "rathered" in this episode. Just as James Hatfield and so many others were the victim of gutterball politics. Sow chaos, Rove says. Sow chaos while you perform dirty deeds. They've been trying it on Fitzpatrick, too.
Emily, get out of the way!
Alert Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

DemoTex (1000+ posts) Mon May-22-06 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Sow chaos, Rove says. Hosea says ..

Sow the wind; reap the whirlwind. Hosea 8

There is a shit-storm brewing for Mr. Rove. The Perfect Shit-Storm.

But then I sigh and, with a piece of scripture, Tell them that God bids us do good for evil;
And thus I clothe my naked villainy with odd old ends stol'n forth of Holy Writ,
And seems a saint when most I play the devil. William Shakespeare, Richard III
Alert Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

TorchesAndPitchforks (1000+ posts) Mon May-22-06 06:47 PM
Response to Original message
2. Who are the leakers? Go ask Alice...



Its hard to trust anything unless its written down on paper by Patrick Fizgerald. It all sounds so plausible. Will we ever know?
“To initiate a war of aggression is . . . not only an international crime, it is the supreme crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains the accumulated evil of the whole.” Associate United States Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, prosecutor at the Nuremberg Tribunal
Alert Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Scoody Boo (84 posts) Mon May-22-06 06:48 PM
Response to Original message
3. So let me get this straight...

Leopold was FED something. I guess he probably was. The story he pulled out of his ass had to come from somewhere.
Alert Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Clovis Sangrail (593 posts) Mon May-22-06 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. everything

comes from somewhere

even scoodies
Alert Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

RDU Socialist (167 posts) Mon May-22-06 06:51 PM
Response to Original message
5. are you ignoring the fact Jason Leopold has a history of lying?

are you ignoring the fact that the story said Rove was indicted and it would be known by wednesday of last week? if fitzgerald was getting ready to indict rove, that's different from actually indicting him as the story claims.
Alert Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Taxloss (1000+ posts) Mon May-22-06 06:57 PM
Response to Original message
7. I don't think TO was "Rathered". I think the story was cooked up.

Let's face it, TO isn't that big a blog. Why on earth would Rove focus on it and try to discredit it in this manner? Why not go for a bigger prize, like KOS, which has international recognition?

That aside, there's the mechanics of the story. If TO was "Rathered", by now you would think that they would know about it. They could disown the story, name the sources (as Leopold promised) and make the Rathering the story - it would be a good story.

But they haven't. Instead, they've sort of stuck by the story in a half-hearted manner.

Frankly, I think that Leopold cooked the story. He had some tidbits of gossip from a couple of people, he's an ambitious guy, and the story grew like topsy in his head. Once TO found itself defending this concoction, it couldn't stop - it's awful hard to back down from something like that. So they were backed into this netherworld of "partial apologies" and "clarifications" that simply contradict earlier versions.

We now know that scarcely a detail of the original story was accurate. If it was a set-up, it would at least have been more convincing.

"Don't be misled by the British tendency to be soft-spoken and polite. If they need to be, they can be plenty tough." - Instructions for American Servicemen in Britain, 1942.
Alert Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Vinnie From Indy (1000+ posts) Mon May-22-06 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. You have a point

If this were a "Rathergate" operation by BushCo or other GOP operatives, there are certainly larger fish in the liberal blogosphere to hook. I think that KOS and Atrios etc. should reveal whether they were fed this story and declined to run with it. Targeting Truthout with a disinformation campaign hardly seems worth the effort. I do tend to believe that Leopold was prompted by something or someone to gamble on this story. I would advise Leopold that his reputation has taken such a large hit that he might want to consider a complete expose on the origins and timeline of this story. The expose might want to include the outing his sources if he feels they have lied to him. He should tell his sources that unless they can provide convincing evidence that they were merely pawns being duped by someone else, they will be outed. It is his decision and not one to be made lightly. He is in a difficult spot because he is through as a credible journalist until he explains what happened and he can't really explain what happened without revealing his sources which will have ramifications on future sources trusting him enough to talk.

That being said, it is mildly amusing to read the apocalyptic predictions of doom for the liberal blogosphere because a single blogger on a small web site gets a story wrong. It is really a tempest in a teacup. There is a benefit to this event in that ALL bloggers should realize that properly sourcing a story is a vital way to protect their reputation and credibility. Leopold's fate will hopefully be a potent reminder of the importance of professionalism.

