Update on the Rove Indictment Story

By Marc Ash,

Wed May 17th, 2006 at 12:52:48 PM EDT :: Fitzgerald Investigation

For the past few days, we have endured non-stop attacks on our credibility, and we have fought hard to defend our reputation. In addition, we have worked around the clock to provide additional information to our readership. People want to know more about this, and our job is to keep them informed. We take that responsibility seriously.

Here's what we now know: 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. While we had only our own sources to work with in the beginning, additional sources have now come forward and offered corroboration to us.

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.

We also learned the following: 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.

THE 24 HOUR THING

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. Grab some coffee.
>
>

http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2006/5/17/125248/099
On edit: I jusdt noticed that this same item had come up earlier. Sorry; I should have checked more carefully. Here it is: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1217129

No, Fitz is not obligated to hold a press conference. That's the entire point of sealed indictments, frankly, as Leopold SHOULD have known by studying Fitz' career vs. organized crime. That doesn't make him wrong, just imperfect in his knowledge. While unfortunate, the additional confirmation here is not at all inconsistent with what might well be true. Sealed indictments are issued to squeeze people. Those being squeezed have no obligation to admit it. If organized crime figures did so, they would pay with their very lives.

While not an expert, the above does sound plausible. I will wait and rejoice with all of my DU brethren when the announcement is made.

Care to explain that?

The reason is that BushCo doesn't give a shit about such quaint notions of legality, ethics or morality. They have thumbed their noses at the rule of law since they stole the 2000 election and I dare say they still are.

And then there's this nasty laugh.

This administration has appointed CONVICTED criminals to government positions. Indictments are nothing.

That may be why.

Besides... I love watching Freepers sweat.

We know it's going down.......

It seems that one possible explanation is that Fitzgrald may be holding an indictment over Rove's head to get him to squeal on someone else

That would explain Rove's lawyers comments, and a number of other things as well. The number of time Rove has testified, I frimly believe that there was an important meeting between Fitz and Rove's legals last Friday. And I would love to know what was discussed, and offered.



There is more to this story than we know.

Only my humble opinion.

I thought about it too... I'm sure there is precedent.

No reason to doubt it is possible in this case. Rove IS a target. We know that.

And we know they have Cheney's handwritten notes...

When I read the part about Rove refusing to accept a plea bargain, I assumed he would have to offer something Fitzgerald wanted in exchange. I assumed that was a specific piece of evidence incriminating Bush.* Rove would not hand Fitzgerald Bush's head. Afterall, Bush* has to have an equal amount of info on Rove so the whole deal could spiral down to a self-licking ice cream cone. But if the two stand firm and simply stick together, all they have to do is wait Fitzgerald out ... until pardon time.

We at DU are interested in the news. Fitzgerald is interested in results. If sitting on his strategy and thus the news increases his chances of getting to his goal line, that's what he will do ... and we will just have to live with it.

But in all candor, I certainly hope this is not one event in which we do not discern the truth in our lifetimes. It could be "one of those things" revealed to the generation behind us -- and that would be a tough pill for us to swallow -- the not knowing....

tighten the screws on Turd Blossom.

Lets see if/when there is a official public notification that Rove is under indictment.

Then we can assess the credability of the initial report.

...much appreciated!

:applause:

It hurts one's credibility when one continues to adhere to a storyline despite growing evidence to the contrary.

Here are two incontrovertible facts:

1. Rove has not been indicted.

2. Fitzgerald's office doesn't leak.

all. The Rovian "swiftboating" behavior of some DU bloggers over the last several days has appalled and alarmed me--although some of it I believe has come from what have been called "trolls." It's an open board. Some of these "troll" types are new; some are recurring names who always put down the efforts and opinions of real investigators and real leftists, using sneers and kamikaze hits, and sometimes long, stupid, pointless quarrels that they drag unwary bloggers into. We have board monitors who do their best to keep it civil, but it's pretty much a free-for-all. I wouldn't have it any other way. I'll never forget when "the word" came down from the powers in the Democratic Party, after the 2004 election, that the "election fraud" issue was verboten and other left blogs obediently shut it down. DU was the only place where active investigation, fact-gathering, analysis and opinion on this vital issue was occurring. I would not want this board politically censored in that way--as a tool of the party leaders, whom we know can be very wrong. We therefore have to put up with people at DU who are clearly not doing the left any good, who sabotage the development of information and opinion, and are sometimes just 'know-nothings' and bullies. I worry more about the genuine leftists who have participated in this vile campaign to blame Truthout and Jason Leopold for Fitzgerald not indicting Rove--or not announcing it--soon enough. I have worried all along about the "Fitzmas" threads. Some of it has been fun, but the gist of it has been great impatience, reflecting lack of understanding of the case, of the law and of how good prosecutors work, and, further, a wistful desire for a "savior" of our Republic. Our country is not going to be saved by any court case or any individual. It can only be saved by all of us--as the collective will of of the people, with us activists working together, with each one using his/her skills on particular issues, to inform and energize people. We need to restore transparent elections. We need to re-empower the people of this country, who have been greatly disempowered and demoralized--and, above all, disenfranchised. That is a collective work. That's what democracy IS. So to focus on Fitzgerald as the "white knight" is to miss the point. His honesty, courage and belief in the rule of law can help us. It cannot save us. And I think Truthout and Jason have taken the hit of those "Fitzmas" threads, combined with some malevolent "trolls" --full in the face. I sorrow at the ugliness of it. I expect them to be vindicated, and I hope to do some good here if they are not, by way of understanding "swiftboating" and sabotage, and the dreadful snakepit that our country's political life has become.

My warmest thanks to the sincere and honest researchers, and intrepid reporters of the left blogs! Where would we be...WHERE WOULD BE without them?!

Thanks much for this post!

I'm withholding judgment until this all plays out. Let the others bicker over it.

I will grab a big cup of coffee and wait. Fitzmas is always better if you have to wait a bit before you get that special gift you've been wanting all year long. ;)

As for little Karl? I'm glad that he is finally getting his Fitzmas present like some of the other boys and girls sitting around Bush's Fitzmas tree. After Karl gets his gift, I do hope there will be enough Fitzmas cheer left over for all the others.

Not Latest Breaking News

Please see this thread in General Discussion:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1217129