Plamegate Indictments

[Fusioner]

news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20051006/cm_huffpost/008447



Lawrence O'Donnell: Plamegate: The Next Step

This sounds like it's going to be good folks... Plamegate may earn it's own thread...

If Karl Rove's lawyer, Bob Luskin, is still as easy to read as he has been since I broke the story that his client was Matt Cooper's source, then we now know that Rove has received a target letter from Patrick Fitzgerald. How do we know it? Luskin refuses to deny it.

Fitzgerald does not have to send Rove or anyone else a target letter before indicting him. The only reason to send target letters now is that Fitzgerald believes one or more of his targets will flip and become a prosecution witness at the pre-indictment stage. A veteran prosecutor told me, "If Fitzgerald is sending target letters at the end of his investigation, those are just invitations to come in and work out a deal."

Prosecutors prefer pre-indictment plea bargaining to post-indictment because they have more to offer you, like not being indicted at all or downgrading your status to unindicted co-conspirator. And pre-indictment plea bargaining can greatly enrich the indictments that the prosecutor then obtains. If, for example, Fitzgerald has a weak case against, say, Scooter Libby, imagine how much Rove's cooperation might strengthen that case.

If no one RSVPs to Fitzgerald's invitations, look for indictments as early as next week. If anyone does sit down with Fitzgerald, he will probably have to move to extend the grand jury, which now has only thirteen working days left in its term.

Prediction: at least three high level Bush Administration personnel indicted and possibly one or more very high level unindicted co-conspirators.

Wow!!! That's quite a (much needed) shakeup!!! And there's more hot off the wires....

[Fusioner]

www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-odonnell/update-plamegate-the-ne_b_8457.html

UPDATE: Plamegate: the Next Step

This just in from the AP: news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20051006/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak_rove_2

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.

What this means is Rove's lawyer, Bob Luskin, believes his client is defintely going to be indicted.

So, Luskin is sending Rove back into the grand jury to try to get around the prosecutor and sell his innocence directly to the grand jurors. Legal defense work doesn't get more desperate than this. The prosecutor is happy to let Rove go under oath again--without his lawyer in the room--and try to wiggle out of the case. The prosecutor has every right to expect that Rove's final under-oath grilling will either add a count or two to the indictment or force Rove to flip and testify against someone else.

Also from the AP story, this Luskin quote:

"I can say categorically that Karl has not received a target letter from the special counsel. The special counsel has confirmed that he has not made any charging decisions in respect to Karl."

I love Luskin. I really do. He is the best legal curve ball pitcher in Washington. How is the AP reporter supposed to know that prosecutors do not have to send target letters to targets? Mafia lawyers are not sitting around waiting for target letters.

Fitzgerald could have told Luskin verbally that Rove is a target. And because Fitzgerald is not subpoening Rove to testify, he has no obligation to send him a target letter.

If Fitzgerald told Luskin that the grand jury was very likely to indict Rove, Luskin can very honestly say, "The special counsel has confirmed that he has not made any charging decisions in respect to Karl."

As usual, Luskin has said nothing that is inconsitent with Rove being indicted. But it usually takes the MSM a news cycle or two to figure that out.

[Fusioner]

hughesforamerica.typepad.com/hughes_for_america/2005/10/how_high_up_doe.html

Here's a snippet from George Stephanopoulos as quoted by Think Progress:

Definitely a political problem but I wonder, George Will, do you think it’s a manageable one for the White House especially if we don’t know whether Fitzgerald is going to write a report or have indictments but if he is able to show as a source close to this told me this week, that President Bush and Vice President Cheney were actually involved in some of these discussions.

[Fusioner]

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051007/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak_rove

Rove Said to Testify in CIA Leak Case

WASHINGTON - Presidential confidant Karl Rove will testify for a fourth time before the federal grand jury investigating the leak of a CIA officer's identity even though prosecutors have warned they can no longer guarantee he will escape indictment, lawyers said Thursday.

Rove's offer was accepted by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald in the last week as the grand jury's wraps up its work and decides whether Rove, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby or any other presidential aides should face criminal charges.

Rove's lawyer said Thursday that Fitzgerald has assured him that he has made no decisions yet on charges and that his client has not received a so-called target letter, usually the last step before a grand jury indictment.

"I can say categorically that Karl has not received a target letter from the special counsel," attorney Robert Luskin said. "The special counsel has confirmed that he has not made any charging decisions in respect to Karl."

Luskin said that Rove "continues to be cooperative voluntarily" with the investigation but that he could not further discuss his dealings with Fitzgerald's office.

However, several people directly familiar with the investigation told The Associated Press that Fitzgerald sent a letter accepting Rove's offer to testify but warning prosecutors could no longer guarantee the presidential aide wouldn't be indicted.