I am still a Will Pitt fan and I will wait for a pattern of misjudgements and sloppy journalism by TO editors before I judge them to be without credibility. They do need to come forward at some point and explain this story.
http://www.indynewsblog.com
Alert Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

ShaneGR (1000+ posts) Mon May-22-06 07:29 PM
Response to Original message
9. I don't think ANYONE fed him ANYTHING...

I think it was a fishing expedition, and they caught a used tire.
Alert Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

jarab (1000+ posts) Mon May-22-06 07:35 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. It's likely quite that simple; any extra energy unexpended. n/t

...O....
Alert Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

[mike_c]

107. I wonder if you meant to respond somewhere else...?

Now I REALLY want a margarita!

[KoKo]

132. lol's.

:D

[Jazz2006]

39. The documents they are quoting from are ones that were filed

in the court on Friday, May 19.

[WI_DEM]

12. It will be announced when Fitz feels he has a strong enough case

and one which can go the distance. I can wait.

[phoebe]

13. this is interesting - wonder where they plan to hold the trial??

referenced from above article

snip

As for Scooter Libby, whose lawyers are focusing on his criminal trial, one broad issue they've noted will not be part of the case. Libby's legal team says that in front of a jury drawn from residents of liberal Washington, D.C., defending the Bush administration's case for war would be foolish and self destructive, regardless of whether the trial features testimony from Vice President Cheney. I'm David Shuster, for Hardball, in Washington.


Same old trick using "liberal" as a smear - when will they recognize that the public has caught on to this??

"Defending the Bush administration's case for war" will not be part of the case? Like to see how they get around that..

[JuniperLea]

14. Is MSNBC a reliable source?

:rofl:

[blogslut]

16. Who knows these days?

:silly:

[babylonsister]

19. Errr...

not really! :yoiks:

[IChing]

20. LOL.....my thoughts too...and who is this David Shuster really....

"Attention
background check in aisle 3"

[LA lady]

21. Shuster's time getting close

Well Shuster told Keith it would be in 2 weeks. Only problem that was on the 6th wasn't it?

[JuniperLea]

28. But that would be two weeks... less weekends

Yep. I'm not counting days, nor am I going to argue sealed vs unsealed, etc. This administration does not play by the rules. Anything goes.

[Jersey Devil]

30. did he say "business" weeks?

:yoiks:

[JuniperLea]

49. I don't care to split hairs

All I know is that the behavior of this administration could make a liar out of any journalist.

[IChing]

52. From Liars to criminals is the next step I'm afraid

for this administration.


But hope springs eternal,
I have a gut feeling or an unbridle optimism
that we will finally get to see the Karl Rove Show.

[King Coal]

134. I don't know, but he did call the frog a shitdog.

[dogday]

31. What are acceptable sources and where

can I find them? How do I know your sources are acceptable? Acceptable by who?:think: :crazy: :think: :eyes:

[JuniperLea]

44. Just joking, dogday:)

Just my apparently unfunny little way at poking fun at all the nit-picking of late.

I'm confused though. If this thing doesn't pan out now, what with the mainstream media coverage and all, who do I demand an apology from?

Sorry, that probably wasn't funny either.

I'm just tired of seeing my fellow DUers being called stupid for voicing an opinion.

[dogday]

46. So Was I

Sorry, I have this dry kind of humor.... I was being sarcastic really, should of used one of those sarcasm thingies..... :hi:

[JuniperLea]

48. Hahahaha!

Good one! Doh!

:hi:

[johnnie]

53. .

:thumbsup:

[Uben]

15. Cross the T's and dot the I's

We don't want these to get away! If you think you are gettin antsy, what do you suppose Rove and Libby are doin? Ha ha ha! Bet they're carrying a roll of Charmin with them!

[vickitulsa]

101. I like the way you think!

But of course, when you're such assholes as Rove and Libby are, ya gotta carry around a roll of Charmin all the time anyways! The distinct aroma of sh*t must positively hang in the air around those two ... as well as their asshole bosses....

