WP: Rove Pressed On Conflicts, Source Says

[Pirate Smile]

Rove Pressed On Conflicts, Source Says
Questions Said to Focus On Differing Accounts

By Carol D. Leonnig and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, October 15, 2005; Page A01

The grand jury investigating the CIA leak case pressed White House senior adviser Karl Rove yesterday to more fully explain his conversations with reporters about CIA operative Valerie Plame, including discrepancies between his testimony and the account provided by a key witness in the investigation, according to a source familiar with Rove's account.

Making his fourth appearance before the grand jury, Rove answered a broad range of questions for 41/2 hours, including why he did not initially tell federal agents about a July 2003 conversation about Plame with the witness, Time magazine's Matthew Cooper, the source said.

Rove's defense team asserts that President Bush's deputy chief of staff has not committed a crime but nevertheless anticipates that special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald could find a way to bring charges in the next two weeks, the source said.

"The special counsel has not advised Mr. Rove that he is a target of the investigation and affirmed that he has made no decision concerning charges," Robert Luskin, Rove's attorney, said in a statement.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/14/AR2005101402076.html

[Pirate Smile]

1. Judy is in the clear.

"One person who will not be charged is Judith Miller, the New York Times reporter who spent 85 days in jail for refusing to testify in the case before making two recent appearances before the grand jury. Miller was recently told by Fitzgerald that she is only a witness in the case, according to a source close to Miller."

[lovuian]

2. Hmmm that sounds like a witness to a crime!!! Isn't that a crime

not reporting the crime!!! I'm confused!!!

[spindrifter]

11. No.

Plenty of people see crimes that go unreported for all kinds of reasons.

[Dan]

53. With the Federal Government....

if it is a felony.... it used to be called something like.,,

Misprison of a crime. Knowledge without reporting.

[Laelth]

20. Makes sense to me.

Generally speaking, the way to bring charges against someone who is not the subject of an investigation is to bring charges for perjury or obstruction of justice. And the only reason you bring someone back to testify a fourth time is because their previous three stories just don't add up; i.e. perjury or obstruction. Now, how fitting would that be?

-Laelth

[Why Syzygy]

33. Four 1/2 HOURS!

How was your day, Karl?

[OKthatsIT]

55. Witness to a crime and withholding of information/evidence

isnt that a crime?

[thinkingwoman]

4. There you have it

Miller flipped.

[DoYouEverWonder]

42. They're all flipping

it's just hard to tell which way sometimes.

I don't think Ms. Judy is in the clear at all. I think she will face some serious jail time when this is all done.

[MADem]

44. Or be named as an unindicted co-conspirator

and not have anything more than a black mark on her reputation at the end of it all, in exchange for her detailed cooperation.

Remember, she spent EIGHT or more hours with Fitz on the day before she testified; I imagine they went over a shitload of ground, which was distilled down to the salient questions that were posed before the GJ.

[thinkingwoman]

51. after reading her story and the bigger nyt story

about this whole thing, I am even more convinced than ever that she is through at the nyt, and probably anywhere else credible.

Not only did I shake my head all the way through her article, but I also shook it through the bigger general article, along with my fist. I cannot believe that the nyt newsroom was run so incredibly loosely.

I ran my itty bitty weekly newsroom more tightly than that!

Frankly, the nyt still has a lot of explaining to do. Heads should roll higher up than Miller in that newsroom.

[MADem]

52. Well, she is on an INDEFINITE leave of absence

and that never bodes well. I suspect she will be leaving "to pursue other opportunities" after a decent interval has passed. She'll probably try, in good W fashion, to time her "resignation" on a day when some major story is hitting the fan, so it can be buried in the C section....

[thinkingwoman]

54. no doubt about the timing

you've got that right.

[mod mom]

47. Miller needs to be investigated regarding her relationship w David Kelly

and why she was the last one to receive an email from Kelly before he was suicided.

[MellowOne]

12. Too many rumors and unidentified sources n/t

[rodeodance]

21. um.. a witness--she is telling on others.

[Rowdyboy]

3. This one paragraph irritates me...

"Rove's defense team asserts that President Bush's deputy chief of staff has not committed a crime but nevertheless anticipates that special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald could find a way to bring charges in the next two weeks, the source said."

Why just make that one mention and not elaborate? I WANT MORE!

[thinkingwoman]

6. the "source" is Rove's attorney

doing his endless wah-baby routine...

"poor wittle rovey-poo-poo didn't do anyfing wrong but bad ole prosecuter-man will charge him anyways."