Rove offered in July to return to the grand jury, and Fitzgerald accepted that offer last Friday after taking grand jury testimony from the formerly jailed New York Times reporter Judith Miller, the people said, speaking only on condition of anonymity because of grand jury secrecy.

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

The prosecutor did not give Rove similar warnings before Rove's three earlier grand jury appearances.

Stephen Gillers, a New York University law professor, said that it was unusual for a witness to be called back to the grand jury four times and that the prosecutor's legally required warning to Rove before this next appearance is "an ominous sign" for the presidential adviser.

"It suggests Fitzgerald has learned new information that is tightening the noose," Gillers said. "It shows Fitzgerald now, perhaps after Miller's testimony, suspects Rove may be in some way implicated in the revelation of Plame's identity or that Fitzgerald is investigating various people for obstruction of justice, false statements or perjury. That is the menu of risk for Rove."

Leaking the identity of a covert agent can be a crime, but it must be done knowingly and the legal threshold for proving such a crime is high. Fitzgerald could also seek charges against anyone he thinks lied to investigators or tried to obstruct the case.

For almost two years, Fitzgerald has been investigating whether someone in the Bush administration leaked the identity of Valerie Plame as a CIA officer for political reasons. Dozens of government officials were interviewed and boxloads of documents collected.

Reporters, including Miller and Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper, have been called before a grand jury to testify about their conversations with Rove and Libby.

Miller served 85 days in jail for refusing to testify, then went before the grand jury last Friday after having a private conversation with Libby that she says freed her from her original promise to provide him confidentiality.

In a letter in September to Libby's lawyer, Fitzgerald wrote that he wanted to be sure Miller was not in jail because of a "misunderstanding."

"I had assumed that Mr. Libby had simply decided that encouraging Ms. Miller to testify was not in his best interest," Fitzgerald wrote.

Three days later, Libby wrote Miller, expressing surprise that her lawyers had recently asked him to repeat a waiver of confidentiality Libby had given Miller's lawyer more than a year earlier.

The leak investigation stems from a July 2003 syndicated column by Robert Novak identifying Plame as a CIA operative. Plame is married to former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, who says his wife's identity was disclosed to discredit his assertions that the Bush administration exaggerated Iraq's nuclear capabilities to build the case for war.

Rove, Bush's top adviser on political strategy and policy, has known the president for three decades. He worked for Bush as far back as 1978, when Bush unsuccessfully ran for Congress. Rove orchestrated Bush's campaigns for Texas governor and president, then brought his political skills into the White House.

A former federal prosecutor called the development "a classic example of what happens when there's a large political overlay to a criminal investigation."

"Each time you testify, there's an increasingly larger risk," said E. Lawrence Barcella Jr., a partner at the law firm of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker.

"In a normal criminal investigation, most defense lawyers are extremely cautious about their clients testifying even once before a grand jury and are generally loathe to let them testify more than once because of the false statement statute, the control that a prosecutor has over a grand jury and because the witness's lawyer cannot be in the grand jury room," Barcella said.



Photo Credit: nnytimes.org/karl_rove.htm

[Fusioner]

www.perrspectives.com/resources/documents.htm#plame

Document Archive ^

www.prospect.org/print-friendly/webfeatures/2004/03/waas-m-03-08.html

Good detailed background ^

[Fusioner]

www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-odonnell/the-one-very-good-reason-_b_3769.html

The One Very Good Reason Karl Rove Might Be Indicted

Two years ago, when I first read the federal law protecting the identities of covert agents, my reaction was the same as everyone else who reads it -- this is not an easy law to break. That’s what I said on Hardball then in my first public discussion of the outing of Valerie Plame, and that’s what I said on CNN the other night.

Let’s walk through the pieces that would have to fall into place for Karl Rove to have committed a crime when he revealed Plame’s identity to Matt Cooper.

First, and most obviously, Valerie Plame had to be a covert agent when Rove exposed her to Cooper. It’s not obvious that she was. The law has a specific definition of covert agent that she might not fit -- an overseas posting in the last five years, for example. But it’s hard to believe the prosecutor didn’t begin the grand jury session with a CIA witness certifying that Plame was a covert agent. If the prosecutor couldn’t establish that, why bother moving on to the next witness?

Second, Rove had to know she was a covert agent. Cooper’s article refers to Plame as “a CIA official.” Most CIA officials are not covert agents.

Third, Rove had to know that the CIA was taking “affirmative measures” to hide her identity. Doesn’t seem like the kind of thing a political operative would or should know.

Fourth, Rove had to be “authorized” to have classified information about covert agents or at least this one covert agent. Doesn’t seem like the kind of security clearance a political operative would or should have.

