Rove could be charged next week, Fitz met with GJ for several hours Friday

according to Jason Leopold.

http://www.counterpunch.org/leopold12172005.html

<snip>
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald met with the grand jury investigating the leak of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson for several hours Friday. Short of a last minute intervention by Rove's attorney, Fitzgerald is expected to ask a grand jury-possibly as soon as next week--to indict Rove for making false statements to the FBI and Justice Department investigators in October 2003, lawyers close to the case say.
<snip>

I had convinced myself it wasn't actually going to happen, since Chris Matthews described Rove as "suspiciously jolly" at the White House Christmas Party...

is they are all about the PR. So just because Rove was all jolly at the party doesn't mean anything quite honestly. It's all face value. And I don't trust Matthews either since he went to Boehemian Grove in 2004.

all PR stunts

... and worshipped the big owl with all the rightwingers, they're a lost cause.

is Rove had to much eggnog and Matthews was over-stuffed on the 'shit sandwiches'

.....these guys NEVER tell the truth about anything!!

Even if he were jolly, that is no guarantee that nothing will happen.

He's not reliable.

The report is accurate.

Do YOU know any more than what he reported? Do you think Luskin will throw another wrench into this?

Since his first ploy re. the Novak disclosure to him seems to have been largely irrelevant?

I think it is perhaps more likely that he has a pathological liar for a client. I'm not a fan of Luskin, however, and would not put it past him to have been loose with the truth.

Luskin does the lawyer's job and keeps trying to stretch plausibility to encompass the massive mess of mendacity.

Luskin is a high priced lawyer, which means he knows the tricks from the highly sophisticated to the cheap and dirty. Everyday his client is on the job at the WH is a victory.

Everyday brings closer the block-grant pardon to all WH staff at the end of Bush's term closer.

so Fitz could cancel the GJ meeting on Wednesday. he wants to delay Rove's impending doom.

Luskin's efforts put a temporary delay in a process that is going forward now. The delay is, in the big picture, not that significant. My understanding is that the only question is if Rove will make a deal, which would include him making a plea to one charge, or if he will continue to reject the deal because like Libby, he wants to get away without legal consequence?

I think the case will catch the public attention over the holiday season.

Which explains why he hasn't been indicted, yet. Same for Wurmser and Hannah. If I'm reading between the lines right, Fitz has had the goods on both Bush and Cheney for quite a while now, but will indict underlings until he has a whole chorus singing against the bigs.

Fitzgerald has a significant amount of information on Hannah and Wurmser. I do not believe that a deal has been agreed upon with Rove, and am unaware of any claims that such a deal has been made. It is likely that the case against VP Cheney could be best made with Libby's cooperation. I've yet to see anything that implicates Bush in any way.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5609223
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Editors_Note_Examining_Raw_Storys_leak_1215.html
To me, the following strongly implies Wurmser and Hannah rolled and made a deal. You don't read it that way?

Confirmed reports

We reported Oct. 18 and Oct. 19 that Cheney advisers John Hannah and David Wurmser had a role in disseminating information about undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson. Days later, the New York Daily News reported that "Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, meanwhile, is combing over testimony by John Hannah and David Wurmser, national security aides to Vice President Cheney who sources questioned under oath say may be the key to the probe." The New York Times also listed Hannah, mysteriously, at the end of one of their leak articles, saying that he had been interviewed in the case. In 2004, United Press International, citing FBI sources, reported that Hannah was a target in the case and that he was suspected of being a leaker.

Similarly, I read the next extract to imply that Rover has already made a deal with the prosecution, or is close to it.

We reported that Rove was facing likely indictment. This was confirmed by the Washington Post, the New York Times and various other news outlets. Rove was facing indictment, but Fitzgerald opted not to indict him after a last-minute move by Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin. We reported that Luskin was offered a plea deal on Tuesday by Fitzgerald, which was also confirmed.

SNIP

Unconfirmed reports

SNIP

We reported that two other officials faced indictment other than Rove or Libby which did not transpire. It remains unclear, however, if these officials made late deals with Fitzgerald, as Rove did.