Which reminds me... have ya'll here at DU seen this latest piece of creative work over at filmstripinternational (via Google, I understand):

http://www.filmstripinternational.com

I was just over at my brother's house and his buddy had sent him the URL to this, so he just HAD to play the brilliant song for me even while I was in the other room! The sound of it was so good through the walls, I walked over to his computer room to see the visuals on his screen, and then promptly had him forward the link to me. Made my day!

(Sorry if this has been posted here already.)

[janx]

18. He's getting there!

Cheney is mentioned very obviously in this article. Also:

SHUSTER: (on-camera) "The CIA leak grand jury is scheduled to meet again this Wednesday. As for Scooter Libby, whose lawyers are focusing on his criminal trial, one broad issue they've noted will not be part of the case. Libby's legal team says that in front of a jury drawn from residents of liberal Washington, D.C., defending the Bush administration's case for war would be foolish and self destructive, regardless of whether the trial features testimony from Vice President Cheney. I'm David Shuster, for Hardball, in Washington.


As we've surmised, this is about not only outing Valerie Plame, but the bogus reasons for war and the media's complicity.

This is BIG.

[yankeedem]

24. How long is "at any time"

in business hours?
:evilgrin:

[JuniperLea]

65. Lemme whip out my chronometer!

Would that be Pacific or Eastern?


heh!

[onehandle]

25. No jokes. No mincing words. Indict Rove. nt

[librechik]

27. ok, who's going to go after Raw Story?

they are our 2nd favorite pull toy, after all. Now I suppose they'll be goats (again) if Shuster's story fizzles.

[rainman99]

35. Yeah, everyone, let's attack another group on our side.

[JuniperLea]

94. Yeah! Let's fling some poo!

Mud isn't enough for them!

[lala_rawraw]

109. we are providing Shuster's reporting, not ours

we are hardly goats for linking to something and interesting that you need a pull toy.

[librechik]

123. lala, I was being sarcastic

I hate it when some here go after our journalist heroes, such as yourself. The last few weeks with the Truthout situation have been excruciating. I would never wish that on anyone. I'm sorry my post was misunderstood.

[lala_rawraw]

128. oh sorry, am just really tired and

really freaked out that the right wing big guns had to be brought out to attack TO: wtf?? sorry about that, a bit testy I am:(

[librechik]

130. bless your heart, and get some rest

we're all ready to blow!

:loveya:

[bleever]

126. Don't forget about all the people

staying out of the food fights who continue to support journos like you.


:hi:

[lala_rawraw]

129. thanks hon:) i am in shock about the whole TO thing

I am really in shock... but cannot figure what happened:(

[bleever]

138. Time will tell.

She always does.

;)

[katty]

29. Announcement? hmmm...Rover makes a deal

[DoYouEverWonder]

34. Rover is not in a postion

to make any deals. He's already lied to the Grand Jury too many times for anyone to believe him.

[Jersey Devil]

41. Good point. He's useless as a witness

What's he going to say that Fitz would want? "I lied the past 5 times but now I am telling the truth."

Christ, a prosecutor's nightmare. Fitz would never rely on him as a witness.

[Catrina]

77. Fitz has already said he will not be using Rove as a witness. If everyone

had stayed calm this past week regarding TO's article, and just read through some of the Libby pre-trial motions, they might not have been so willing to jump to the conclusion that J.Leopold was definitely wrong re a sealed indictment last Friday.

Eg, there were filings last Friday in the Libby case. One of the issues under discussion was Libby's team asking for information that Fitz might have had from Rove's GJ testimony or from private interviews.

They seem very interested in what Rove had to say to the prosecutor. Earlier, when they though Fitz might use him as a witness, they asked for the same information. When Fitz said they could not request it since he didn't intend to use Rove, red flags went up, I think.

Then, we found out, Libby's team added Rove to THEIR witness list in April, giving them a reason to go back again and ask for the same information. That was last Friday. I had to wonder if they were trying to find out whether or not Rove had sold Cheney and/or Libby (more charges) down the river.

They nearly persuaded the judge, but Fitz was ready for them ~ he invoked something called called 'rule 16', saying that while they could use Rove as a witness, they did not have a right to ask for the information he has re Rove testimony or private conversations with him. Their argument was that if the put him on the stand, Fitz might then 'surprise' them with questions based on info that could harm their client.