I’ll be surprised if all four of those elements of the crime line up perfectly for a Rove indictment. Surprised, not shocked. There is one very good reason to think they might. It is buried in one of the handful of federal court opinions that have come down in the last year ordering Matt Cooper and Judy Miller to testify or go to jail.

In February, Circuit Judge David Tatel joined his colleagues’ order to Cooper and Miller despite his own, very lonely finding that indeed there is a federal privilege for reporters that can shield them from being compelled to testify to grand juries and give up sources. He based his finding on Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which authorizes federal courts to develop new privileges “in the light of reason and experience.” Tatel actually found that reason and experience “support recognition of a privilege for reporters’ confidential sources.” But Tatel still ordered Cooper and Miller to testify because he found that the privilege had to give way to “the gravity of the suspected crime.”

Judge Tatel’s opinion has eight blank pages in the middle of it where he discusses the secret information the prosecutor has supplied only to the judges to convince them that the testimony he is demanding is worth sending reporters to jail to get. The gravity of the suspected crime is presumably very well developed in those redacted pages. Later, Tatel refers to “[h]aving carefully scrutinized [the prosecutor’s] voluminous classified filings.”

Some of us have theorized that the prosecutor may have given up the leak case in favor of a perjury case, but Tatel still refers to it simply as a case “which involves the alleged exposure of a covert agent.” Tatel wrote a 41-page opinion in which he seemed eager to make new law -- a federal reporters’ shield law -- but in the end, he couldn’t bring himself to do it in this particular case. In his final paragraph, he says he “might have” let Cooper and Miller off the hook “[w]ere the leak at issue in this case less harmful to national security.”

Tatel’s colleagues are at least as impressed with the prosecutor’s secret filings as he is. One simply said “Special Counsel’s showing decides the case.”

All the judges who have seen the prosecutor’s secret evidence firmly believe he is pursuing a very serious crime, and they have done everything they can to help him get an indictment.

[Fusioner]

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051007/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak_investigation

Legal Experts: Rove Testimony a Risky Move

WASHINGTON - Presidential aide Karl Rove's upcoming fourth appearance before a federal grand jury investigating the leak of a CIA officer's identity is a risky legal move because it opens him up to making statements that are inconsistent with what he previously has said, legal experts say.

Rove offered in July to return to the grand jury and Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald accepted last Friday, lawyers familiar with the investigation said Thursday, speaking only on condition of anonymity.

"In a normal criminal investigation, most defense lawyers are extremely cautious about their clients testifying even once before a grand jury and are generally loathe to let them testify more than once," said former federal prosecutor E. Lawrence Barcella Jr. "This is a classic example of what happens when there's a large political overlay to a criminal investigation."

At the same time, it may be risky for Rove not to testify, since Fitzgerald warned Rove that prosecutors can no longer guarantee he won't be indicted. The warning came in a letter accepting Rove's offer to testify one more time.

Stephen Gillers, a New York University law professor, said it was unusual for a witness to be called back to a grand jury four times and that the prosecutor's legally required warning to Rove before this next appearance is "an ominous sign" for the presidential adviser.

"It suggests Fitzgerald has learned new information that is tightening the noose," Gillers said.

After last week's appearance before the grand jury by New York Times reporter Judith Miller, Gillers said Fitzgerald may now suspect that Rove may in some way be implicated in the revelation of Valerie Plame's identity, or that he is investigating various people for obstruction of justice, false statements or perjury.

"That is the menu of risk for Rove," Gillers said.

Rove's lawyer said Thursday that Fitzgerald has assured him that he has made no decisions yet on charges and that Rove has not received a so-called target letter, usually the last step before a grand jury indictment.

Attorney Robert Luskin said Rove "continues to be cooperative voluntarily" with the investigation but that he could not further discuss his dealings with Fitzgerald's office.

While the outcome of the criminal investigation is uncertain for Rove, the legal status of another key figure, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, isn't publicly known.

Rove and Libby had conversations with reporters in July 2003 about the identity of Plame, a covert CIA officer, days after her husband, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, suggested the Bush administration had misrepresented prewar intelligence on Iraq.

Last Friday, reporter Miller testified about her conversations with Libby, while Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper testified in 2003 about a conversation with Libby and in July about a conversation with Rove. Miller's testimony came after she spent 85 days in jail for refusing to cooperate with Fitzgerald's probe.

Leaking the identity of a covert agent can be a crime, but it must be done knowingly and the legal threshold for proving such a crime is high. Fitzgerald could also seek charges against anyone he thinks lied to investigators or tried to obstruct the case.

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

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

For almost two years, Fitzgerald has been investigating whether someone in the Bush administration leaked Plame's identity for political reasons.


I always wondered why Ashcroft left after the first term. Ashcroft is so straight he cannot bend over or it would break the mop handle inside him. I bet both Ashcroft and the current Supreme Court nominee are both very much aware of all the inside scoop on this.

