A Pending Rove Indictment?

Byron York writes of a growing nervousness among Rove’s confidants:

…[T]here is growing nervousness among people who support Rove’s side in the case. They know that prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, in addition to presenting some new evidence to a new federal grand jury, has also re-presented previously-gathered evidence to that grand jury. To most observers, that suggests Fitzgerald could be planning to indict someone.

Maybe…but as one who views Viveca Novak’s testimony as a ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ card regarding the Matt Cooper grand jury omission, I would certainly be surprised. Coming from a hack like Ronnie Earle, maybe, but I give Fitzgerald more credit that that. York acknowledges the potential weakness of the case:

Rove is thought to have testified that he simply did not remember the Cooper conversation — Cooper himself described the talk as being about two minutes long and occurring right as Rove was leaving on vacation — until he discovered the e-mail. Supporting Rove’s contention is the fact that Rove, apparently, testified from the very beginning that he talked to columnist Robert Novak, which suggests he was not trying to hide his involvement in the case from Fitzgerald.

As far as anyone outside the investigation knows, Fitzgerald does not have a problem with testimony from Rove’s second, third, and fourth appearances before the grand jury. In addition, it appears that Rove, like Libby, would not be charged with violating any of the underlying laws in the case — either the Intelligence Identities Protection Act or the Espionage Act. So for now, the agonizing question for Rove’s supporters is whether Fitzgerald believes Rove’s earlier testimony involving Cooper constituted the crimes of making false statements (in the case of the FBI interview) or perjury (in the grand jury testimony).

Rove’s supporters believe it would be a weak case, a good deal weaker than the perjury and obstruction case Fitzgerald has made against Libby, which itself was somewhat undermined when it turned out that there was at least one significant part of that story — Libby’s conversations with the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward — that Fitzgerald didn’t know about at the time he indicted Libby. Still, it’s possible Fitzgerald will forge ahead, in part because his much-publicized, two-year investigation has so far produced relatively meager results. After intense probing, and working with virtually unlimited power and discretion, the hard-charging prosecutor has succeeded in indicting one person, Libby, although not for an underlying offense, and disrupting or marring the careers of journalists Judith Miller, Cooper, Woodward, and, most recently, Time’s Viveca Novak. Some Fitzgerald watchers find it difficult to believe that he will close up shop and go home with a record like that.

The MinuteMan, of course, is on it, and he thinks the bigger story is this one:

Here is a headscratcher – Bob Novak, in a speech yesterday, said that “His source for the Valerie Plame information is, he is confident, the same as The Washington Post’s Bob Woodward’s.”

The source of that account is Jon Ham, who did not fall off of the turnip truck any time recently (if ever). [OTOH, this account does not mention it - Aaagh! But MediaBistro is on this, sort of - will they track down these reporters and try for a consistent story?]

Well, well – we have been feeling pretty good that Woodward’s source is Richard Armitage, former Deputy Secretary of State – the NY Times pointed that way, as did Isikoff and Thomas of Newsweek (who also noted the possible Woodward/Novak overlap.)

Jeralyn Merritt rallied up some reporting on Armitage’s access to the infamous INR memo which was produced at State and described the Wilson trip (with a mention of Ms. Wilson, who introduced Joe at the meeting which launched the trip).

And we checked Armitage’s calendar in this post – yes, he was in town from June 12 on, so the dates work, for Woodward at least, And we can add that Armitage is not marked “Out of Country” for either July 7 or July 8, when Novak *seems* to have been working on his “outing” column.

Needless to say, to be continued…

2 comments to A Pending Rove Indictment?

  • mtl

    Even if true, it is now irrelevant, other than a 2-3 pts swing on Bush’s approval numbers, for about two weeks.

    Dems made the mistake of hyping it for the actual crime of outing a CIA agent. IT already has failed.

    They are on to perjury/obstruction…
    but then it wasn’t a serious crime when Clinton was President…after all it was a lie about sex (in a sexual harrasment lawsuit that was settled).

    Rove’s perjury/obstruction, if ever proven true, will be in the prosectuion of crime that was not committed.

    Just doesn’t have the umpph anymore, but that won’t stop the libs from thinking they hit paydirt.
    They have been thinking they hit paydirt since 2000, despite their lack of political success.

    Nada-gate. and who thought the NYT editorial staff was completely useless. Let them rattle their sabres, and divert away from their current gaffes, but a week after the indictment, if there is an indictment, we will have new comedy brought to our attention by the DNC.

  • Credit Reporting Agencies…

    Credit reporting agencies maintain electronic records of your credit activities. Today, there are three major national credit bureaus: Equifax, Experian and Trans Union. If you are planning on applying for a loan or credit anytime in the near future, i…

Leave a Reply

 

 

 

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>