Who cares about this?
After all,isnt it ancient history?
I thought the left didnt like talking about history,at least thats the impression they give whenever someone mentions Clinton.
The left gets their panties in a knot,and claims that he is ancient history.
Well,since this happened a long time ago,isnt it ancient history also?
mysteryman wrote:Who cares about this?
After all,isnt it ancient history?
I thought the left didnt like talking about history,at least thats the impression they give whenever someone mentions Clinton.
The left gets their panties in a knot,and claims that he is ancient history.
Well,since this happened a long time ago,isnt it ancient history also?
That's such a stupid post that I don't mind risking the backlash in saying so.
Clinton is no longer president, the CIA plame investigation is still ongoing with grand jury meetings now.
Rove's Time in Limbo Near End in CIA Leak Case
By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, May 8, 2006; A01
Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald is wrapping up his investigation into White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove's role in the CIA leak case by weighing this central question:
Did Rove, who was deeply involved in defending President Bush's use of prewar intelligence about Iraq, lie about a key conversation with a reporter that was aimed at rebutting a tough White House critic?
Fitzgerald, according to sources close to the case, is reviewing testimony from Rove's five appearances before the grand jury. Bush's top political strategist has argued that he never intentionally misled the grand jury about his role in leaking information about undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame to Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper in July 2003. Rove testified that he simply forgot about the conversation when he failed to disclose it to Fitzgerald in his earlier testimony.
Fitzgerald is weighing Rove's foggy-memory defense against evidence he has acquired over nearly 2 1/2 years that shows Rove was very involved in White House efforts to beat back allegations that Bush twisted U.S. intelligence to justify the Iraq war, according to sources involved in the case.
That evidence includes details of a one-week period in July 2003 when Rove talked to two reporters about Plame and her CIA role, then reported the conversations back to high-level White House aides, according to sources in the case and information released by Fitzgerald as part of the ongoing leak investigation.
Additionally, one former government official said he testified that Rove talked with White House colleagues about the political importance of defending the prewar intelligence and countering Plame's husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. It was Wilson who accused Bush of twisting intelligence about Iraq's efforts to obtain nuclear material from Africa. The official refused to be named out of fear of angering Fitzgerald and the White House.
Robert Luskin, Rove's lawyer, responded that "just because Rove was involved in the defense of the White House Iraq policy, it does not follow that he was necessarily involved in some effort to discredit Wilson personally. Nor does it prove that there even was an effort to disclose Plame's identity in order to punish Wilson."
Rove expects to learn as soon as this month if he will be indicted -- or publicly cleared of wrongdoing -- for making false statements in the CIA leak case, according to sources close to the presidential adviser.
An indictment would be devastating to a White House already battered by low poll numbers, a staff shake-up and a stalled agenda. If Rove is cleared, however, it would allow Bush's longtime top aide to resume his central role as White House strategic guru without a legal threat hanging over him.
Fitzgerald began his investigation 2 1/2 years ago, looking into whether any administration officials knowingly disclosed Plame's CIA role as part of an effort to discredit Wilson's allegation. The former diplomat had been sent on a CIA mission to investigate whether Iraq had sought nuclear weapons material from Niger.
Wilson reported back that the charge could not be proved, but Bush nevertheless asserted in his 2003 State of the Union address that intelligence existed that Iraq had tried to buy uranium in Africa. After Wilson went public with his allegation a few months later, an embarrassed White House was forced to concede that the Africa claim was not based on solid enough evidence.
Fitzgerald has not charged anyone for the crime he initially set out to prove. But last October, he indicted I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who was then Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, for perjury, making false statements and obstruction of justice during the investigation. It is unclear if anyone other than Rove remains under investigation.
Unlike the Libby case, which includes a detailed narrative of the vice presidential aide's alleged efforts to obtain information about Plame and leak it to reporters, Fitzgerald appears to have focused most of his attention on one key question, according to a source close to Rove, who based this assessment on questions asked of the presidential adviser: Did Rove testify falsely in February 2004 when he failed to disclose that he told Time's Cooper about Plame's CIA role seven months earlier?
In testimony offered in subsequent grand jury appearances, Rove essentially argued that he did not recall the conversation with Cooper until a few months after he first testified, when his attorney found a 2003 e-mail Rove had written to then-deputy national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley. In the e-mail, Rove mentioned that he had discussed Wilson with Cooper. The e-mail prompted Rove to tell the grand jury that he apparently did discuss Plame -- though not by name -- with Cooper, according to the source close to Rove.
