NYT: Rove Ordered to Talk Again in Leak Inquiry (Ordered?)

[UpInArms]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/07/politics/07leak.html?hp&ex=1128657600&en=d524a7a0b669b7a7&ei=5094&partner=homepage

WASHINGTON, Oct. 6 - The special prosecutor in the C.I.A. leak case has summoned Karl Rove, the senior White House adviser, to return next week to testify to a federal grand jury in a step that could mean charges will be filed in the case, lawyers in the case said on Thursday.

The prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, has held discussions in recent days with lawyers for several administration officials suggesting that he is considering whether to charge them with a crime over the disclosure of an intelligence operative's identity in a 2003 newspaper column.

Mr. Fitzgerald is said by some of the lawyers to have indicated that he has not made up his mind about whether to accuse anyone of wrongdoing and will use the remaining days before the grand jury expires on Oct. 28 to decide.

Mr. Rove has appeared before the grand jury on three previous occasions.

Meanwhile, Mr. Fitzgerald has indicated that he is not entirely finished with Judith Miller, the New York Times reporter who recently testified before the grand jury after serving 85 days in jail. According to a lawyer familiar with the case, Mr. Fitzgerald has asked Ms. Miller to meet him next Tuesday to further discuss her conversations with I. Lewis Libby, the vice president's chief of staff.

<snip>

Mr. Fitzgerald's conversations with lawyers in recent days have cast a cloud over the inquiry, sweeping away the confidence once expressed by a number of officials and their lawyers who have said that he was unlikely to find any illegality.

In coming days, the lawyers said, Mr. Fitzgerald is likely to request that several other White House officials return to the grand jury to testify about their actions in the case - appearances that are believed to be pivotal as the prosecutor proceeds toward a charging decision.

...more...

(Note to Mods: I believe that this article gives a much broader picture, but do as you wish. Thanks for all you do.)

[UpInArms]

1. also from the link:

One new approach appears to involve the possible use of Chapter 37 of the federal espionage and censorship law, which makes it a crime for anyone who "willfully communicates, delivers, transfers or causes to be communicated" to someone "not entitled to receive it" classified information relating the national defense matters.

[Kagemusha]

2. It gives information conflicting significantly with othe reports even

Like, "next week," "summoned," "ordered"... and stuff about other officials being called back... doesn't anyone take the fifth anymore?

[SnowGoose]

18. I was under the impression that you can't take the 5th before a Grand Jury

I don't know where I heard it, but it seems like I remember someone saying that the 5th ammendment protection against forced self-incrimination doesn't apply in the grand jury, since you're not actually on trial.

By all means, jump in and correct me if I'm wrong.

[MissMarple]

21. Well, they cannot actually make you testify.

Then, however, other sanctions could fall into place. Like with Judith Miller.

[No Exit]

23. Yes, you can take the 5th b/f a grand jury. Wouldn't it be funny if

all the times pig-boy had testified to this grand jury previously, all he'd said was "I hereby invoke my 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination"?

[Jackpine Radical]

35. I think that's exactly why he was given immunity for his testimony

on previous occasions (but not for today). They gave him immunity & watched him lie. The act of perjury is not covered by the immunity, one is only ever immunized for truthful testimony. Now they call him back to testify about his lies. He can either repeat the lies & go to prison for perjury or tell the truth (for which there will be independent evidence) thereby essentially admitting his earlier perjury. Or he can roll over in a plea bargain.

The aspens are turning blonde at this time of year. But their roots are still black.

[No Exit]

36. Did they give him immunity? I hadn't known that...

At any rate, as your post suggests, once again it's not the original crime, but the cover-up, which will nail these black-rooted aspens.

[BlueEyedSon]

3. I thought he volunteered (ploy to avoid perjury?)

[Tight_rope]

4. Me too...Tinfoil hat working doubletime now!

:tinfoilhat:

[spindrifter]

5. Volunteering doesn't

get him off a perjury charge. His testimony is sworn, regardless, and a lie under oath is a lie under oath. Of course, people take the 5th. His problem is that he may have already shot his mouth off about something that previously appeared to have no consequence--or Fitzg. may have info from other witnesses that does not comport w/ Rover's prior sworn testimony.