The judge at first thought they had a point, but Fitz was able to show him, citing case law and other cases, that Libby's team was wrong. So they lost that round also.

That was happening on Friday and the focus on Rove made me think that Libby's team also suspected an indictment for Rove or a deal. Fitz managed to give them no info either way and still win that round. Still, it was one of the reasons why I thought that Jason Leopold's claim might have been true ~

[JuniperLea]

96. Excellent!

Great work, Catrina!

[Catrina]

99. Thanks Juniperx, I think I made an error re 'rule 16'. It was Libby's

team that tried to invoke it, I think. But Fitz said their request was not covered by it. Just wanted to correct that. I'm not a lawyer, so it's hard to follow all these legal motions! :-)

[JuniperLea]

103. I think they are all pretty much joined at the hip

The axis of evil! They know enough to put each other away for a very long time.

[Jersey Devil]

142. Nothing is written in stone

I am aware that Fitz has stated he would not be calling Rove as a witness, but that could change depending on what Rove may say after making a deal to cooperate and also depending on whether there are superceding indictments adding additional charges (such as obstruction of justice and the actual outing of Plame) against Libby or others.

There is no way Fitz would want a 5 time liar before the GJ to testify for him at trial as to what happened, but he very well might want Rove to testify concerning extrinsic evidence like email, written communications, etc., that exist and really cannot be questioned by the defense trying to shred Rove's credibility if it also tied in additional charges or additional defendants.

Rule 16 is the federal 'discovery' rule that determines what information a defendant is entitled to from the prosecutor's file. In most state courts criminal discovery is 'open' to the point where a prosecutor basically has to disclose his entire file to the defendant. In federal court it is much more limited. Some refer to federal prosecutions as "trial by ambush" because a defendant may have no clue what a prosecutor has in his file that can rebut certain things he or his witnesses might say.

By saying he doesn't want to call Rove as a witness Fitz basically closes his entire file as to Rove to Libby's lawyers. Fitz is basically saying, "It's OK with me if you want him as a witness, but don't expect me to help you develop information regarding your own witnesses." This leaves Libby's lawyers guessing about what Fitz will smack them with if Rove says something Fitz knows to be false.

But this is usual pretrial maneuvering and does not indicate to me one way or the other whether Rove is or was likely to make any deals and I don't see how anyone could draw any conclusions about either a deal or an indictment for Rove based on it.

Some have opined that Fitz won't call Rove as a witness because he intends to make him a defendant and certainly that could be true. However, a more important reason not to call him as a witness is that he simply has no credibility after testifying before the GJ on several occasions locking himself into certain facts that cannot be changed without Rove admitting to perjury. Who is going to believe a witness who says he committed perjury 5 times before telling the truth?

I think looking at discovery motions to try to determine what is going to happen to Rove is like trying to read tea leaves or interpret bubble gum fortunes. You can fantasize all you want but it has no bearing on reality.

[JuniperLea]

68. He's in the perfect position, imho

He's Bush's Brain! You think Bush is going to let this go down easy? I highly doubt that.

[DoYouEverWonder]

70. Oh, I'm sure he's trying

but he's in the same boat has Libby and they both face some serious time behind bars, even if they do make a deal at this point.

[JuniperLea]

75. We can only hope so

But we can't assume anything. BushCo has gotten away with too much for us to assume anything at this point.

I certainly hope we are seeing yet another domino fall... and that it will hit two more... and they will hit two more each... and so on and so on... just like a shampoo commercial!

:)

[madame defarge]

42. Wouldn't surprise me...

He probably sold them Cheney. He's probably the source of Wilson's op-ed with Cheney's writing. He kept it in his drawer and saved it to save his ass. Nothing will surprise me with Rover. He'd sell his mother if it set him free.

[katty]

60. that's my thinking, he'll screw worthless Cheney&possibly

get his charges reduced.

[JuniperLea]

69. Yep, sell his mother indeed

And he is in the perfect bargaining position... he must know just about every evil deed this administration has been involved with.

[Sydnie]

85. Let's just hope that Cheney and blivet** are on his

inventory list of things to sell too!

[mike_c]

36. this is utter bullshit-- MSNBC should retract this "story" immediately....

I just wanted to get way out in front of it this time.... :rofl:

[JuniperLea]

62. Hahahah!

Good one!