In his most recent testimony, Rove said he would have been foolish to lie when he first testified and explained how he had been tipped before his first grand jury appearance that Time reporters were openly speculating about his conversation with Cooper. The details of the "tip" are in dispute, however. According to the source close to Rove, his message to the prosecutor was, in essence: Why would he risk lying when he could safely assume that his discussion of Plame with Cooper would soon get out?
Moreover, he has testified, if he really wanted to damage Wilson in the summer of 2003, he would have sought out the many other reporters he knew better and trusted more than Cooper. He argued that he hardly knew Cooper, who had recently started on the White House beat -- one reason the conversation slipped his mind, the source close to Rove said.
To determine whether Rove could simply forget this conversation, Fitzgerald and his investigative team have questioned current and former government officials about Rove's involvement in the 2003 campaign to counter Wilson and defend prewar intelligence.
One former aide, who would discuss internal White House discussion only on the condition of anonymity, said Rove was intimately involved in the prewar intelligence fight and discussed various components of the plan at senior staff meetings and one-on-one strategy conversations.
The aide said Rove's message was that "if there are no WMDs and some blame us, it will not be a pleasant election year." The aide said Rove talked a lot about Wilson that week, but mostly about the fact he was a Democrat and needed to be rebutted.
Luskin, Rove's attorney, said Rove's focus was not on Wilson.
The extent of the evidence Fitzgerald may have gathered is unknown. Randall Samborn, Fitzgerald's spokesman, refused to comment on the investigation or grand jury proceedings.
In the Libby case, Fitzgerald presented previously undisclosed information alleging that Libby had hounded CIA, State Department and other officials for information about Wilson and Plame, then leaked it.
Some White House aides said Cheney and Libby often took the lead rebutting or proving specific charges about Iraq's weapons programs. The White House aide who detailed Rove's involvement in the WMD fight said Rove did not appear as involved as Libby on the Wilson matter.
But, according to evidence compiled by Fitzgerald, Rove was discussing Wilson and/or his wife with two reporters and at least two aides in the week before her identity was revealed.
Evidence made public suggests Rove was particularly involved in rebutting Wilson after the former ambassador wrote a July 6, 2003, New York Times op-ed piece charging that Bush had "twisted" intelligence. Two days later, columnist Robert D. Novak called Rove and told him that he had heard that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and helped arrange his Niger mission.
Rove testified that he told Novak, "I heard that, too," according to a source close to Rove.
A few days later, Rove told Libby about Novak's plan to write a column about Wilson and his wife, according to court filings by Fitzgerald. This is the only evidence to emerge publicly so far of Rove and Libby discussing Wilson's efforts.
Around the same time, Rove took a call from Cooper and reportedly told him Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and had authorized the mission. Afterward, Rove e-mailed Hadley to tell him he waved Cooper off Wilson's claim that the administration had misused intelligence on Iraq. This is the e-mail Rove's lawyer would find more than one year later and that Rove would cite as the reason he wanted to change his testimony.
Luskin said Rove was chiefly concerned that week with "assuring that there was a statement from the director of central intelligence that directly addressed the substance of the criticism of Wilson and others."
On July 11, the day Rove talked to Cooper and e-mailed Hadley, then-CIA Director George J. Tenet issued a statement that Bush's Africa claim should not have been made and accepted blame for failing to take it out of the State of the Union speech. Three days later, Novak wrote the now-famous column that unmasked Plame and ultimately sparked Fitzgerald's investigation.
Rove would publicly deny any involvement for the next year. Rove has argued he was upfront with Fitzgerald about his conversation with Novak and therefore was not trying to hide any larger role from investigators.
Tonight on Countdown with Keith Olbermann, MSNBC reporter David Shuster said he was "convinced that Karl Rove will, in fact, be indicted." He made three points to support his position:
1. Rove wouldn't have testified for the 5th time unless he believed it was the only way he could avoid indictment. At this point, according to Shuster, the burden is on Rove to stop it.
2. It's been 13 days since Rove testified and he has not heard that he is clear. Lawyers Shuster talked to say that if Rove would have gotten himself out of the jam, he would have heard by now.
3. Rove is referred to in the Libby indictment as "Official A." According to Schuster, every time Fitzgerald has named somebody as "Official A" that person has been indicted.
Shuster also says Rove's lawyers expect a decision from Fitzgerald within the next two weeks.
Transcript:
OLBERMANN: What are you gathering on this? Is the decision by Mr. Fitzgerald coming soon? Will it be an indictment?
SHUSTER: Well, Karl Rove's legal team has told me they expect a decision will come some time in the next two weeks. 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 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 have 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 one we have 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 have locked through the records of Patrick Fitzgerald from when he was prosecuting cases in New York and from when he has been U.S. attorney in Chicago. And in every single investigation, whenever Fitzgerald has identified as 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 have been speaking with who know this stuff say don't bet on Karl Rove getting out of this.