What's that deal Rover made with Fitz, I wonder?



http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Editors_Note_Examining_Raw_Storys_leak_1215.html

indicates that Hannah and Wurmser are cooperating with Fitzgerald. I think that the author is aware that Fitzgerald has discussed a deal with Rove. I do not think there is any evidence indicating the two sides have reached agreement. I can't speak for that source, of course, but I think that what saved Rove from indictment in October was Luskin's actions regarding V. Novak and some related information that he said tended to show Rove made an honest error. Fitzgerald had not deposed Novak, and hence the delay. I do not read that to mean that Rove made a deal to resolve legal charges. Of course, I could be wrong, but it would seem remarkably unlikely that there would be further grand jury activity relating to Karl.

This will be worth a lifted eggnog or two.

a wasailing we shall go...

He fabricates, unless he's rehabilitated himself of late.

He's made this whole thing up.

I worked as Jason's editor on several stories this summer, and he's a reliable reporter these days.

articles he's written. I'm interested to see some basis for what some anon posters allege about this guy. So far it's just hit and run posts that he's not reliable but the posters provide no evidence to support their allegations.

So far I've found this article which has links to other articles on the White story http://gnn.tv/articles/709/Media_Meltdown_The_Jason_Leopold_Saga

But from this it's not clear to me that Leopold is a proven "fabricator" of his articles. His detractors are such like the NYT, former Enron executives and Bush appointees. All pillars of integrity. /sarcasm. The NYT, who would go on to spend millions defending Miller and protecting her gov't source Libby, apparently blithely revealed Leopold's source in print. (No biggie I guess, Miller did the same for one of her own confidential sources in the pages of the NYT.) So much for the "sanctity" of confidential sources.

And as we now know, the NYT sat on the story that the Administration was illegally spying on American citizens for over a year. Wouldn't want something like that to come out in an election year. Just as Time and CBS similarly sat on stories in 2004 that would not reflect positively on Bush and the Administration. And CBS and Viacom enthusiastically bent over on the TANG story although the TANG docs provided by the White House and a secretary's comments actually supported their story. Then they held back their 60 Minutes story on the Niger yellowcake claims because they didn't want to influence the election. Say what? Supposedly CBS would run the Niger story after the election. As far as I know it never has. And as far as I know the Niger claims were thoroughly discredited by multiple sources by early 2002.

And it wouldn't be the first time publications have bailed or scapegoated their staff when the heat of a story was more than they were willing to take. San Jose Mercury, anyone?

So what else is there on Leopold? Enron execs weren't overcompensated? But this Senate subcomittee says they were: http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/07/07/senate.enron/index.html

I don't know Leopold but to the best of my recollection I recall his articles on the CA energy "crisis" were one of the few that had a clue on the matter.

On the Plame matter there are unnamed (and named) sources peddling information and disinformation so I'm a tad leery of reports, regardless of the author, until we know for sure. And given Fitz's practice, there's a lot of info he got we may never know about for certain unless it's part of an actual public court proceeding.

But anyway, for those who say Leopold is unreliable or a fabricator, please cite your evidence so we can see and judge for ourselves.

Give examples, please.

on the Plame scandal.

He's got a point of view, but then everyone does.

Nobody has that much self-derision, except maybe Richard Pryor circa 1995.

Doesn't ring true.

I have confidence in his reporting these days. Cheers

Leopold and saw the articles from the NRO and elsewhere lambasting Leopold (and also Krugman) on the White matter. The RW noise machine apparently was activated on that one. And others, apparently including Murray Waas, have jumped on board, seeming to assume facts apparently not really in evidence but running with them nonetheless.

This follows a pattern we should recognize by now. Smear and discredit the messenger rather than address the truth or falsity of the underlying facts of the matter itself.

I'm not defending Leopold, but so far it seems to me I see allegations of "fabrication" without actual evidence to substantiate it. I just tend to be suspicious when reporters who print crap that support the administration are lauded to the skies, no matter how shoddy their methods and inaccurate their stories, while others who have (or had) reputable jobs and reps are torn apart and have careers destroyed even when they had the essential goods but went against the powers that be in which corporate media also have a vested interest.

Why would you think that?

So not even touching the grand jury testimony and the "corrected testimony" defense?