And I demand a retraction and an apology! Now dammit! Not 24 hours from now!


:rofl:

[demobabe]

112. Actually, it is bullshit...

...but they didn't come out and say "Rove has been indicted," only they expect an announcement. In other words, they're telling us upfont that this is an unsubstantiated rumor, so if they're wrong, they can dismiss it without an issue.

And this is exactly what Leopold should have done so he wouldn't have been in this mess. All he had to do was report a story with the headline: "Sources say: Rove Indicted" and then written in the first paragraph they couldn't confirm the story. So easy and would have saved them so much trouble... yet would have gave them their possible scoop.

[mike_c]

114. agreed, 100 percent....

What she said.

[deansyawp]

124. very

well put

[Maddy McCall]

37. What does "at any time" mean?

Today sometime? Some time this week?

The sooner the better.

:)

[arcos]

43. I'd guess that it means less than 24 business hours...

;)

[Jersey Devil]

45. What we know and what we believe

We know it's 'business' time.

We believe it's in the Chuck E Cheese Pizza Time Theater Time Zone.

[DancingBear]

55. It means "no matter when, or how, or why,

or what the indictment dates are, or where it happened, or if the Secret Service was involved, or where Fitzgerald was, or whether Patten-Boggs was locked or open Truthout was right!!"

But you probably already knew that. :)

[Maddy McCall]

58. Tell me that people won't think...

that a May 30 indictment will validate a May 12 story about a May 12 indictment.

No one would believe that, I hope.

[Catrina]

84. If the indictment was filed on May 12th, it will validate TO ~ Smoking Gun

will have a copy of the indictment, and we can all crash their site looking for the date stamp.

Otoh, why is anyone even paying attention to this MSNBC 'news'? They've been predicting a Rove indictment for way longer than TO ~ will they get the credit when it finally comes, or the blame if it never comes, because Rove made a deal? Did anyone in the MSM ever predict that Rove would make a deal?

[Maddy McCall]

100. Leopold also has been predicting a Rove indictment for ...

a loooong time. Someone posted his Rove prediction history here.

Snipped from post #46 in this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1205780#1208601

snip/

Leopold has reported numerous times in the past Rove was about to be indicted.

October 6: "BREAKING!! Karl Rove May Face Imminent Indictment; Scheduled to Testify Before Plamegate Grand Jury One Last Time"

October 25: "Those close to the investigation say that Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has been told that David Wurmser, then a Middle East adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney on loan from the office of then-Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs John Bolton, met with Cheney and his chief of staff I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby in June 2003 and told Libby that Plame set up the Wilson trip. He asserted that it was a boondoggle, the sources said."

October 26: "Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has asked the grand jury investigating the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson to indict Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby and Bush’s Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, lawyers close to the investigation tell RAW STORY."

October 28: "…Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald plans to pursue broader conspiracy charges against Cheney senior White House officials, and top officials at the State Department and the National Security Council, that may finally shed light on how the Bush administration came to use erroneous intelligence that claimed Iraq tried to purchase yellowcake uranium from Niger, lawyers involved in the two year old investigation said."

November 7: "Fitzgerald has eyed Cheney in seeking to ascertain who ordered the leak, as previously reported. While the Vice President stands accused of no wrongdoing, his role may come into greater focus during a trial."

December 15: "Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald met with the second grand jury investigating the leak of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson for several hours Friday. Unless Rove's attorney intervenes at the 11th hour yet again, Fitzgerald is expected to ask the grand jury to indict Rove - at the very least - for making false statements to the FBI and Justice Department investigators in October 2003, lawyers close to the case say."

January 10: "Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is said to have spent the past month preparing evidence he will present to a grand jury alleging that White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove knowingly made false statements to FBI and Justice Department investigators and lied under oath while he was being questioned about his role in the leak of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity more than two years ago, according to sources knowledgeable about the probe."

March 28: "It may seem as though it's been moving along at a snail's pace, but the second part of the federal investigation into the leak of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson is nearly complete, with attorneys and government officials who have remained close to the probe saying that a grand jury will likely return an indictment against one or two senior Bush administration officials. These sources work or worked at the State Department, the CIA and the National Security Council."

