home

Another Internet Report of Karl Rove Indictment

Wayne Madsen, whom I have not read previously, is reporting there will be an announcement of Karl Rove's indictment Friday. His story somewhat tracks Jason's Leopold's article, except he says the meeting at Luskin's office Friday was not for 15 hours, Rove wasn't given 24 hours to get his affairs in order and he adds that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales met with the grand jury on May 12 and was advised by them that Rove would be indicted.

WMR can report tonight on more details concerning the confusing reports regarding Karl Rove and Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald from last Friday. WMR can confirm that the appearance of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales before the Grand Jury at the US Federal Courthouse in Washington was a formality in which the jury informed the Attorney General of their decision to indict Karl Rove. That proceeding lasted for less than 30 minutes and took place shortly after noon. Gonzales's personal security detachment was present in the courthouse during the Grand Jury briefing. From the courthouse, Gonzales's motorcade proceeded directly down Constitution Avenue to the Department of Justice.

According to sources within the Patton and Boggs law firm, Karl Rove was present at the law firm's building on M Street. WMR was told by a credible source that a Patton and Boggs attorney confirmed that Fitzgerald paid a visit to the law firm to inform Rove attorney Robert Luskin and Rove that an indictment would be returned by the Grand Jury against Rove.

Madsen says that some of Jason's information may have emanated from within the Rove camp as a means of deflection. He also writes:

In the Scooter Libby case last October, after the Grand Jury decided to indict Libby on Friday, October 21 and the Attorney General personally heard the decision the same day at a meeting with the jury, the actual indictment was issued the following Friday, October 28. Several sources have told WMR that an announcement concerning the indictment of Rove will be made on Friday, May 19 generally following the same scenario from October 28, 2005 -- the posting of the indictment on the Special Prosecutor's web site followed by a press conference at Main Justice.

Madsen reported the Gonzales-grand jury meeting rergarding Libby on his website in October, 2005 but then he said the date was October 19, not October 21.

Is this inside information, or putting two and two together that an Indictment will be announced Friday? Has he just tweaked Jason's article to remove the points receiving the most skepticism: (1) the meeting was 15 hours, (2) Rove was given 24 hours to get his affairs in order and (3) the grand jury had already returned the Indictment and Fitzgerald handed it to Luskin and Rove?

Madsen's observations about Gonzales being at the grand jury last Friday stem from his own scouting :

May 13, 2006 -- Yesterday afternoon, WMR was staked out at the E. Barrett Prettyman Federal Courthouse in Washington awaiting any developments in the CIA leak case. A little after noon, a large motorcade consisting of black and one green SUV, several police cars and police motorcycles sped into the street behind the courthouse. Two SUVs split from the motorcade and quickly dashed into the underground parking garage. Several personal security officers were spotted on guard in the annex of the courthouse where the CIA leak case grand jury was meeting. Although there is no final confirmation that the motorcade was that of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, there is every indication that he spent approximately a little under 30 minutes in the courthouse.

Last October, Gonzales made a similar trip in an identical motorcade to the courthouse on a Friday to hear the decision of the grand jury investigating Vice President Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. The Attorney General's appearance at the grand jury is a formality and there is an opportunity for him to pose questions to the jury. After last October's visit to the grand jury, Gonzales informed the White House that Libby was to be indicted. One week later, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald delivered a five count indictment against Libby.

Has any other media source reported that Gonzales met with the Libby grand jury on October 21 or with the Rove grand jury on May 12?

Madsen also fingers a lawyer at Patton Boggs as a source -- although not his direct source.

WMR was told by a credible source that a Patton and Boggs attorney confirmed that Fitzgerald paid a visit to the law firm to inform Rove attorney Robert Luskin and Rove that an indictment would be returned by the Grand Jury against Rove.

So it's hearsay....A lawyer told a source of Madsen's who told Madsen. Wouldn't this lawyer be discovered, fired and face disciplinary action for leaking privileged information about a client of the firm?

If this lawyer-rat does exist, it sounds like he or she may also be one of Jason's sources, in which case, he or she gave different informaton to Jason than to Madsen's source. Considering that Madsen is a former NSA officer, and former CIA Analyst Larry Johnson and Joseph Wilson reportedly have received similar information, it's beginning to sound like a close-knit group of sources.

