Rove Said to Testify in CIA Leak Case

Right you are....this is spinning faster than my old maytag...

I was thinking that, given the rules, the special prosecuter would pretty much ALWAYS send such a letter, and only withdraw it if the person refused to testify and their testimony was really important and the prosecuter really had no desire to charge the person.

Anybody could still be charged for perjury for their testimony, because obviously the prosecuter isn't EXPECTING that the person would lie.

"the sheeple understand the word "perjury"."

Except when it came to Bill Clinton. Of course, Clinton had the media on his side, telling everyone it's "just about sex . . . Ken Starr is a maniacal religious zealot . . . Clinton is victim of vast right-wing conspiracy" etc. And according to David Schippers, NOT ONE of the senators even entered the special evidence room set aside for them prior to the impeachment vote. So much for the seriousness of "perjury" for "the greatest deliberative body in the world."

Larry Johnson is full of crap and his article has so many incorrect facts it isn't even funny.

"Except Rove offered to provide further testimony back in July and Fitzgerald wanted Miller on the record first. Obviously it is not the Rove camp behind this highly spun leak."

Meaning what? For months now you've come out with the positive spin with facts to spare. One more time for the gipper.

WTF are you smoking?

Yes indeed it could.

Sounds like Rove is going to be indicted. Why else would he do this at the last minute?

You've been had by a typical AP report. It is misleading by omission.

Rove offered in July to return to the grand jury for additional testimony and Fitzgerald accepted that offer Friday after taking grand jury testimony from the formerly jailed New York Times reporter Judith Miller. ...
Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, said Thursday he would not comment on any ongoing discussion he has had with Fitzgerald's office but that he has been assured no decisions on charges have been made. Rove would first have to receive what is known as a target letter if he is about to be indicted.
"I can say categorically that Karl has not received a target letter from the special counsel. The special counsel has confirmed that he has not made any charging decisions in respect to Karl," Luskin said.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/06/D8D2NIE07.html

I would agree.....

Perjury, although rarely actually proven and punished, is serious politically..

The RATS think they will accomplish something is that happens, but it will mean nothing. the media will love it, republicans will be pissed...But in the end it will change nothing.

The media's "Rovian Storm" will only cause me to unplug the TV so my bloodpressure stays at a decent level, but Bush is not running again and it is common for lame duck admins to get chewed up by bogus bullcrap in the last term. they did it to Reagan.

I won't effect 2006 and it looks to me like republican candidates have already decided to distance themselves from the president for political reasons.

They will try to destroy Bush during his second term. Repubs and dems. It is how the game is played and it is underway now..

If I were Bush, I'd tell them all to eat cake!

Every goat stinkin one of them.

I believe plenty of americans understood that about Clinton - his ratings on truthfullness are not good. had Bush 41 & 43 not spent so much time rehabilitating him since 2001 (a discussion for another thread) - we could have buried his reputation. as it stand now, he and his wife have a 50/50 chance of walking back into the white house in 2008.

My gripe about this from day one is that - to paraphrase a line from "Apocalypse Now" - indicting someone in DC for a leak is like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500.

Well said, and I couln't agree more. Heck this is how the article that is the subject of this thread began:

Federal prosecutors have accepted an offer from presidential adviser Karl Rove to give 11th-hour testimony in the case of a CIA officer's leaked identity but have warned they cannot guarantee he won't be indicted, according to people directly familiar with the investigation.
The persons, who spoke only on condition of anonymity because of grand jury secrecy...

It's supposed to be against the law to lead grand jury testimony, but we won't see any 2-yr investigations or indictments about these leaks. Washington is a town that is a swamp of leaks. If every danged technically criminal leak was investigated, nothing else would get done in that town [which might not be a bad thing ;-) ].

Everything I've read about the statute that applies to the Plame name leak appears to indicate that no law was broken. So all that's left is some trumped-up consipracy and/or obstruction of justice charge, and that old standy of special prosecutors, perjury.

As far as I'm concerned, there should be no jeopardy of perjury if the matter at the heart of the investigation is not a crime.

Until the investigation is complete, how can he say who isn't a target?

The fact that at this late date, Rove is not a target speaks volumes for the likely outcome.

Sorry, I don't know when the Grand Jury expires... I'll see if I can find out..

This is the Reuters version of this story:

http://tinyurl.com/dzdld

Says he has not yet testified. Notes the GJ typically meets only on Fridays.

And then there's this:

Thursday, October 06, 2005

Plame Game - The Final Curtain

Via inside tip: , confirming Reuters, that indictments in the Plame case are to be announced this week.

However...

1. No surprise,

There will be no indictment for Rove or Libby. However, some journalists (Familiar names) may be tapped on conspiracy to obstruct a Federal investigation, and other second tiered charges, yet it is not expected that any substantive indictments will be announced.

Fitzgerald will announce that there was no statuatory leak of Valerie Plame's identitiy did NOT occur as the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act, Specifically 421(a)(b)(c), did not apply to subject Valerie Plame, and were therefore not considered in this case.

Therefore the charges will be strictly related to the above mentioned secondary charges, if any.

Extra note: Word is that Judith Miller's 'publicity stunt' and book deal hasn't set well with the Prosecutorial team.

More to come.

UPDATE: Rove's three month offer of additional testamony has been accepted, although Fitzgerald has had the written testamony all along. This addition testamony has nothing to do with Miller or Scooter, but has to do with Cooper, who as everyone should have noticed is markedly absent of late.

More: My feeling is that Fitz now needs this additional testimony to move towards Cooper, whom I long had suspicion that he all along worked in a setup on Rove.

Normally at this point in a investigation, "11th hour" testamony is crossing the "Ts", getting things down, now that Fitz SHOULD have the story of what happened, it all points back to Cooper, although other media types should be ducking as well.

I can't see, nor can my source see Rove's testimony being accepted at this time just to "fry him".

Tracked to Tom Mcguire.

Filed under: judith miller valerie plame karl rove

October 28th, 2005.

I think George W. Bush would be wise to cut Karl Rove loose.

An indictment in the White House will not look good and Bush does not need him to turn this ship around.

I think Bush has turned a corner and having Rove around just prevents this administration form moving forward

Rich

October 28th.

Someone remind me what the charge is please....

All bets in DC are on perjury.

Say "Goodbye", Rich.