Karl Rove Indicted on Charges of Perjury, Lying to Investigators

[Lucy]

Karl Rove Indicted on Charges of Perjury, Lying to Investigators
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Report
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051306W.shtml

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 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
(http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051206Y.shtml),
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 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."

 

[Ryan]

Interesting article Lucy. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Hildegarda]

no confirmation on this from anyone else yet:


http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20060514/cm_huffpost/020957

 

[Lucy]

no confirmation on this from anyone else yet:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20060514/cm_huffpost/020957

Right now, as far as I can tell, it's only TruthOut reporting this as a 'certainty'. They're standing behind the story; it's still on their 'front page'.

TruthOut came out with this on Saturday, it may be that we'll actually see it happen this week. Or perhaps TruthOut, in an effort to scoop everyone else, was premature, and got it wrong.

It could be a case of Jason Leopold over at TruthOut having a very good source, or a bad case of wishful thinking. Or maybe he and TruthOut were set up. Time will tell.

 

[Lucy]

This arrived in my inbox from TruthOut and was dated Mon, 15 May 2006 16:31:35 -0700:

How Accurate Was the 'Rove Indicted' Story?

On Saturday afternoon, we ran a breaking story titled, "Karl Rove Indicted on Charges of Perjury, Lying to Investigators." We assumed that we were well ahead of the mainstream media and that we would be subsequently questioned. Right on both counts.

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.

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.

 

[Cyre2067]

If its true why isnt it in the MSM?

I mean, obviously they lie, but they can't bury this story completely.... Its too... i dunno, big.

 

[Lucy]

If its true why isnt it in the MSM?

I mean, obviously they lie, but they can't bury this story completely.... Its too... i dunno, big.

I'm wondering the same thing. I thought it interesting that they issued a statement like this. Still waiting to see what will, or won't, happen.

 

[anart]

Considering that Karl Rove is Karl Rove, I wouldn't be at all surprised by anything he could get away with. Afterall, the msm has been his puppet and manipulation toy for many years now - I would put nothing past him, and since he creates his own ( and the president's) reality, maybe he simply said, "nope - you're not gonna report on it, not gonna print it - and until you do, it never happened". Seriously, though, nothing would surprise me at this point (unfortunately).

 

[Hildegarda]

Considering that Karl Rove is Karl Rove, I wouldn't be at all surprised by anything he could get away with. Afterall, the msm has been his puppet and manipulation toy for many years now - I would put nothing past him

But on the other hand, somebody HAS to take a fall for this scandal, right? And if the truthout story is true, it means that Rove got the black mark. Which in turn means that the golden days of being able to get away with anythng are over.

wait and see, I guess ...

 

[Mr. Premise]

Xymphora http://xymphora.blogspot.com/2006/05/rove-hatfield-leopold.html has the best explanation for the affair, IMO. According to him, this is a tried and true tactic by Karl Rove, who probably had the info leaked to Jason Leopold.

I don't want to dump all over Leopold, as, unlike everybody else, he seems to be trying. On the other hand, his background makes him, exactly like James Hatfield, an excellent target for Rovean disinformation. The Rove pattern is to pick somebody with an iffy history to spread rumors about a touchy topic, rumors which have a basis in truth but which are technically wrong, and then use the character of the person reporting the rumors to deflect attention from the real issues. They used the same method in dealing with Bush's military service, or lack thereof.

And, http://xymphora.blogspot.com/2006/05/rove-m-o.html

Pick someone with a potential weakness in credibility, feed them a story with some parts true and some parts untrue, wait for the story to come out, reveal that some of the details can't be true and that the author of the story has a political or personal agenda and an iffy past, and bury the true parts of the story under the ensuing controversy. The process is playing itself out with blanket denials of some of the facts reported by Leonard, and the deniers have no reason to damage their own credibility by unequivocally denying things that will soon come out (they could just refuse to answer or say 'no comment').

This isn't just some Dick Tuck prank or even a Donald Segretti-style dirty trick; Hatfield ended up being suicided to complete the destruction of his credibility. Rove fights hard, and he fights dirty.

 

[Mr. Premise]

More from Wayne Madsen (http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/)

May 17, 2006 -- LATE EDITION -- WMR can report tonight on more details concerning the confusing reports regarding Karl Rove and Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald from last Friday. WMR can confirm that the appearance of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales before the Grand Jury at the US Federal Courthouse in Washington (in the new annex next to the old building) was a formality in which the jury informed the Attorney General of their decision to indict Karl Rove. That proceeding lasted for less than 30 minutes and took place shortly after noon. Gonzales's personal security detachment was present in the courthouse during the Grand Jury briefing. From the courthouse, Gonzales's motorcade proceeded directly down Constitution Avenue to the Department of Justice.

According to sources within the Patton and Boggs law firm, Karl Rove was present at the law firm's building on M Street. WMR was told by a credible source that a Patton and Boggs attorney confirmed that Fitzgerald paid a visit to the law firm to inform Rove attorney Robert Luskin and Rove that an indictment would be returned by the Grand Jury against Rove. Contrary to other reports, some of which may have emanated from the Rove camp in order to create diversions and smokescreens, the meetings at Patton and Boggs did not last 15 hours nor was a 24-hour notice of intent to indict delivered to Rove. In the Scooter Libby case last October, after the Grand Jury decided to indict Libby on [CORRECTION: Wednesday October 19] and the Attorney General personally heard the decision the same day at a meeting with the jury, the actual indictment was issued Friday, October 28. Several sources have told WMR that an announcement concerning the indictment of Rove will be made on Friday, May 19 generally following the same scenario from October 28, 2005 -- the posting of the indictment on the Special Prosecutor's web site followed by a press conference at Main Justice.