[Edited to delete paragraph on subjects vs. targets, a re-reading of Madsen reflects he was referring to Luskin becoming a subject of the investigation, which I don't believe is true, rather than Rove -- a pronoun misunderstanding on my part.]

Here is Madsen's bio.

I do think Rove will be indicted. Friday has seemed like the most logical day for a while. If Madsen is correct that the Libby grand jury voted on October 21 although the Indictment wasn't filed until October 28, and we learn on May 19 that Rove is indicted, then Jason may also have been correct in saying the grand jury had already indicted Rove by the afternoon of May 12 when Fitz met with Team Rove. Jason's article did say the Indictment would be revealed during sometime this week but the date was unsure.

Is this just a case of the same people spinning both Madsen and Jason? Or was Jason correct except for minor details and Madsen is also correct, just refining some of those details?

I doubt we will ever learn whether Fitz really met with Luskin last Friday. I'm not sure it matters, other than if they did meet, then Team Rove lied in denying it and the blogosphere owes Jason an apology for relentlessly bashing him this week.

But, as I said at the beginning, I don't know Wayne Madsen so I don't know whether his report is credible, or just a rehash of Jason's with the most skeptical portions removed.

One last note: I've been talking a lot about a sealed indictment, but if Fitzgerald just sat on the Indictment after the grand jury returned it without filing it, there's no reason for him to ask for it to be sealed now. He'd just file it Friday a few minutes before the press conference. I still think there are issues with Rule 6(e) if he shared the signed Indictment with Luskin and Rove ahead of time, as it would be a "matter occurring before the grand jury." Of course, as I also pointed out once before, he could have shared a list of the charges he intended to submit to the grand jury, or a proposed plea agreement that contained the charges on which he intended to indict Rove.

I guess we'll all have to just wait and see. If tomorrow is really the date, the mainstream media should be all over it by this afternoon.

Background:

  • May 17, 2006 - Truthout Editor Sticks by Leopold Article, Again
  • May 17, 2006 - Rove Indictment Watch
  • May 15, 2006 - Luskin Denies Truth of Leopold Article on Karl Rove Indictment
  • May 15, 2006 - Karl Rove Gives Lecture Today, Won't Answer Questions About PlameGate
  • May 15, 2006 - My Conversation With Mark Corallo Re: Leopold on Rove
  • May 15, 2006 - Leopold Responds to Corallo's Denial of Fitzgerald - Luskin Meeting
  • May 14, 2006 - Byron York: Corallo Denies Leopold's Rove Article
  • May 13, 2006 - My Non-Conversation With Robert Luskin
  • May 13, 2006 - Breaking Report: Karl Rove Indicted
  • < Pentagon Sources Confirm Iran Military Strike Plans | Tobin Sentenced >
    • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Madsen reports Luskin was advised Friday that Rove had become a "subject." The pronouns are confusing here, but on my reading, I think Madsen is saying that LUSKIN has become a subject. Which might explain his attitude at 9:47 pm on Saturday night. I doubt we will ever learn whether Fitz really met with Luskin last Friday. I'm not sure it matters... I think it does matter. We want to know whether Leopold is a credible source in future reporting. The reason the Plame case has fired up the blogosphere is because it goes to the heart of problems not only with the way our government works but also with the way the press works. Jason is part of that story, and it matters whether or not his reporting is accurate, in whole or in part. ...other than if they did meet, then Team Rove lied in denying it and the blogosphere owes Jason an apology for relentlessly bashing him this week. I don't think the blogosphere relentlessly bashed Jason. By and large, the blogosphere asked reasonable, skeptical questions of a story that clearly needed to be questioned, and Jason responded as if he was under some kind of grand Rovian attack, instead of offering reasonable, thoughtful explanations. If anything, he owes the blogosphere an apology for treating us as if we're crazy to ask him questions.

    well...it finally looks like that second bottle of champagne that I stuck in the fridge last October will see the light of day. Thanks to Jeralyn who has been all over this since last friday. The wheels of justisce turn...but sometimes too slowly for all of us concerned. I can hear the sspin on this on Friday...perjury and making false statements...those are really a serious crime.... I think if this happens the impact on the right and the elections in the fall will be catastrophic for the right. They will have not only lost their posterboy for the right. It will once again be indicative of the "culture of corruption" that permeates Washington. Happy Fitzo de Mayo George

    I can't wait till the people who leaked our war plans to the Telegraph get indicted.