April 20: "The grand jury session in federal court in Washington, DC, sources close to the case said, was the first time this year that Fitzgerald told the jurors that he would soon present them with a list of criminal charges he intends to file against Rove in hopes of having the grand jury return a multi-count indictment against Rove."

April 26: "Karl Rove's appearance before a grand jury in the CIA leak case Wednesday comes on the heels of a "target letter" sent to his attorney recently by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, signaling that the Deputy White House Chief of Staff may face imminent indictment, sources that are knowledgeable about the probe said Wednesday."

April 28: "Despite vehement denials by his attorney, who said this week that Karl Rove is neither a "target" nor in danger of being indicted in the CIA leak case, the special counsel leading the investigation has already written up charges against Rove, and a grand jury is expected to vote on whether to indict the Deputy White House Chief of Staff sometime next week, sources knowledgeable about the probe said Friday afternoon."

May 7: "It was following their disclosure that Fitzgerald advised Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, several weeks ago that he intends to indict Rove for perjury and lying to investigators."

May 12: Rove has been indicted.

[Catrina]

106. Yes, and so has just about everyone who has closely followed this

story and reported on it. He was most likely correct throughout his reporting. For example, many MSM reporters speculated that Fitz had an indictment against Rove back in October but held off filing it after he went to Rove's attorneys offices where they told him something that made him decide to wait.

This is how such investigations work. Rove after all, knows more than anyone else about the Bush administration ~ so it's natural that Fitz would want him to cooperate to help get the main target or targets of this investigation. It took Fitz eight years to finally get convictions in the Illinois case of the Gov. Ryan corruption case. I would like to read the reporting on that. I'm sure reporters following the case did exactly what Jason Leopold has done in this case. And I don't see where he has been wrong, to be honest.

That list simply shows he was following the case closely and reporting as it developed. Things change, someone decides to talk, someone else refuses to talk, and Rove has been trying hard to stop indictments while not giving up too many Bush secrets.

The Libby pre-trial filings have been very revealing also ~ and since Fitz was in court in DC last Friday, basically dealing with Libby's team trying to get info on his dealings with Rove, JL's story may very well have been true. Certainly Libby's attorneys seemed very concerned about Rove in the past few court hearings ~

[DancingBear]

104. Quoting Maynard G. Krebs: "Surely you jest"

A May 30th, 2008 indictment would validate some folks here. :)

[in_cog_ni_to]

40. Okay then!

[Critters2]

50. But, but...

I thought he was indicted a week ago Friday, and only the Knights Templar know about it. Or something.

:eyes:

[dogday]

57. Sealed Indictments

I thought this might be helpful in understanding what can be done with a sealed indictment....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1250919&mesg_id=1251852

[Spazito]

148. Thanks, dogday, for your post

It is valuable information to keep in mind for sure.

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

59. the big stories seem to break when TDS is on vacation.

The Daily Show is on vacation. it must be happening soon.

[lonestarnot]

61. Damn my teeth hurt from eat'n popcorn!

:popcorn:

[BlooInBloo]

64. This contradicts truthout, right?

Since it follows from what truthout said that a decision had been made AT LATEST by the 12th.

Or am I misunderstanding something?

I wonder which one is right? (If any)

[Quixote1818]

80. It depends on what "decision" they are talking about

If it's the decision to indict then Truthout was wrong. On the other hand if it's Fritz's final decision on what to charge Rove with after handing him a sealed indictment last week and Rove squealing like a pig on Cheney to get a lesser charge or the charge dropped then Trouthout is vindicated.

[BlooInBloo]

81. I thought indictments contained the charge(s) that was/were....

... decided upon?

[Quixote1818]

88. Here is some info on sealed indictments someone posted

"A sealed indictment does not mean an arrest must be made though it does provide the prosecutor leverage with potential defendants who believe once their names are public their reputations will be destroyed.

The sealed indictments put the attorneys for the accused in a touchy position because they will be told their client has been indicted but not what the charge is and how many counts, making it difficult to defend."

I am no lawyer and I don't fully understand what can change in the indictment once someone starts to talk but it seems a sealed indictment does allow some kind of changes if they do talk. Hopefully a lawyer here can enlighten us on the process.

[BlooInBloo]

89. Thanks for what 'cha got tho!

[Sydnie]

92. TalkLeft had speculated at one point last week,

that Fitz could have asked the court for permission to disclose to indictment to Luskin. If he had filed that under seal and made his case well, the judge could have allowed it.