[Fusioner]

www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2005/10/07/rove_inquiry/index.html

Rove's nightmare

Oct. 7, 2005 | To understand why Karl Rove is believed to be in grave danger of indictment for his role in the Wilson leaks, let's return to the earliest days of the investigation. If Rove is found criminally liable for lying, then the falsehoods that led to his downfall may well have been uttered during the weeks when his old friend and client John Ashcroft was still in charge of the leaks probe -- and before the case was turned over to the special counsel, U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald.

During the autumn of 2003, after repeated requests from the CIA, Ashcroft finally exercised his duty as attorney general to investigate the disclosure of Valerie Plame Wilson's identity by administration officials to various journalists. Although the CIA first notified the Justice Department as early as July 30 of a potentially serious crime -- namely, a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act -- Justice didn't open an investigation until the end of September, after the CIA informed the department that it had completed its own review of the facts.

For three months, until Ashcroft decided to recuse himself, the investigation remained under his control, despite the well-founded suspicions of Rove's involvement. Ashcroft willfully ignored his own inherent conflict in overseeing a case that might lead to an indictment of Rove, who had assisted his political campaigns in Missouri and had directed the process that led to his appointment as attorney general. Only after repeated protests from Democrats in Congress, strong editorial comment on the unseemliness of Ashcroft's conduct, and polls showing public demand for an independent counsel did he finally recuse himself from the Wilson matter.

By then, however, the investigation had already begun, and Rove, among others in the White House, was already on record publicly denying any involvement in the leaks. Indeed, those denials by Rove himself and White House press secretary Scott McClellan returned to haunt them and the president earlier this year, following evidence provided by Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper about his July 2003 conversation with Rove concerning the Wilsons.

So now we know the truth about Rove's role -- or at least part of the truth -- and we know that he wasn't being honest back then. The question is what he may have told the FBI agents assigned to investigate the matter during those autumn weeks, before Ashcroft turned over the case to Fitzgerald in late December.

On Oct. 24, 2003, the Washington Post reported that Rove and McClellan, among dozens of others, had submitted to FBI interrogation about the leaks. Two months later, the Post quoted administration officials saying that Rove had been among the very first people to be interviewed by the FBI in pursuit of information about the case.

Back then, Rove might well have assumed that the case would be buried without any undue inconvenience to him. The president had publicly predicted, after all, that the perpetrators of the leak were unlikely to be identified. There was no reason, at the outset, to think that an independent-minded prosecutor would take over from Ashcroft a few months later.

If Rove told the FBI agents the same story that he and McClellan were telling the press, then he might have set himself up for a felony charge of lying to a federal law enforcement official. And if he lied, then he need not have been under oath to have committed a crime.

Another intriguing possibility in the leaks case brings back the baroque personality of right-wing pressroom denizen Jeff Gannon, born James Guckert.

The New York Times reported Friday that in addition to possible charges directly involving the revelation of Valerie Wilson's identity and related perjury or conspiracy charges, Fitzgerald is exploring other possible crimes. Specifically, according to the Times, the special counsel is seeking to determine whether anyone transmitted classified material or information to persons who were not cleared to receive it -- which could be a felony under the 1917 Espionage Act.

One such classified item might be the still-classified State Department document, written by an official of State's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, concerning the CIA's decision to send former ambassador Joseph Wilson to look into allegations that Iraq had tried to purchase uranium from Niger. Someone leaked that INR document -- which inaccurately indicated that Wilson's assignment was the result of lobbying within CIA by his wife, Valerie -- to right-wing media outlets, notably including Gannon's former employers at Talon News. On Oct. 28, 2003, Gannon posted an interview with Joseph Wilson on the Talon Web site, in which he posed the following question: "An internal government memo prepared by U.S. intelligence personnel details a meeting in early 2002 where your wife, a member of the agency for clandestine service working on Iraqi weapons issues, suggested that you could be sent to investigate the reports. Do you dispute that?"

Gannon later hinted, rather coyly, that he had learned about the INR memo from an article in the Wall Street Journal. He also told reporters last February that FBI agents working for Fitzgerald had questioned him about where he got the memo. At the very least, that can be interpreted as confirming today's Times report about the direction of the case.

All such speculation about criminal indictments must be tempered with caution. Nobody outside Fitzgerald's office can be certain what charges he is considering or whose fate he is mulling over. Even the highest-ranking figures in the Bush White House, which would deprive others of their constitutional rights and has already done so, deserve the presumption of innocence.

But certain persons in this government committed a serious offense against the national security of the United States to serve political partisan ends -- and they don't deserve to get away it.