    If I understood it right, Jeralyn's previous point seems to make the most sense: that Rove was told that he would be indicted (not necessarily had been yet), and that he could decide to plea to certain charges, or reject the deal, whereupon Fitz could then decide to perhaps seek a few more charges, whenever the GJ meets to formally indict. Surely all part of the high-stakes poker playing that always goes on between prosecutors and the defense before it finally gets to that final bet. Fitz is trying to flip Rove as much as he can. Rove doesn't want to drop the dime on Cheney and/or others, but he's up against the wall. Fitz is doing what he has to do, using every trick he's got. Rove will be indicted, but it is highly unlikely that he was last week. As several posters noted, he probably wouldn't still be working in the White House if he was formally indicted already. When he is indicted, he will resign. And some may say, okay, so Leopold got a few details wrong, so what? But details are pretty important things in news reporting and editing. Leopold is a very dogged reporter, but guys like him often get way ahead of themselves, and then risk their credibility even though the larger part of their work is valid (see: Gary Webb). Overly ambitious reporters need tough editors, for everybody's sake. Leopold's mistake seems to have been going too far out on a limb with a few sexy but very dodgy details, when that piece could have been more finessed with the editor. The mad rush to get the story first should always call for some caution. People should know by now that Fitz doesn't follow anybody else's schedules or timetables. And, a 15-hour meeting? The prosecutor went to the defense attorneys' offices and stayed in there haggling back and forth for 15 hours? Waiting for that petulant, spoiled little brat to stop sulking and finally come out of his room? Hard to imagine a consummate professional like Fitz doing that, even as much he wants to flip the perp. That is not the way to show the strength of your position. Fitz doesn't have to plead; Rove has to plead, in more ways than one, methinks. Many of us correctly rail against the sloppy or just plain wrong reporting of the MSM. I myself am a wire-service reporter and editor, though in an Asian bureau, not the U.S., and I see of lot of sloppy reporting everywhere. But we should also demand the same standards for everybody who is now working in the ever-expanding field of reporting and analysis, which has given us so many outstanding new sources for our news and edification, such as Talk Left and several others. Keep up your great work Jeralyn. I know you've said that Murray Waas owns this story, but it seems to me that you and Jane are co-owners. and kudos to (almost) everyone else on this site - not those rabid trolls - and all throughout the best regions in Upper Blogistan, too. We are all richer for the dedication of so many smart and concientious folks adding to the mix.

    Previous poster w0551 makes some very good points. Credibility is all ya got in this game. While some detractors of Leopold may have gone too far, most are asking important questions, as w0551 says: people want to know how credible he is, for the reading of his future reporting. That's not a Spanish Inquisition. You've gotta be thick-skinned to be a reporter, and if you screw up (as we all do sometimes), you suck it up, admit it and go marching onward. The much-discredited NYT fell into that trap of refusing to admit their mistakes. And they keep on doing it: the recent bald-faced plagiarism by the business reporter who lifted the entire prose content of an earlier Financial Times article was only partly admitted by the paper's editors, and quite disingenuously so. Now, it's very difficult to know what to believe from that overrated newspaper.

    Hey Jeralyn/TL, I believe w0551 is right in that Madsen's "credible source" is under the impression that LUSKIN is now a "subject" in the investigation, because (among other reasons) of what Viveca Novak of TIME told Luskin about Rove being a Matt Cooper source. Apparently, how Luskin handled this revelation (and the timing of it) was a no-no in Fitz's eyes. And Rove's 5 chances to get his story straight to the Grand Jury didn't appear to save himself and now maybe Luskin from indictment. My question is, what's the difference in being a "subject" of the investigation as opposed to being a "target"? Could Fitz be indicting both Rove and Luskin for obstruction? (that would be quite a setback for Team Rove, to say the least) If Libby gets the trifecta (perjury, OofJ, false statement), then Rove has to get the trifecta as well (especially OofJ for the 250 pages of deleted WH emails Team Rove didn't hand the Grand Jury until a few months ago). Can't wait 'til the wait is finally over!

    Although there is no final confirmation that the motorcade was that of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, there is every indication that he spent approximately a little under 30 minutes in the courthouse.
    What the hell does that mean?? No final confirmation but every indication?? That doesn't make sense. Talk about weak reporting.

