Prosecutor Weighs Charges Against Rove in Leak Case

NYT ^ | April 28, 2006 | ELISABETH BUMILLER and DAVID JOHNSTON

[rightalien]

WASHINGTON, April 27 — Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor in the C.I.A. leak case, is expected to decide in the next two to three weeks whether to bring perjury charges against Karl Rove, the powerful adviser to President Bush, lawyers involved in the case said Thursday.

With the completion of Mr. Rove's fifth appearance before the grand jury on Wednesday, Mr. Fitzgerald is now believed to have assembled all of the facts necessary to determine whether to seek an indictment of Mr. Rove or drop the case.

Lawyers in the case said Mr. Fitzgerald would spend the coming days reviewing the transcript of Mr. Rove's three hours of testimony on Wednesday and weigh it against his previous statements to the grand jury as well as the testimony of others, including a sworn statement that Mr. Rove's lawyer gave to the prosecutor earlier this year. The lawyers were granted anonymity so they could speak about the internal legal deliberations in Mr. Rove's case.

A lawyer with knowledge of the case said that Mr. Rove had known for more than a month that he was likely to make another appearance before the grand jury, and that he had known since last fall that he would be subject to further questions from Mr. Fitzgerald before the prosecutor completed his inquiry.

[sport]

NO.

[AmericaUnited]

FITZ IS A COMPLETE, OUT OF HIS LEAGUE, HACK AHOLE!!!

[prairiebreeze]

It's scarey alright. There seems to be NO checks on these rogues from the legal system. I emailed the guys at Powerline, all attorneys, to ask why the legal system didn't stand up and start policing their own before it loses as much credibility as the media.

I didn't get a response.

[amutr22]

It's all over DU today...."Indictment Coming Soon!!!"

They have a countdown and they had this to say:

"Shuster: Well, Karl Rove's legal team has told me that they expect that a decision will come sometime in the next two weeks. And 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 couple, a week and a half ago, unless you feel that's your only chance of avoiding indictment"

Your thoughts?

[Buckhead]

No idea. Fitz may indict him for false statements, obsruction and perjury for saying the Redskins would win the Super Bowl when in fact, --- dum te dum dum dum --- they did not!!!

[Raycpa]

Fitz already told Rove he was NOT a target,

He doesn't have to be a target to be charged with perjury. The amazing thing here is the desire to cross reference every word to see if it was previously contradicted for the SOLE purpose of bring a perjury charge. If any of us testified about events over a period of time, our testimony is likely to change unless of course we were lying and we memorized our responses.

[mkjessup]

I think Buckhead pretty much summed it up with simplicity in #45, and while the indictment of Rove would ignite countless numbers of orgasms over at DU and in the lamestream media, it is more likely that Rove will end up like Ray Donovan, the Reagan Labor Secretary who was the victim of "persecutorial misconduct", and after being fully acquitted, said "Where do I go to get my reputation back?"

If any of us testified about events over a period of time, our testimony is likely to change unless of course we were lying and we memorized our responses.

You mean like the Clintons and their accomplices saying nearly in unison, "I can't recall"?