I think, if we look at the Libby filings from last week, they were looking to get info on Rove. Perhaps, Libby's interest in Rove could have given the judge the idea that it could be a good idea to allow this disclosure to happen. :shrug: Speculation yes ... but it is possible I think.

[Jazz2006]

120. Yes, there is a remote possibility that Fitz could have sought

and obtained permission to disclose the contents of a sealed indictment to Luskin, but it is difficult to fathom the circumstances of this case being so extreme as to require such extreme measures.

[dogday]

144. Extreme???

read this about how sealed indictments work


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1250919&mesg_id=1251852

[dogday]

93. That was me......

:hi:

[Jazz2006]

116. Blooinbloo, They do.

Serving someone with an indictment IS charging him with the offences contained within the indictment.

You cannot serve someone with an indictment and then say, hey, by the way, you can't read it.

Telling someone that there is an sealed indictment against them is one thing.
Serving someone with an indictment is a different thing.

In either case, the charges contained in the indictment do not change after it has been signed by the GJ foreperson and the prosecutor and returned in front of a judge.

While the prosecutor may later decide not to proceed on all of the counts in the indictment, and while the prosecutor may later attempt to indict on additional charges, the actual indictment once it is signed and "handed up" by the GJ does not change.

[dogday]

146. Read how sealed indictments work

read this:hi:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1250919&mesg_id=1251852

[dogday]

86. Hey that's right

I think you've got it..... :hi:

[Jazz2006]

118. No, it isn't.

See #116.

:hi:

[dogday]

145. Yes it is

read this post about how sealed indictment work.. :hi:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1250919&mesg_id=1251852

[madmusic]

67. Maybe trouthout got the wrong Monday... n/t

[MJGurl]

71. I forgot the reason I even signed up

to DU. All I have to say now is that Truthout.org is a Tool (with a capital T that ryhmes with P and that stands for...)

[madmusic]

72. Thank you.

Tools are the difference between chimps and humans.

[northamericancitizen]

74. Not sure I understand your post. ..but I'm sending you a warm Welcome.

[annabanana]

79. you forgot on your FIRST POST??

That's gotta be some kind of record.
fyi Tweetie is a tool, Scarborough is a tool, Limbaugh is a tool,
truthout may just be mistaken.

[Sydnie]

82. annabanana ...

Two days is a long time to remember stuff ... :sarcasm:

I agree with your assessment!

[MJGurl]

83. 24 hour sign in wait, then 48 hours of sun and alcohol

. Tell me what you had for breakfast 3 days ago ;)

[Sydnie]

87. I had a hamburger and a salad

I don't usually "do" much breakfast food, not eat in the morning. Thanks for asking.



edited typo

[MJGurl]

91. Hey I DO remember now

It was about losing security clearances. AFAIK, the "owner" of classified data controls all access rights to that data. A felon could be allowed access if the owning agency allowed it. Getting arrested or being indicted would certainly trigger the owner to look at the person in question, but it doesn't mean they yank the access by default.

[jarab]

97. Welcome to DU !!

...O...

[Catrina]

102. Maybe, but if the owner of the classified data has already stated

publicly that he will not tolerate anyone in his administration who may have been involved in the outing of an undercover agent and her organization, (he did move the goalposts a few times though) you might expect him to keep his word. Considering that the indictments, if there are any, would have something to do with the 'accused felon' having 'mis-handled' the very data he was sworn to protect?? It might be risky to trust him with that kind of data again!

Otoh, we're talking about Bush here, so anything is possible when the choice is between the protection of this country and its National Security ... or ... the protection of Karl Rove without whom, many believe, he might not be able to tie his shoes in the morning ~ :-)

Welcome to DU btw ~ :hi:

[Sydnie]

73. Very interesting quote from that article

SCOTT FREDERICKSEN, former federal prosecutor: "Right now is when we would expect the meetings to be wrapped up with his own staff, for him to make the preliminary decision, for him to reach out to Rove's counsel to have the final conversation, or to notify him he is not going forward or to notify him we are going to indict."

So, they will notify them before they announce. Seems that there could have been discussions going back and forth all last week possibly. :shrug:

[bleever]

78. It's conjecture, but it's informed conjecture.

The fun continues.