[Fusioner]

www.nytimes.com/2005/10/07/politics/07leak.html
Prosecutor in Leak Inquiry Orders Rove to Return Again

WASHINGTON, Oct. 6 - The special prosecutor in the C.I.A. leak case has summoned Karl Rove, the senior White House adviser, to return next week to testify to a federal grand jury in a step that could mean charges will be filed in the case, lawyers in the case said Thursday.

The prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, has held discussions in recent days with lawyers for several administration officials suggesting that he is considering whether to charge them with a crime over the disclosure of an intelligence operative's identity in a 2003 newspaper column.

Mr. Fitzgerald is said by some of the lawyers to have indicated that he has not made up his mind about whether to accuse anyone of wrongdoing and will use the remaining days before the grand jury's term expires on Oct. 28 to decide.

Mr. Rove has appeared before the grand jury on three previous occasions.

Meanwhile, Mr. Fitzgerald has indicated that he is not entirely finished with Judith Miller, the reporter for The New York Times who recently testified before the grand jury after serving 85 days in jail. According to a lawyer familiar with the case, Mr. Fitzgerald has asked Ms. Miller to meet him next Tuesday to further discuss her conversations with I. Lewis Libby, the vice president's chief of staff.

Ms. Miller went to jail rather than divulge the identity of her source, but agreed to testify after Mr. Libby released her from a pledge of confidentiality.

Mr. Fitzgerald has not indicated whether he plans to summon Ms. Miller for further testimony before the grand jury.

Robert D. Luskin, a lawyer for Mr. Rove, said that Mr. Rove has not received a target letter, which are sometimes used by prosecutors to advise people that they are likely to be charged with a crime. Mr. Luskin said Thursday that "the special counsel has said that he has made no charging decision."

Mr. Fitzgerald's conversations with lawyers in recent days have cast a cloud over the inquiry, sweeping away the confidence once expressed by a number of officials and their lawyers who have said that he was unlikely to find any illegality.

In coming days, the lawyers said, Mr. Fitzgerald is likely to request that several other White House officials return to the grand jury to testify about their actions in the case - appearances that are believed to be pivotal as the prosecutor proceeds toward a charging decision.

Mr. Fitzgerald is also re-examining grand jury testimony by Mr. Libby, the lawyers said, but it is unknown whether he has been asked to appear again before the grand jury. Mr. Libby's lawyer, Joseph A. Tate, did not respond to telephone messages left on Thursday at his office.

Mr. Luskin said that he had offered to have Mr. Rove return to the grand jury if needed to clarify any questions that were raised by the testimony in July by Matthew Cooper, a reporter for Time magazine who was questioned about a conversation that he had with Mr. Rove in July 2003.

"Karl's consistent position is that he will cooperate any time, any place," Mr. Luskin said.

Mr. Rove has been caught up in the inquiry since the F.B.I. began investigating the matter in 2003. He has told investigators that he spoke with the columnist Robert D. Novak a few days after the operative's husband wrote an Op-Ed article for The Times, a lawyer in the case has said. In that conversation, Mr. Rove said that he learned the operative's name from the columnist and the circumstances in which her husband traveled to Africa.

But at the end of that conversation, Mr. Rove told Mr. Novak that he had already heard the outlines of the columnist's account.

The conversation with Mr. Novak took place several days before Mr. Rove spoke with a second reporter, Mr. Cooper. Mr. Cooper said later in an e-mail message to his editors that Mr. Rove had talked about the operative, although not by name.

In recent days, Mr. Rove has been less visible than usual at the White House, fueling speculation that he is distancing himself from Mr. Bush or has been sidelined. But according to a senior administration official, Mr. Rove and his wife are on a long-planned trip visiting colleges with their teenage son. Several lawyers who have been involved in the case expressed surprise and concern over the recent turn of events and are increasingly convinced that Mr. Fitzgerald could be poised to charge someone with a crime for discussing with journalists the identity of a C.I.A. officer.

The C.I.A operative was Valerie Wilson, also known by her maiden name, Valerie Plame. Her identity was first publicly disclosed in a July 14, 2003, newspaper column by Mr. Novak, which suggested that she had a role in arranging a 2002 trip to Africa by her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former ambassador. The purpose of the trip was to look into intelligence reports that Iraq had sought nuclear fuel from Niger.

Mr. Novak's column was published a week after Mr. Wilson wrote an Op-Ed article in The Times on July 6, 2003, discussing his trip. Mr. Wilson wrote that he traveled to Africa at the request of the C.I.A. after the office of Vice President Dick Cheney had raised questions about the possible uranium sales. Mr. Wilson wrote that he concluded that it was "highly doubtful" that Iraq had tried to buy nuclear material from Niger.

Mr. Fitzgerald has focused on whether there was a deliberate effort to retaliate against Mr. Wilson for his column and its criticism of the Bush administration's Iraq policy. Recently lawyers said that they believed the prosecutor may be applying new legal theories to bring charges in the case.