Karl Rove Indicted on Charges of Perjury, Lying to Investigators
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Report
Saturday 13 May 2006
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.
Robert Luskin, Rove's attorney, did not return a call for comment. Sources said Fitzgerald was in Washington, DC, Friday and met with Luskin for about 15 hours to go over the charges against Rove, which include perjury and lying to investigators about how and when Rove discovered that Valerie Plame Wilson was a covert CIA operative and whether he shared that information with reporters, sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said.
It was still unknown Saturday whether Fitzgerald charged Rove with a more serious obstruction of justice charge. Sources close to the case said Friday that it appeared very likely that an obstruction charge against Rove would be included with charges of perjury and lying to investigators.
An announcement by Fitzgerald is expected to come this week, sources close to the case said. However, the day and time is unknown. Randall Samborn, a spokesman for the special prosecutor was unavailable for comment. In the past, Samborn said he could not comment on the case.
The grand jury hearing evidence in the Plame Wilson case met Friday on other matters while Fitzgerald spent the entire day at Luskin's office. The meeting was a closely guarded secret and seems to have taken place without the knowledge of the media.
As TruthOut reported Friday evening, Rove told President Bush and Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten, as well as a few other high level administration officials, that he will be indicted in the CIA leak case and will immediately resign his White House job when the special counsel publicly announces the charges against him, according to sources.
Details of Rove's discussions with the president and Bolten have spread through the corridors of the White House, where low-level staffers and senior officials were trying to determine how the indictment would impact an administration that has been mired in a number of high-profile political scandals for nearly a year, said a half-dozen White House aides and two senior officials who work at the Republican National Committee.
Speaking on condition of anonymity Friday night, sources confirmed Rove's indictment was imminent. These individuals requested anonymity saying they were not authorized to speak publicly about Rove's situation. A spokesman in the White House press office said they would not comment on "wildly speculative rumors."
Rove's announcement to President Bush and Bolten comes more than a month after he alerted the new chief of staff to a meeting his attorney had with Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald in which Fitzgerald told Luskin that his case against Rove would soon be coming to a close and that he was leaning toward charging Rove with perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to investigators, according to sources close to the investigation.
A few weeks after he spoke with Fitzgerald, Luskin arranged for Rove to return to the grand jury for a fifth time to testify in hopes of fending off an indictment related to Rove's role in the CIA leak, sources said.
That meeting was followed almost immediately by an announcement by newly-appointed White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten of changes in the responsibilities of some White House officials, including Rove, who was stripped of his policy duties and would no longer hold the title of deputy White House chief of staff.
The White House said Rove would focus on the November elections and his change in status in no way reflected his fifth appearance before the grand jury or the possibility of an indictment.
But since Rove testified two weeks ago, the White House has been coordinating a response to what is sure to be the biggest political scandal it has faced thus far: the loss of a key political operative who has been instrumental in shaping White House policy on a wide range of domestic issues.
Rove testified that he first found out about Plame Wilson from reading a newspaper report in July 2003 and only after the story was published did he share damaging information about her CIA status with other reporters.
However, evidence has surfaced during the course of the two-year-old investigation that shows Rove spoke with at least two reporters about Plame Wilson prior to the publication of the column.
The explanation Rove provided to the grand jury - that he was dealing with more urgent White House matters and therefore forgot - has not convinced Fitzgerald that Rove has been entirely truthful in his testimony and resulted in the indictment.
Some White House staffers said it's the uncertainty of Rove's status in the leak case that has made it difficult for the administration's domestic policy agenda and that the announcement of an indictment and Rove's subsequent resignation, while serious, would allow the administration to move forward on a wide range of issues.
"We need to start fresh and we can't do that with the uncertainty of Karl's case hanging over our heads," said one White House aide. "There's no doubt that it will be front page news if and when (an indictment) happens. But eventually it will become old news quickly. The key issue here is that the president or Mr. Bolten respond to the charges immediately, make a statement and then move on to other important policy issues and keep that as the main focus going forward."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Leopold spent two years covering California's electricity crisis as Los Angeles bureau chief of Dow Jones Newswires. Jason has spent the last year cultivating sources close to the CIA leak investigation, and is a regular contributor to t r u t h o u t. He is the author of the new book NEWS
Posted: Mon May 15, 2006 08:28 Post: 2036632 - Rove Indicted; Charges of Perjury, Lying to Investigation
Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 19:17 Post: 2009736 -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latest I have been hearing is that Rove will likely be indicted within a week to 10 days