:hi:

[Patsy Stone]

98. And we're off!

Here's to another week of As the Rove Turns. :hi:

[Jazz2006]

122. Yes, indeed.

The GJ meets again on Wednesday....


:hi:

[Semblance]

76. Timing

The important tidbit is that Fitz won't be as busy with the Libby case, so he may have time to finally indict. And this may have been why so many days have passed since Rove's last appearance.

[Veronica.Franco]

90. Karl Rove represents the worst of what modern educated society

has to offer ... Rove, the soulless, corrupt, but brillant sociopath that sits atop the political heap ... Rove makes policy that is little more than an extension of this own twisted world view ...

[Garbo 2004]

108. Heh, Rove's defense team denies this report too per Merritt at TL:

Rove's legal team tells me differently. Rove spokesman Mark Corallo told me a few minutes ago that as they have been saying for weeks, the timing is still unknown and there is nothing new to suggest it will be tomorrow or even this week. In fact, "we have no expectation on timing anymore. "

Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, earlier today confirmed to me that "there has never been any discussion of any plea under any circumstances whatsoever." He added, "as a defense lawyer, you'll understand that if a prosecutor hasn't figured out whether or not he thinks a charge is appropriate, plea discussions are a bit premature."

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014910.html

[lala_rawraw]

110. wow... so why is Howie Kurtz not - on orders - attacking

Shuster? Or WSJ for that matter...anyone?

[Garbo 2004]

125. Yes, Corallo's response was rather lackluster I thought. No suggestion

that Shuster was delusional or had fabricated the report despite their position that none of Rover's defense lawyers ever would say such things since it's simply not true.

I guess Mark and Bob were just all tired out from their previous exertions and speed dialing against a media outlet so tiny it's virtually unknown to the public at large. They just couldn't bother with those NBC/MSNBC/CNBC/GE whatever guys and their obvious fabrications. Heh.

I guess they could have called Tim Russert to protest but as I recall that didn't seem to work out too well the last time Scooter called Timmy to complain about Tweety's show. ;)

[KoKo]

127. Well...lala........it's obvious...they aren't Lefty enough....

:D M$M only goes against the weakest pickings. The ones without Corporate Lawyers and Money Bags to go against them...just in case.

[JuniperLea]

111. Someone learned the lesson from observing others

And didn't have to pee on the electric fence for themselves;)

[goforit]

113. Saw a picture of a little 6 yr old Iraqi boy in NYT crying over his dead

father.

This is just so sad......
Where is the conscience of Man?

What is hope,
I wonder.

[tom22]

115. I assume this is from today's Chris Matthew show

I can no longer read all of the crap posts. It makes a little sense that Rove was presented with a proposed indictment some days ago and had a short time to respond. and it makes sense if that happened the grand jury will vote this wednesday. Even Rove's lawyers admit that he is the continuing subject of the grand jury and his status is not yet resolved. I guess you could truthfully deny that Rove has been presented with a grand jury indictment, if he has only been presented with the proposed indictment, which is the usual way the federal prosecutor tries to elicit a plea: we will indict you through the grand jury on ten counts unless you plead to one by such and such a date. the word in the evil MSM has always been Rove's case will be resolved in a few weeks (since late April). According to the MSM this should be resolved very soon. I'm only guessing, but I'm guessing the SOB lied to the FBI.

[lonestarnot]

117. Red Rover is supposed to be in Chicago campaigning today and

raising money.

[tlsmith1963]

119. I'm Really Cautious About This

It could be another false rumor, like the Truthout one. So I'm not getting excited about it. We'll see.

Tammy

[Generator]

121. Between this and finding out who

will be the next "American Idol", I can barely sleep.

[proud patriot]

133. Well My Birthday is Monday

I'd like to have my present a little early please .

:loveya:

[Swamp Rat]

136. HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!

:hug:

[paparush]

135. So, you all don't buy the "Gonzales will (or already has) Quash "

any Indictment filed against Rove??

[tom22]

137. no. that is garbage.

[Stevendsmith]

139. You know, I am tired of this speculative hand job.

Maybe we'll see resolution of the Rove affair by autumn.

Maybe.

[genieroze]

141. I'll wait before I celebrate.