One new approach appears to involve the possible use of Chapter 37 of the federal espionage and censorship law, which makes it a crime for anyone who "willfully communicates, delivers, transfers or causes to be communicated" to someone "not entitled to receive it" classified information relating the national defense matters.

Under this broad statute, a government official or a private citizen who passed classified information to anyone else in or outside the government could potentially be charged with a felony, if they transferred the information to someone without a security clearance to receive it.

The lawyers who discussed the investigation declined to be identified by name citing the ongoing nature of the inquiry and Mr. Fitzgerald's requests not to talk about it.

Bill Keller, the executive editor of The Times, said Ms. Miller had been cautioned by her lawyers not to discuss the substance of her grand jury testimony until Mr. Fitzgerald finished questioning her.

"We have launched a vigorous reporting effort that I hope will answer outstanding questions about Judy's part in this drama," Mr. Keller said. "This development may slow things down a little, but we owe our readers as full a story as we can tell, as soon as we can tell it."

In one version, Rove offers to come back for yet another appearance (he is such a nice honorable guy and loves to spend time chatting with Grand Jurors..) In the other version he is ordered to appear... He has already been interviewed by the FBI, and trust me he is under supoena to testify... I don't see any expose by Rove as being voluntary... Why that would be a breech of trust the President has in him!!! (Right?)

[Fusioner]

news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051007/pl_nm/bush_leak_dc

Breaking News

Reporter turns over notes in CIA leak case

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A New York Times reporter has given investigators notes from a conversation she had with a top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney weeks earlier than was previously known, suggesting White House involvement started well before the outing of a CIA operative, legal sources said.

Times reporter Judith Miller discovered the notes -- about a June 2003 conversation she had with Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby -- after her testimony before the grand jury last week, the sources said on Friday. She turned the notes over to federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald and is expected to meet him again next Tuesday, the sources said.

Miller's notes could help Fitzgerald establish that Libby had started talking to reporters about CIA operative Valerie Plame and her diplomat husband, Joseph Wilson, weeks before Wilson publicly criticized the administration's Iraq policy in a Times opinion piece, the sources said.

Wilson asserts that administration officials leaked his wife's identity, which damaged her ability to work undercover, to discredit him for criticizing President George W. Bush's Iraq policy in 2003, after a CIA-funded trip to investigate whether Niger helped supply nuclear materials to Baghdad.

One source involved in the investigation said Miller's notes could help Fitzgerald show a long-running and orchestrated campaign to discredit Wilson, which could help form the basis for a conspiracy charge.

Fitzgerald has yet to indicate whether or not he intends to bring indictments, but lawyers close to the investigation said there were signs he may be moving in that direction.

Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, plans to make a fourth appearance before the grand jury next week and prosecutors have told him they can make no guarantees he won't be indicted.

The outcome could shake up an administration reeling from criticism over its response to Hurricane Katrina and the indictment of House of Representatives Republican leader Tom DeLay of Texas on charges related to campaign financing.

The White House had long maintained Rove and Libby had nothing to do with the leak, but reporters have since named them as sources.

It can be a crime to knowingly reveal the identity of an undercover CIA operative.

NEWLY-DISCOVERED NOTES

Last Friday, after spending 85 days in jail, Miller testified before the grand jury about two conversations she had with Libby in July 2003 and turned over redacted notes.

She testified about a meeting with Libby on July 8, 2003 at the St. Regis Hotel and a later conversation by telephone on July 12, 2003, sources said.

But after she testified, Miller discovered that she had additional notes from the June 2003 conversation with Libby.

That was well before Wilson on July 6, 2003 published an opinion piece in The New York Times accusing the White House of twisting intelligence on Iraq, but after reports of his mission had begun to surface.

A column by Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times on May 6, 2003 may have been the trigger for the interest by Cheney's office, the sources said.

Kristof's column contained the first public mention of Wilson's mission in Niger, though Wilson was not identified by name. It also mentioned for the first time the alleged role of Cheney's office in seeking an investigation of the uranium deal, prompting the CIA to dispatch Wilson.

Top Cheney aides were eager to dispel Wilson's assertion that he was sent to Niger at the urging of the vice president, sources involved in the case said.

[Fusioner]

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9616041/

Karl Rove bombshell

Bombshell blondes smell (nice)... We knew Rove was against the ropes

Hardball panel weighs in on latest scandal rocking Washington

Chris Matthews delves into possible grounds for indictments... Look, this was a team effort, anybody without a soft mellon in their head would know the entire crew up there at White House is dirty in this. This is the reason Bush is so strict on confidence, the only leaks from this adminstration is material stolen (frequently) or planted with malice intent and forethought... These guys give nothing away for free... Especially Karl Rove.