That'd fit with Fitz's obsessive thoroughness... and that's still 5 years per count.

during the investigation. he will be charged for lying to the fbi for sure but he will probably also be charged for lying to the GJ.

first thing in January. Too many casual news consumers will completely miss te story if it drops next week, during holiday shopping time.

as long as it's at least one week before election day in Nov. 2006.

care less about the "news" and whether or not people hear of it. He's a real prosecutor who cares about right and wrong with the law. If he's going to indict someone he will whether or not someone talks about it or not. That's what I've come to learn about Fitzgerald.

Go Fitz!!

:bounce:

LOL

;)

Love this paragraph...
Rove's alleged failure to disclose his conversations with Cooper and Novak and the fact that he didn't turn over the Hadley email on two separate occasions is the reason he's been in Fitzgerald's crosshairs and may end up being indicted, people close to the investigation said.

Love this paragrah too
It may also explain why Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, has reportedly testified that he had a conversation with one of Cooper's Time magazine colleagues, Viveca Novak, in February 2004. Luskin maintains that he and Novak met in February of 2004 over drinks in Washington, D.C. and Novak tipped him off that she heard Rove was Cooper's source.
"What Luskin is doing is trying to say that he found the email after his conversation with Ms. Novak but before the White House turned over evidence of administration contacts with journalists," one attorney close to the case said. "He understands that it would be quite difficult to explain to the prosecutor how this email miraculously turned up in either March or May but not in January or February. That's why it appears he is stating that he spoke with Ms. Novak in February."

Luskin is really stretching and spinning and had to come up with some defense... but it really looks bad for Rove... HEE HEE HEE!!!

In many ways Rove maybe in WORSE shape than Libby with the destroying of evidence charge...

Love it Love it Love it...

I was wondering why Luskin was maintaining that this conversation took place in January because it doesn't make sense that Luskin would admit something that would hurt his client.

But Viveca is saying that it took place in March/May with May being more likely. Luskin is really grasping at straws. I hope Fitzgerald won't hold off on indicting him this time if Luskin provides some more "last-minute info."

Can I just have this?

http://narcosphere.narconews.com/story/2005/12/17/181422/49


Judge in Scooter Libby, Sibel Edmonds cases is redacted in action
By Bill Conroy,
Posted on Sat Dec 17th, 2005 at 06:14:22 PM EST
What do two of the biggest national-security news stories of the century — the Valerie Plame leak scandal and the legal case of FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds — have in common?
They both are being presided over by the same federal judge in the District of Colombia, Reggie Walton, a Bush appointee to the federal court and a man who appears to have a few well-kept secrets of his own.

All federal judges are required under ethics rules to file what is known as “financial disclosure reports.”

The disclosure statement filed by Walton, which was obtained through the dogged efforts of a conservative watchdog group called Judicial Watch, is curious in what it does not reveal. Remember, this judge is arguably handling two of the most sensitive and potentially far-reaching challenges to the free press and the public’s right to know of our times.


In the Plamegate case, a top White House aid, Scooter Libby, has already been indicted and additional indictments may be forthcoming (Karl Rove?). In addition, a bevy of insider journalists in the media-center establishment have been subpoenaed to testify in the case, and one, New York Times reporter Judith Miller, has already done jail time for her initial refusal to identify her sources on the story.
Edmonds was fired from her job as an FBI translator after blowing the whistle on alleged espionage being carried out by a fellow FBI employee. She was prevented from pursuing a whistleblower retaliation lawsuit filed in 2002 (based on alleged violations of her civil rights) because of the state-secrets privilege claim, a claim upheld by Judge Walton. That claim essentially shut down her ability to present evidence in the case under the smokescreen that it would jeopardize national security.

An appeal in the Edmonds case was recently rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court. She now has a separate case pending in federal court in Washington, D.C. Ironically, in both cases, Judge Walton was randomly assigned to hear her complaints at the District Court level. Walton also has randomly been assigned to hear the Plamegate case involving Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff.

So given the high-stakes poker being played in both these cases, one civil and one criminal, why has no one in the establishment press bothered to ask what is contained in Judge Walton’s financial disclosure statement? After all, his investments and financial backers would be of keen interest in gauging his ability to hear these cases in an unbiased manner, right?

