Shuster: ‘I Am Convinced Karl Rove Will Be Indicted’

[Laura PourMeADrink]

http://thinkprogress.org/

MSNBC’s Shuster: ‘I Am Convinced Karl Rove Will Be Indicted’


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.

Filed under: Ethics

[Laura PourMeADrink]

1. P.S. I love #3 - First I'd heard that one !

[Cooley Hurd]

2. (Official) "A" is for "Asshole..."

:)

[itzamirakul]

3. I have become so damned cynical...

waiting for all of these criminals to be impeached or at least held accountable for their actions, yet all we get is a lot of bullsh!t about Patrick Kennedy.

Why aren't there dozens of Democrats out somewhere screaming about the fact that there was NO POLICE REPORT OR BOOZE TEST WHEN CHENEY SHOT A MAN IN THE FACE!

A long time ago, Jesse Jackson coined the phrase:
"Keep hope alive!" ...but DAMN!

[zanne]

4. I hear you, itzamirakul.

I you're a Republican conservative, the rule of law no longer applies to you.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

5. Wow, excellent point. We are literally starving for some kind

of justice in this horror story they call the Bush Administration. We just need a crumb. Just a crumb.