They have been lying throughout this investigation, even before it was an investigation... The only thing that drags the truth out of these SOBs is when you shove something large and painful into the lower ends, and then, slowly, as the pain is delivered... They either clarify their lies, or switch to "No comment".

Rove has a HUGE ego... He made a President... He likes to talk, he likes to be powerful, he likes to be in control. He would be president himself, but hey he's not a popular guy... But he plays to himself.

I think he got cute, figured his political swing, and John Ashcroft, would keep him clear of jail... And he lied his ass off (his attorney goose steps right with him)... I hope the Grand Jury can see thru this.

This crew needs to go down with the ship. Strap em on as protective armor to the soft skinned HumVees they sent to Iraq and send the units out on road patrols to clear IEDs. Rove is fat enough to prevent scratches to the paintwork, even if you have to hose the vehicles downs afterwards.

[Fusioner]

www.huffingtonpost.com/jason-leopold/karl-rove-lied-to-the-fbi_b_8524.html

Karl Rove Lied to the FBI

Rove is being called a liar in public... And the White House political machine is silent... Silent... Dead Silent.

Bush is no longer a lame duck President... He is a dead silent ducking President... So is his polical machine.

Silence is golden sometimes.

[Fusioner]

thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2005/10/sweet_judy_blew.html

Sweet Judy Blew Lies

By now you've all heard that Judy discovered some forgotten notes from June 2003. It seems she and Fitzgerald are going to have a lot to talk about the next time they get together.

news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051009/wl_mideast_afp/ussyriairaqstrikes

US weighed military strikes in Syria

What's this doing here? US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is trying to save some shreds from the White House going down in indictments??? A "statement" that she saw some light perhaps and was the only person to excercise some restraint?

[Fusioner]

White House Involved in 5 Alarm Fire

AP Washington DC Oct 11, 2005

Washington DC firechief Patrick Fitzgerald tells AP reporters that a major 5 alarm fire broke out in the White House this afternoon.

"It appears to have started when the senior staff began laughing and playing with a Plamethrower and things got way out of hand... Several people have immolated themselves in the conflagration." Fitzgerald said.

Water Gate Problems

"We have several units in place at this time and we are battling a major out of control fire presently. Unfortunately, the gates that hold water for the fire systems in the White House have failed, making it a difficult situation. This means our crews have had a very hard time in developing the required pressure to fight the fire, while at the same time making progress towards the core of this fire difficult, I think the White House is a complete loss."

Seen from the street, flames were roaring out of control from nearly every window in the entire structure. The West Wing appeared to be completely destroyed as the roof caved in a massive shower of flames and sparks that rose several hundred feet into the air. White House staff were seen leaping to their deaths from second story offices, their clothes and hair on fire. People were seen running as far away as the Capitol building where republicans were wetting down towels and covering their heads while saying "Fire? What Fire? There's no fire!!! It's the liberal media making that smoke."

"I just hope they were not hiding explosives or weapons of mass destruction inside, it could make the situation perilous for our crews as they move closer to the center of this fire." Fitzpatrick said... As he spoke, an enormous explosion rocked the neighborhood.

Asked about the President, Fitzgerald said "The President and his loyal followers have encased themselves in an isolation bubble... They may be dimly aware there is a fire. The President will probably be seriously scorched if we can't get to the structural core of this fire quickly, but he will have to evacuate eventually and find a new place to live as a refugee."

A fire fighter interviewed on the scene said two bodies were found near the entrance to the structure that are thought to be Karl Rove and "Scooter" Libby, both corpses were holding Plamethrowers and they were burned beyond recognition. Morgue crews moving in to collect the bodies have said they will wait for forensic identification before notifying the next of kin.

"It is a national tragedy to see such a venerable and historic building destroyed like this," Fitzgerald said, "but all we can do is beat the flames back as best we can and try to save innocent lives... If we can find any."

One of the campaign promises Bush made on the trail to the White House was that nobody was going to be allowed to play with matches in the building. It it well known that the White House is a fire hazard... The lessions of the previous tennants and prior problems with the water gates should have been recognized by the occupants.

On the Net:

news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051011/pl_nm/bush_leak_dc

nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2005/1011nj1.htm

[Fusioner]

news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20051011/pl_usatoday/investigatorofcialeakseenasrelentless

Investigator of CIA leak seen as relentless

When defense attorney Ron Safer heard that Patrick Fitzgerald would lead an inquiry into the leak of a CIA operative's name, his first thought was that, from the Bush administration's perspective, "they could not have picked a worse person."

Safer, a Chicago lawyer who has watched Fitzgerald since he was named U.S. attorney there in 2001, says the prosecutor "will bring to this the same energy and aggression that he does to every other project he undertakes."

Fitzgerald's official biography says he was named special counsel in December 2003 to investigate "the alleged disclosure of the identity of a purported employee of the Central Intelligence Agency."