:puke:

Bring.It.On.

[Bumblebee]

7. if they are hinting it's a possibility -- it means it's more than likely.

[thinkingwoman]

8. Agreed. nt

[jackbourassa]

24. I agree, Bumblebee. ROVE WILL BE INDICTED

Probably in the next two weeks.

[mzmolly]

43. O.M.G.

"poor wittle rovey-poo-poo didn't do anyfing wrong but bad ole prosecuter-man will charge him anyways."

:rofl:

[KoKo]

9. Yep, it's Rove's lawyers and Judy's lawyers spinning, spinning, spinning.

I don't think we are going to know until Fitzpatrick does what he's going to do. He's no Ken Starr, for sure.

And, what clued me in that we don't know anything is the spin from Matthews, Toensing and the rest of the Clinton Trashers who seem to think they can spin away that a CIA Agent was Outed by saying Joe Wilson's "story didn't add up and he was always out to get this administration."

It seems the Matthews types think they can get away with what they did during Clinton forgetting that a WHOLE NEW MEDIA IS OUT HERE...who has been cataloging their every move through Monica and "Selection 2000" and WE HAVE THE GOOD ON THEM...not the other way round.

They are so out of it and out of touch they just don't get it. I hope that Fitz isn't as clueless about what we know as those he's bringing in
to testify. :eyes:

[Rowdyboy]

13. Chris Matthews never fails to amaze me ....Why does he think people still

like Bush? He seems fixated on that point, that Bush is an average joe that guys would like to have a beer with. Well, maybe at one time that illusion held sway in the media because Rove packaged him brilliantly. But people have seen through the packaging-he's no longer seen as a well-meaning, awkward good ole boy. He's now perceived as privilidged, out-of-touch, beholden to the oil companies and uncaring about the lower classes.

I honestly don't know if Matthews is simply too stupid to realize that Bush is now very unpopular or if he simply trying to prop him up.

[Bumblebee]

15. He has a crush on him -- that has been obvious from the start.

Love is blind, you know...

[Rowdyboy]

16. Must be platonic....Chris is far too closeted to admit it, even to himself

That whole Catholic altarboy routine

[Bumblebee]

29. everything about Chris is purely "platonic," including his journalistic

impotence :)

[Presstitutes]

19. Much more on Matthews

http://www.presstitutes.com/presstitutes/2005/10/matthews_cant_l.html

http://www.presstitutes.com/presstitutes/2005/10/matthews_uses_i.html

http://www.presstitutes.com/presstitutes/2005/09/chris_matthews__3.html

http://www.presstitutes.com/presstitutes/2005/09/chris_matthews__1.html

[aquart]

23. The only reason to have a beer with an alcoholic

Is to put his life, health, and career in jeopardy. Could Tweety have a hidden agenda?

[Rowdyboy]

26. You know, I never looked at it that way....

Frame of reference makes all the difference. Shit, please tell me I don't have to like Matthews now....I'm strong but not that strong...

[Why Syzygy]

34. Believe it or not

some people like to drink beer and watch someone else fall on their pretzel. I don't get it but who knows.

[DLnyc]

41. As someone said some time ago, I'd rather have

a beer with John Kerry

[SillyGoose]

39. I agree, KoKo. We don't know what Fitz is going to do, he has been

tight-lipped and there have been no leaks coming from his office thus far. The media is relying on heavily biased sources such as lawyers for Rove, Miller, etc. who will try to spin this as much as possible in their client's favor. Tweety and his ilk can do nothing but speculate and spin for PR purposes. They have no more knowledge of Fitz's intentions than we have.

I do, however, find it somewhat disingenuous that Tweety is engaging in so much public speculation about this case without revealing to his audience that he himself has been called to testify.

IMHO, I'm taking all this spin with a grain of salt...the only opinion that matters is that of the GJ and prosecutor when this case concludes.

[rodeodance]

22. well, it no crime, then bush can keep him on. Recall Jr's last statement.

[Beetwasher]

25. Irritates? That Paragraph INVIGORATES Me!

That's the funniest shit I ever heard! Think about it! Rove's attorneys know indictments are coming! They couldn't have made it clearer!

[Rowdyboy]

Everything you say makes perfect sense, but I don't trust any of those

bastards. Why would they telegraph that to us when its not necessary to do so? There must be a reason and it bothers me that I can't figure it out.

I really hope you're right!

