Rove Indictment Rumor Update
The MinuteMan spotlights the moving goalpost game taking place since Saturday’s ‘scoop’ by Jason Leopold that Rove had been (not might be, will be, but had been) indicted by Patrick Fitzgerald’s grand jury.
Marc Ash of truthout, the leftie forum/’news’ site that published the Leopold story, says the story has been confirmed by the MSM (you’ll pardon me if I find that less than ironclad proof – isn’t that right, Mr. Rather?):
I spoke personally yesterday with both Rove’s spokesman Mark Corallo and Rove’s attorney Robert Luskin. Both men categorically denied all key points of our recent reporting on this issue. Both said, “Rove is not a target,” “Rove did not inform the White House late last week that he would be indicted,” and “Rove has not been indicted.” Further, both Corallo and Luskin denied Leopold’s account of events at the offices of Patton Boggs, the law firm that represents Karl Rove. They specifically stated again that no such meeting ever occurred, that Fitzgerald was not there, that Rove was not there, and that a major meeting did not take place. Both men were unequivocal on that point.
We can now report, however, that we have additional, independent sources that refute those denials by Corallo and Luskin…We have been contacted by at least three reporters from mainstream media – network level organizations – who shared with us off-the-record confirmation and moral support. When we asked why they were not going public with this information, in each case they expressed frustration with superiors who would not allow it.
…The events at the office building that houses the law firm of Patton Boggs were not in fact a very well-guarded secret. Despite denials by Corallo and Luskin, there was intense activity at the office building. In fact, the building was staked out by at least two major network news crews. Further, although Corallo and Luskin are not prepared to talk about what happened in the offices of Patton Boggs, others emerging from the building were, both on background and off-the-record. There were a lot of talkers, and they confirmed our accounts. We do have more information, but want additional confirmation before going public with it.
We reported that Patrick Fitzgerald had, “instructed one of the attorneys to tell Rove that he has 24 business hours to get his affairs in order….” That does not mean that at the end of that 24-hour period, Fitzgerald is obliged to hold a press conference and make an announcement. It just means that he has given Rove a 24-hour formal notification. Fitzgerald is not obliged to make an announcement at any point; he does so at his own discretion, and not if it compromises his case. So we’re all stuck waiting here.
Make your own mind up about how credible any of this is – but I do tend to think Rove will probably be indicted now. Why?
(1) Stories like this, no matter how thinly sourced, give a little weight.
(2) The opinion of the MinuteMan, Tom Maguire, who has covered PlameGate better than anyone, blogger or MSM reporter, and who says there is a 70% chance Rove will be indicted this Friday or this coming Wednesday.
(3) The removal of part of Rove’s portfolio by the new Chief of Staff.
(4) The fifth grand jury appearance.
(5) Anecdotal evidence of a distracted Rove who has lost a lot of weight (a sure sign of stress, by my own experience – I was the skinniest when I was the most miserable).
Individually, none of these items are conclusive – come to think of it, they’re not conclusive collectively, either.
However, mark me down as one who has officially turned the corner – in the parlor game of guessing Rove’s fate, put my odds at 27-23 in favor of indictment (I should note that I’ll happily eat a whole pile of crow if I’m wrong)…

No fed pros. gives someone “24 hours notice” to get affairs in order.
An indictment is returned as a public document — filed in the courthouse for all eyes to see — unless its filed under seal.
Indictments are only filed under seal if 1) the investigation is continuing and public disclosure would compromise the work remaining, or 2) the defendant is a risk to flee, and a warrant is being issued which will lead to him being arrested rather than “summoned” into court.
I guarantee you Rove will be “summoned” if indicted, so there is no need to seal the indictment for that purpose.
As to the first reason, the investigation is no secret, and the indictment of Libby wasn’t sealed to protect the continuing investigation of Rove.
These reporters don’t have a clue what they are talking about.
I do.
Professional experience.
If Rove is indicted on the same or similar charges as Libby am I allowed to yawn and say “whatevah”? Do I then get to ask how much Fitzgerald has spent investigating a crime that he ultimately determined did not happen? Can I question whether such a political witch hunt is a good use of public “resources”?
Bill, thanks for the comments…that makes me me feel a little better…as I said in the post, I would oh-so-gladly be wrong on this. too many steves, I’ll be right there with you asking those questions…
The whole “where there’s smoke there’s fire” theory makes me think something might be up too, but I find it interesting that supposedly Rove’s spokesman and lawyer have said he’s not a target. Usually you expect something ambiguous, like the other two comments they supposedly made about not informing the White House and not being indicted last week. Saying he’s not a target seems pretty clear to me, unless there’s some mysterious legal finagling going on over the definition of a “target,” which could very well be the case.
The really odd thing here is reporters speaking on background, anonymously, to pump the blog. If this is all a load ultimately, will truthout blow their cover? That is supposed to be the appropriate journalistic course, no? Can “superiors” mean anything other than editors? Would any MSM editor NOT go with a Rove indictment story if it were soundly sourced? Maybe, truthouters, this is wishful thinking and puffery. Hmm. Well, a “we shall see” attitude has served the Bushies well on this matter. Let’s see those charges, if any. I notice the old core of the Plame controversy, the question of her status and therefore the applicability of the criminalizing statute is a) still not definitively answered even with a Libby indictment and b) not bruited about by anyone with a fiduciary interest here, especially Fitz. If any Rove charges are merely Libbyesque “perjury”… well, Fitzmas will be a bit dissappointing this year.
[...] at 10:37 pm and is filed under PlameGate. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently notallowed. [...]