That bland description understates the drama and stakes of the investigation. New York Times reporter Judith Miller was jailed for refusing to testify. The inquiry led to interviews of President Bush and Vice President Cheney and to grand jury subpoenas for White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove, Cheney's chief of staff I. Lewis Libby and at least a dozen other officials.

Fitzgerald is to meet with Miller today to discuss newly discovered notes on her conversations with Libby. Rove will testify this week before the grand jury for a fourth time.

Fitzgerald wants to know who leaked the identity of Valerie Plame to reporters. Her husband, former diplomat Joseph Wilson, says her cover was blown in retaliation for an op-ed article he wrote in 2003 that accused Bush of "twisting" intelligence to justify the Iraq war.

Perspectives

The inquiry has roiled Washington for months, and tensions are rising because Fitzgerald's grand jury expires Oct. 28. But the man in charge is not a Beltway celebrity. He doesn't hold news conferences in Washington or appear on TV. Friends say he's brilliant and apolitical. Defense lawyers say he can be cold and sometimes surprises them by boldly challenging judges.

Friends and critics agree that his integrity is unassailable and that he is relentless. The list of people he has prosecuted - including al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, former Illinois governor George Ryan and New York mobsters - shows he has no qualms about going after the powerful.

Fitzgerald's politics, motivations and style have prompted debate.

"He has no agenda," says David Kelley, former U.S. attorney in New York and a longtime friend. "He looks at the facts, uncovers the facts and goes where the facts lead him."

Mary Jo White, who was Fitzgerald's boss when she was U.S. attorney in Manhattan, says she knows nothing about his political views - "if he has any, and he may not."

Fitzgerald, who declined interview requests, is registered to vote with no party affiliation.

Defense lawyers have a different perspective. Scott Mendeloff, a Chicago lawyer who specializes in corporate fraud cases and formerly tried and supervised public corruption prosecutions in the U.S. attorney's office, says Fitzgerald demonstrates "a more black-and-white view of the world" that is "reductionist in disregarding nuances beyond what it will take to prevail." Some defense lawyers, he says, believe Fitzgerald is "not prone to consider what some would term humane factors in charging and sentencing decisions."

"To say that he is extremely aggressive is, I think, a gross understatement," Safer says. When he's arguing a motion, Safer says, Fitzgerald is "not disrespectful, but he's a lot less deferential than I bet most judges are accustomed to."

History

Fitzgerald, 44, was born in Brooklyn. His Irish immigrant father, Patrick Sr., worked as a doorman at a building in Manhattan's Upper East Side. Fitzgerald went to Regis High School, a Jesuit preparatory school, then worked on its maintenance crew to pay his way through Amherst College. He majored in math and economics, then went to Harvard Law School.

He worked in a New York law firm before joining the U.S. attorney's office in Manhattan in 1988. He stayed for 13 years, convicting Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and indicting bin Laden in a conspiracy that included the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa.

In Chicago, Fitzgerald has indicted two aides to Mayor Richard Daley on mail-fraud charges after an investigation into bribery and hiring abuses. Ryan is on trial on charges of racketeering conspiracy, mail and tax fraud and false statements during his terms as governor and Illinois secretary of State.

Dick Simpson, a former Chicago alderman who teaches political science at the University of Illinois-Chicago, says Fitzgerald is "almost universally admired ... for telling the truth and prosecuting these cases." He isn't suspected of political motives, Simpson says, because he came to Chicago with no ties to its top politicians and keeps a low profile. "He's doesn't do lunches at the important clubs or make rah-rah speeches," Simpson says.

Even lawyers who question Fitzgerald's tactics say they don't doubt his character. "Pat is driven by iron-tight integrity and a tireless work ethic," Mendeloff says.

Safer, who also once worked in the U.S. attorney's office, faults Fitzgerald for "trying to expand the reach of the mail fraud statutes in ways that are unprecedented" in his government corruption cases. Some errors by politicians, Safer says, "are punishable at the ballot box and not in criminal court." He says Fitzgerald "is impervious to political pressure. ... I've seen no evidence that he has anything but the purest motives."

White says it's unfair to suggest that Fitzgerald is too aggressive. "He's going to pursue matters ... with dedication and thoroughness," she says, "but overzealous? Certainly not."

Miguel Estrada, who worked with Fitzgerald in New York and represents Time reporter Matthew Cooper in the leak inquiry, says Fitzgerald, who is single and a workaholic, is "the picture of what the public would think is an earnest prosecutor. He's a boy scout."

Chuck Rosenberg, a Fitzgerald friend who is U.S. attorney in Houston, was asked recently why Fitzgerald is going after reporters. "I said to them, 'Pat isn't going after journalists, he is after the truth,' " Rosenberg says. "He's exactly the kind of person you'd want doing something like this."