Rove Said to Testify in CIA Leak Case

AP ^ | October 6, 2005 | JOHN SOLOMON

[West Coast Conservative]

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, said Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has not made any decision yet on whether to file criminal charges against the longtime confidant of President Bush or others.

The U.S. attorney's manual requires prosecutors not to bring witnesses before a grand jury if there is a possibility of future criminal charges unless they are notified in advance that their grand jury testimony can be used against them in a later indictment.

Rove has already made at least three grand jury appearances and his return at this late stage in the investigation is unusual.

The prosecutor did not give Rove similar warnings before his earlier grand jury appearances.

[Perdogg]

No. Fitz wants to go home.

[Gandalf_The_Gray]

It does sort of sound like a good hook. If I write the song, I will send you the first copy and give you writers credit. Fair enough?

Kewl!

Regards,
GtG

[Howlin]

Larry Johnson outted himself:

He is a member of the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

[Mr. XYZ]

The Reuters version of this AP story is much less ominous sounding for Karl Rove:

http://tinyurl.com/dzdld

[Howlin]

Exactly.

[Dr. Scarpetta]

The republicans need to up the ante and start doing the same thing to the RATs. Then they can pull a Clinton and just say politics as usual.

Fat chance. We could've tried Clinton on the pardons, or berger for stealing documents. We're too nice. Thank God the House IMPEACHED clinton, and that's how he'll go down in history.

[COEXERJ145]

Buh-Bye Newbie.

[SevenMinusOne]

As seems way too often the case on here anymore (FR) way too many are over blowing this other thing - Regardless of if an indictment comes down or not -

The Avg American will care less (for starters) and further won't base their decisions in 06 or 08 on anything to do with this situation (not even remotely).

This is "hot stuff" for those on the 24hr news channels that have to fill space - It is meaningless outside of that context.

[mystery-ak]

Thanks Howlin....that sounds a lot better...I would love to see Maggie's hubby go down....LOL

[SevenMinusOne]

As seems way too often the case on here anymore (FR) way too many are over blowing this whole thing - Regardless of if an indictment comes down or not -

The Avg American will care less (for starters) and further won't base their decisions in 06 or 08 on anything to do with this situation (not even remotely).

This is "hot stuff" for those on the 24hr news channels that have to fill space - It is meaningless outside of that context.

[Texas Songwriter]

I agree. But if something bad politically comes down, it is often engineered to come out late in the afternoon on Friday after all of the reporters leave the school ground for the weekend. I have no idea if anything will come out tomorrow. I do know, we do not need any indictments out of the White House. We need a little rest.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Welcome. And probably good-bye.

Problem is, whether Bush cut him loose or not, an indictment would be played against him. There is nothing to gain by releasing him before an indictment is handed down.

[Howlin]

Good catch.

FGS, Fox is now going with this as Breaking News............LOL.

Shep was slobbering about "spy in the White House" today.

[Steve_Seattle]

Speaking of leaks, just a few months ago, the NYT gleefully blew the cover off of an entire CIA operation to transport captured terrorists to various places for interrogation. There was no media outcry, no demand for an investigation, no complaints that national security was compromised, no concerns that agents in the field were compromised, nothing.

[CharlesWayneCT]

ABC News is playing this as if Rove just decided to talk some more, and thought it important that "this time" he had no guarantees.

Do we have any idea if he had guarantees in any previous testimony? I cannot imagine that Rove has EVER been allowed to testify under such a grant, but do we know?

[COEXERJ145]

The host last hour for ABC Radio News had a hard time containing her glee while reporting the story.

[Steve_Seattle]

In a sane and just world, your scenario (post #155) would make a lot of sense. But are we living in a sane and just world?

[Maximum Leader]

I've never heard of a government employee taking the 5th Amendment to a grand jury and then keeping their job. I don't think any of Clinton's people tried that (well sounds like something Blumenthal would do, but I don't recall him doing it). So Rove really has to testify or he'd be pressured to resign.

[Wolfstar]

There was no media outcry, no demand for an investigation, no complaints that national security was compromised, no concerns that agents in the field were compromised, nothing.

The MSM doesn't want to shut down leads. That's their bread and butter. They just want to hurt GWB by going through one of the President's closest aides.

[mystery-ak]

I don't think they took the 5th...thier pat answer was *they can't recall*....or *no recollection of that*...