[BlueEyedSon]

8. Apparently he can explain/reinterpret previous testimony

so is it not outright LIES ("depends what the meaning of is, is").

[Maraya1969]

31. Oh I would dance in the street is they convicted him of perjury!

Would serve them all right for the witch hunt they gave to Bill Clinton.

[janx]

13. That was back in July. His lawyer wanted him to look clean,

probably. His problem now is that Fitzgerald is not only taking him up on it, but ordering him to do so.

[Spazito]

16. The 'volunteer' aspect was the work of Rove's lawyer that the other

media outlets picked up on. I believe the NYT is accurate in that Fitz communicated with Rove's lawyer requesting Rove appear again before the grand jury. Rove 'volunteered' so he wouldn't be subpoenaed.

[Vinnie From Indy]

6. The New York Times? Who reads that piece of shit anymore?

Except for the editorial writers like Krugman, who give a shit what they say about anything relating to BushCo. Keller and "Pinch" have done a marvelous job destroying the legend that was the grey lady.

[BlueEyedSon]

9. It's the best we got in NY. Would you recommend the POST?

[Vinnie From Indy]

10. The national and world news departments have lost all credibility.

The rest of the paper is great.

[BlueEyedSon]

12. BlueEyedSon sad now.

[Benhurst]

20. Maybe they should rename it New York Entertainment Today. NT

[Jacobin]

11. Hey, they do a great job of martrying Judy "CIA" Miller!!!

and and and they really talked up invading Iraq

and and and, they didn't write about Smirky's little wireless helper under his coat in the debates, so that they wouldn't do "anything controversial' before the elections

so hey, they're pretty good for the junta

[JoFerret]

34. Foolish

.

[raysr]

7. Bob "Bush" Schieffer

on CBS news said that Rove's lawyer said that Rove wasn't target. That ain't what we heard yesterday.

[janx]

14. Rove's lawyer?

Technically, Rove probably isn't a "target" yet. Doesn't one have to wait for the letter to become one? And wouldn't a prosecutor want to wait until the last minute to send letters like that?

[stillcool]

15. looks like we're going to be waiting on this one....

Mr. Fitzgerald is also re-examining grand jury testimony by Mr. Libby, the lawyers said, but it is unknown whether he has been asked to appear again before the grand jury. Mr. Libby's lawyer, Joseph Tate, did not respond to telephone messages left on Thursday at his office.

[HuffleClaw]

17. question: has BUSH testified ?

i don't recall? what 'top officials' have been called before this grand jury ?

[grytpype]

19. Wow, RECOMMEND! This article is HUGE!!!! My analysis...

This article has a lot of developments and new facts, you could write a whole article about each one...

1. Rove has been summoned to testify by Fitzgerald. "The special prosecutor in the C.I.A. leak case has summoned Karl Rove..." It is extremely unusual for a prosecutor to compel a witness who is a target of the investigation, which Rove obviously is by now. That's because the witness will be virtually compelled to take the fifth over and over. This is like Fitz is daring Rove to take the fifth.

This is a no-win situation for Rove. If he reiterates his earlier story, whatever it was, then he is further committing to the position that is getting him indicted. If he changes his story it's just as bad. I would never let a client get into this situation, but as the article says, he's a public figure. I can't imagine his position would be teneable if he refused to testify.

2. Rove and Scooter are not the only Bush officials who are going to be charged.Fitz "has held discussions in recent days with lawyers for several administration officials suggesting that he is considering whether to charge them with a crime." Several is more than two, for sure.

3. Miller is being recalled. "Mr. Fitzgerald has asked Ms. Miller to meet him next Tuesday to further discuss her conversations with I. Lewis Libby."

4. In addition to Rove and Miller, several OTHER officials are going to be recalled. "Mr. Fitzgerald is likely to request that several other White House officials return to the grand jury to testify about their actions in the case..."