WMR was also told by a credible source that part of the reason for Fitzgerald's visit to Patton and Boggs was to inform Rove attorney Luskin that he has moved into the category of a "subject" of the special prosecutor's investigation as a result of a conversation with Time reporter Viveca Novak, in which Novak told Luskin that Rove was a source for Time's Matt Cooper. The special prosecutor, who has prosecuted one defense attorney in the Hollinger case, is reportedly investigating whether Luskin, as an officer of the court, may have violated laws on obstruction of justice.

WMR has also discovered that last year Rove, realizing he remained a lightning rod in the CIA Leakgate scandal, made preliminary plans to move into the private sector from the White House to take political heat off the Bush administration. However, as it became clear that he was in over his head legally and his legal bills piled up, Rove decided to remain at the White House. UPDATED May 18, 2006

 

[Mr. Premise]

More from Wayne Madsen. It looks like there is a great deal of "negotiation" going on behind the scenes:

WMR stands by its report that there was a meeting between Fitzgerald and Rove and his attorneys at Patton Boggs LLC in Washington on Friday, May 12. The meeting was to inform Rove that he would be indicted. The Attorney General had been informed in person by the Grand Jury that they had indicted Rove -- the same courtesy afforded him last October in the Libby case. The Grand Jury was apparently not in session yesterday but that does not mean the Rove matter was off the agenda. According to the daily docket in the Clerk's Office, two US District Court judges were deliberating cases in which there were potentially sealed indictments. Judge Alan Kay heard a case titled "UNITED STATES v. SEALED." Judge Reggie Walton, the presiding judge in the Libby trial, deliberated a number of cases titled "SEALED v. SEALED." With a sealed indictment in hand, the Special Prosecutor could have been negotiating a plea agreement with the Rove camp during the last week. And that may have set off a guerre royale between the Special Prosecutor and White House, with the prosecutor at a severe disadvantage.

Even before WMR reported on Rove's likely indictment yesterday, there were clear signs that something was amiss. Rather than keep Rove out of the public eye, the White House put him out in front of the neocon American Enterprise Institute on Monday, had him arm twisting GOP members of Congress during the week, and had him fly to Lake County, Illinois Friday night for a GOP fundraiser and pep talk. Washington insiders report that if the White House were confident that Rove would soon be indicted, they would refrain from having him out among GOP ranks taking part in future embarrassing photo ops. Which brings us back to yesterday's item about the power of the Special Counsel as opposed to that of an Independent Special Counsel. Even Watergate independent counsel Archibald Cox was not immune enough to prevent him from being fired by Richard Nixon. (Although the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General refused to fire Cox and resigned, the dirty work was carried out by the Solicitor General, Robert Bork). Fitzgerald is merely protected by a series of Justice Department administrative directives and not by anything even close to an Independent Counsel Statute. In taking on the most powerful and unconstitutional administration in the history of the United States, Fitzgerald's brief is certainly vulnerable to pressure from the White House. And it is clear that something drastic followed the May 12 meeting at Patton & Boggs.

First, a small number of journalists who were writing about the Rove indictment found themselves being spun by Rove's media machine and his paid spokesperson, former Justice Department spokesman Mark Corallo, a longtime GOP hack. Some questionable information about two of the journalists were posted anonymously on a blog. The blog information made claims that Corallo was involved in telephone conversations with two journalists and deceptive practices were brought up. WMR refused to get drawn into this circle of intrigue and we reported on it on May 16 (see below). Mid-week, WMR received an email form someone claiming to be a reporter for a major TV news network. It claimed that Gonzales was no where near the US Courthouse on May 12 and insinuated that the reporter was able to see the members of the secret Grand Jury come and go, that the same Grand Jury deliberating the Rove matter was also hearing a drug case, and that the reporter had somehow been given inside information into the secret Grand Jury proceedings. The "reporter" failed to mention the well-armed, multi-vehicle motorcade that arrived at the Courthouse from the Justice Department at the rear garage of the courthouse, placed the Attorney General's personal security detail throughout the courthouse annex, and returned to Justice some 30 minutes later. WMR's report on the Rove matter became the subject of ridicule by the typical right-wing network in Washington, including shills for the National Review, other neocon outlets, and the Rove camp...

 

[Lucy]

More from TruthOut.org on their Rove Indictment story:

Information Sharing on the Rove Indictment Story

By Marc Ash,

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marc Ash, Executive Director - t r u t h o u t
director@truthout.org

 

[Cyre2067]

Perhaps we are seeing the beginning of the end of the bush admin. This wat they can usher in a new head honcho and the system does work! Yay!

"See guys, and we didn't even have to go vote...."


worse then fiction.

 

[Mr. Premise]

So far the Bush Admin has the upper hand:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/5/21/184052/881

Sun May 21, 2006 at 03:40:51 PM PDT
Last Friday, Judge Reggie Walton, the presiding judge in the Libby trial, deliberated over a case titled "SEALED v. SEALED." There is growing speculation that sealed v. sealed is Fitzgerald v. Gonzales' Deputy, Paul McNulty (Fitzgerald's direct superior).

The Wayne Madsen Report and the Chris Matthews Show have both floated the theory that Fitzgerald had secured indictments against Rove, but Gonzales --via McNulty-- came in at the last second and used his power as Fitzgerald's superior to kill the indictments.

IF, this theory is true, Fitzgerald would have likely challenged McNulty's decision in court, pointing to an earlier administrative directive from then acting Attorney General James Comey that gave Fitzerald the "authority of the Attorney General." Comey is long gone, however, and was replaced by McNulty. The question then becomes what, if any, value does Comey's administrative directive have today.

One unfortunate realty of this scenario is that if the judge sides with McNulty, we will never know what really happened, because it will remained sealed. Which, is one explanation about why Rove is acting so smug these days and why the White House has not pulled back his public schedule.