[Rowdyboy]

28. self-delete....duplicate

[Zen]

48. Yes, that does follow doesn't it.

Clearly it's blatantly obvious to his lawyer based on the questioning that Rove spun himself an indictment. He's already spinning the post-indictment BS - very astute Beetwasher.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

45. I read it as good news

We know that Fitzgerald is not leaking, that leaves Rove's people. They are just laying the groundwork for their defense.

That's a good sign IMO. :)

[Vickers]

46. If no crime was committed, what would they charge him with?

:eyes:

Typical RW attempt at spin, but too late, too late.

[corbett]

50. Same Here - Invertebrate Journalists And Their Editors Are Irritating!

After Judy went to the big house for almost 3 months, I get the sense that nobody wants to run the whole truth. They print enough to keep the public aware that big things are afoot and then restrain themselves.

[Bumblebee]

5. It's actually a good article given they by necessity are trying to read

tea leaves. It also promises a prospect of the NYT article as early as tomorrow. If that's the case, it should go up tonight; usually by 10 pm or so PT.

Update: Raw Story reports it's assumed the story will run on Sunday.

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Unease_pervades_New_York_Times_newsroom_1014.html

and also this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/advance-word-on-the-t_b_8888.html

[KoKo]

10. You mean Mz Judy's Spin...Spin, Spin...I hope she really spilled all the

beans for her to be allowed to write a story before the GJ even finishes or offers indictments. Even if she was "flipped" it seems odd that she would be given such an opportunity. :-(

[Bumblebee]

14. She is not writing it; others are. She is supposedly talking to them and

providing them with an account of her testimony. She and her people are actually worried the story is going to be critical of her -- and I hope so!

[CantGetFooledAgain]

38. I think Judy may be done at the Times after this (nt)

[Wordie]

40. This will be like the present your parents let you open on Christmas eve.

With the BIG one still to come! I can't wait to read that article.

[Wilms]

17. I like the first of these two paragraphs, especially.

snip

Instead, the lawyers, who based their opinions on the kinds of questions Fitzgerald is asking and not on firsthand knowledge, think the special prosecutor may be headed in a different direction. They said Fitzgerald could be trying to establish that a group of White House officials violated the Espionage Act, which prohibits the disclosure of classified material, or that they engaged in a conspiracy to discredit Wilson in part by identifying Plame.

Another possibility, the lawyers say, is that Fitzgerald could charge Rove or others with perjury or providing false testimony before the grand jury. This is a popular avenue for prosecutors in white-collar criminal cases.

snip

[GoldenOldie]

18. If I may ask a few dumb questions?

Are Defense lawyers allowed within the Grand Jury room?

If they are not, can they receive an immediate transcript of what questions their clients were asked and the responses?

[Bumblebee]

27. no but they talk to their clients afterwards

[Pirate Smile]

31. It just shows how Fitz isn't leaking at all and everybody is just guessing

[Why Syzygy]

35. I read a blog

.. have not been able to relocate it .. wherein .. the point was made that Joe Wilson said this was tantamount to the case of convicted traitor Avery (? I think). But, when he asks for "justice", he doesn't use the same statute.

Try them on that one! Treason. Pure and simple. Why jump through hoops when there is a perfectly good law on the books.

Fitzgerald, please take it to the Top.

[Bumblebee]

30. NYT thinks Libby is off the hook?

But Mr. Rove, who would normally be playing a crucial role in most of the big issues the White House is dealing with, did not return to his office after his testimony, an administration official said.

Mr. Rove's appearance before the grand jury suggested that Mr. Fitzgerald had shifted his focus from another senior White House aide, I. Lewis Libby, who is Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff. On Wednesday, Judith Miller, a reporter for The New York Times, testified to the grand jury about a conversation she had with Mr. Libby in June 2003, lawyers in the case said.

Ms. Miller had previously testified about two other conversations she had with Mr. Libby in July 2003. Thus far, there has been no indication that Mr. Fitzgerald has asked Mr. Libby back to the grand jury, lawyers in the case said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/15/politics/15leak.html

[tavalon]

32. That's likely to be next weeks fun

Must get more popcorn. This show needs more popcorn.

[lanlady]

36. could also mean

Fitzgerald has enough evidence against Libby.

[rosesaylavee]

37. I am waiting for the indictments to tell the story not

Rove's or Miller's or Libby's lawyers.

:popcorn:

[lovuian]

49. Its in the title there is CONFLICTS isn't that the same as LIES

found and Rove is backtracking now!!!