5. Rove says Novak was his source on Plame. "Mr. Rove said that he learned Ms. Wilson's name from the columnist and the circumstances in which her husband traveled to Africa." Is that new? Because I don't remember that coming out before.

6. Rove is spending more time with his family. "But according to a senior administration official, Mr. Rove and his wife are on a long-planned college visiting trip with their teenage son."

7. Fitzgerald is considering prosecution under the Espionage Law. As many have predicted: "One new approach appears to involve the possible use of Chapter 37 of the federal espionage and censorship law, which makes it a crime for anyone who "willfully communicates, delivers, transfers or causes to be communicated" to someone "not entitled to receive it" classified information relating the national defense matters."

8. The NYT is eventually going to get around to reporting on its and Miller's involvement. ""We have launched a vigorous reporting effort that I hope will answer outstanding questions about Judy's part in this drama..."

Wow, that is a lot for one article. Next week is going to be a barrel of laughs for longtime Plame watchers like me... nighty night

[Barrett808]

24. Thanks for the blow-by-blow

I'll start the popcorn.

[DUgosh]

27. I'm shocked!

Rove has a wife and kid. Since when? This is very fishy.

[jamesinca]

28. He has always had spawn and spouse

He is being brought up on charges about his voter registration in TX, where the address is one of two small cottages that him and spouse own. He has never been seen on the property, and he rents them out, but it is the address that he is registered to vote at. He is seen at the $1,100,000 home in D.C. where he is not registered to vote at, but uses as a primary residence.

[Carolab]

30. The DC residence is in Darby's name. Here is a photo of the Mrs.

She's wife #2, a graphic designer he married in '86.

[Dulcinea]

32. He has a son w/ a learning disability, I think.

I read here that his kid goes to a special school.

[Roland99]

37. You're right! This is HUGH!!!11!1!!!11!11!

And how does Judy Miller still have a job?

[The Night Owl]

22. Fitzgerald hasn't made up his mind on whether or not to indict anyone?

Is this a joke?

I hate to be cynical, but I have a feeling that we're about to see the mother of all whitewashes. Just like the 9/11 Commission's findings, everyone and no one will be to blame.

Really fucking bad.

[Stevendsmith]

38. I fear the exact same thing. God dammit! N/T

[No Exit]

25. Ordered = subpoenaed. They can subpoena him, but

he still has the right to take the 5th. That is, he can take the 5th to protect HIMSELF from self-incrimination, but he can't take the 5th to protect someone else... heh heh heh. (I once saw a mother subpoenaed to testify against her son in the prosecution of the son. The mother said "I take the 5th", but the judge wouldn't let her b/c she was protecting the son, not herself. She had to testify, or be jailed for contempt.)

[lovuian]

26. Maybe he has to answer to Judith's testimony!!! You know she

just testified didn't she???

[Historic NY]

29. I smell perjury...................

sounds like a lot of inconsistent testimony. This could get quite interesting.

[Garbo 2004]

33. Likey areas of questions per Murray Waas from his blog:

White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove will testify tomorrow morning for a fourth time before the federal grand jury investigating the Valerie Plame matter, according to sources close to the investigation.

Rove will appear voluntarily, but during tomorrow's session, Rove will be pressed about issues as to why his accounts to the FBI and grand jury have changed, or evolved, over time. He will also be questioned regarding contacts with other senior administration officials, such as then-deputy National Security advisor Stephen J. Hadley and I. Lewis Libby, the chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney in the critical week before the publication of columnist Robert Novak's column on July 14, 2003, which outed Plame as a covert CIA operative.

Rove is also likely to be asked more detailed questions about his conversation with Time magazine Matthew Cooper on July 11, 2003, in which Cooper himself has testified to the grand jury that Rove had told him that Valerie Plame was employed by the CIA, and had played a role in having her husband, ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, selected to go on his controversial fact-finding mission on behalf of the CIA. Rove's previous grand jury appearances had occurred prior to Cooper's own testimony to the grand jury.
http://whateveralready.blogspot.com/2005/10/rove-before-grand-jury-in-morning.html

(Note: it is now said, I think, that Rove will testify next week, not Friday as was previously reported.)