We already know that Walton has been a Bush-team insider for years. He grew up on the hardscrabble side of life in a steel town in Pennsylvania, and by his own admission was arrested three times as a teenager and even witnessed a stabbing while participating in a street fight. After beating the odds and making it through law school, he rose quickly in the Washington legal establishment, earning an appointment from former President Reagan to a District of Colombia Superior Court judgeship. He was later taken under the wing of the self-styled man of virtue William Bennett, serving as a top gun in the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy during Bennett’s tenure there. Then, in 2001, current President Bush appointed him as a federal judge in the District of Columbia.

So it would be natural to suppose that Walton has some loyalty to the Bush administration, but that alone is not proof of bias with respect to the Edmonds and Valerie Plame-related cases.

Still, Edmonds points out that the way Walton landed on her original whistleblower-related case (the one the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear), as well her currently pending case, does seem a bit more than a cosmic coincidence.

“Walton was the original judge on my case (the Supreme Court case), when we filed our case (in District Court in Washington, D.C.) in July 2002,” Edmonds says. “Another judge was assigned to it, then, mysteriously and with no reason, it was transferred to another judge, and then again, a few weeks later, it was transferred to Walton.

“Walton is now assigned to my (new) case, … another random one.”

So Judge Walton seems to be in a critical role in serving as the point man in the federal judicial system for two explosive cases — the Edmonds civil case and Libby’s criminal case — both of which have vast implications for the White House and for the country in general.

So shouldn’t we know who’s buttering Walton’s bread in terms of financial backing? Why have ethics rules mandating such disclosures, if the information is not disclosed in cases, such as these, where the stakes are so high?

Well, it seems, at least according to the only document that Judicial Watch could shake loose in its public-records quest, that Walton doesn’t think so. His financial disclosure statement, the one released for public inspection through Judicial Watch, is completely redacted, every line of it.

Take a look here for yourself.

Now, ask yourself, why would that be, and what might lurk in the shadows of Judge Walton’s fiscal closet? If there nothing to hide, then there is nothing to lose by shedding some light on the retractions, is there?

But let’s not jump to conclusions. It’s probably all fine -- just a safety precaution, as the following excerpt from a 2004 Government Accountability Office report explains:


"The Ethics in Government Act requires judges and other federal officials to file financial disclosure reports as a check on conflicts of interest. However, given potential security risks to federal judges, Congress authorized redactions of information that could endanger them. This redaction authority is set to expire at the end of 2005."
That has to be why the big boys in the media have ignored this issue to date, right? After all, there are some things that take precedence over national security and the outing of covert CIA operatives.

If not, and these redactions do not, in reality, protect Judge Walton's security, but rather only his dignity, then we have to wonder why our fearless media leaders have been content to graze on other appetizers.

But not to fear, I'm sure if there is cause for alarm, we'll hear the media-pundit elephants charging through the fields toward this alfalfa patch soon.

In the mean time, let’s keep this whole messy topic between you and me, for now. We wouldn’t want to stir up any disharmony inside the Washington press-corps insiders’ circuit. They’ve got future cocktail parties to attend….

Judge in Scooter Libby, Sibel Edmonds cases is redacted

When you couple THREE supposedly random selections that are very conveniently for the most important cases in getting to this president, something really smells wrong. I could perhaps accept that perhaps chance allowed him to be assigned two of them, but THREE of them? Vegas would be having fits with those odds!

One thing to note though. If what Ann Beeson said to the ACLU folks on CSPAN's 9/26 supreme court preview broadcast holds weight, it would be harder for Walton to dismiss Libby's case for "states secrets" privilege reasons, since it is a criminal case and not a civil case like Sibel's cases were. There are other laws that were created since the states secret privilege was put in place that were enacted since then to help protect TRUELY sensitive information that might come up in Libby's case that apply to criminal cases. Sibel's case being a civil one, made it difficult in her appeal to say that these other laws should be used instead. What was unusual about Sibel's case (and other recent cases like Maher Arar's) was that the states secret privilege was used to dismiss the whole case before it was heard, and not for specific pieces of evidence (like it had been used in the past). In the past, even if cases were made more difficult by not having certain evidence pieces allowed in them, plaintiffs were still allowed to have their basic case heard in court, unlike how Sibel was unconstitutionally disallowed to do so.

Hope it happens - fast!