    Re: Another Internet Report of Karl Rove Indictmen (none / 0) (#8)
    by profmarcus on Thu May 18, 2006 at 05:04:19 AM EST
    and luskin too...!?!
    [P]art of the reason for Fitzgerald's visit to Patton and Boggs was to inform Rove attorney Luskin that he has moved into the category of a "subject" of the special prosecutor's investigation as a result of a conversation with Time reporter Viveca Novak, in which Novak told Luskin that Rove was a source for Time's Matt Cooper. The special prosecutor, who has prosecuted one defense attorney in the Hollinger case, is reportedly investigating whether Luskin, as an officer of the court, may have violated laws on obstruction of justice.
    talk about a bunker-buster...! taking rove out would be sweet enough but if his attorney goes down with him...? NOW, we're talking...! and, yeah, ok, maybe i'm guilty of wishful thinking, but, imho, this is one straw that's well worth grabbing on to... http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/

    Re: Another Internet Report of Karl Rove Indictmen (none / 0) (#9)
    by RF on Thu May 18, 2006 at 05:08:09 AM EST
    Talk Left; The new FireDogLake? Actually, same as it ever was- Thanx lady, and here is hoping skys will clear by a cool hard rain on Friday, May 19th 2006

    I love the picture of Rove with Fitz looking through the window.

    Re: Another Internet Report of Karl Rove Indictmen (none / 0) (#11)
    by Punchy on Thu May 18, 2006 at 06:19:33 AM EST
    Wayne Madsen, whom I have not read previously, is reporting there will be an announcement of Karl Rove's indictment Friday. Uh huh. Or this past Tuesday. Or the first Friday of the New Moon, in Cancer. Or once a month, starting with months that end in vowels and start with fishhooks. Or my head will explode first. Note to reporters: STOP TRYING TO GUESS THIS--YOU CANT GET IT RIGHT.

    Re: Another Internet Report of Karl Rove Indictmen (none / 0) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 18, 2006 at 06:21:31 AM EST
    From the post:
    WMR was told by a credible source that a Patton and Boggs attorney confirmed that Fitzgerald paid a visit to the law firm to inform Rove attorney Robert Luskin and Rove that an indictment would be returned by the Grand Jury against Rove.
    Is it normal for a DA/SP to go to the person's lawyer and tell them??? Doesn't make sense to me. I would think a telcon would do it, and, if a deal was available, a visit by the defense to the DA's office.

    Can anyone clue me in as to Wayne Madsen's reputation for truth and veracity? Real deal or fringe dweller?

    Re: Another Internet Report of Karl Rove Indictmen (none / 0) (#14)
    by Edger on Thu May 18, 2006 at 06:30:11 AM EST
    The waiting is the hardest part
    Every day you see one more card
    You take it on faith, you take it to the heart
    The waiting is the hardest part --Tom Petty

    Ofercryinoutloud, What is the deal? doubling down, sending good money chasing after a bad story. This Wayne Madsen -- about whom I know nothing other than what he wrote previously about the purported Gonzales "meeting with the grand jury," based on nothing more than a report that a motorcade went to the federal courthouse in DC -- is, if anything, less credible than Leopold. First, the DC federal courthouse is home to some 16 trial judges (and a handful of magistrates) as well as the US Court of appeals for the DC Circuit. These courts handle the lion's share of the nation's administrative law cases -- i.e., those dealing with the actions of executive agencies -- as well as the general hodgepodge of high-profile cases concerning the politics of the capital in general. There are in short many reasons why someone may arrive in a motorcade at the courthouse (if even that is true) other than the one postulated -- i.e., Abu Gonzales "meeting with the grand jury" and asking questions of it. While we are at it, it is inherently implausible to the point of absurdity that the AG would be given a seak preview of the GJ's work and to interrogate the grand jurors, and completely out of the question for a GJ to "advise" the AG as to what they are probably going to do. This is crazy, kids. Fitz may well be working toward an indictment of Rove (which I think likely), but that's got nothing to do with these nutty stories, and an announceent of an indictment, if it happens and happens soon, is in no way going to confirm these accounts unless there is actual confirmation of them.

    Re: Another Internet Report of Karl Rove Indictmen (none / 0) (#16)
    by Edger on Thu May 18, 2006 at 06:47:56 AM EST
    mayan: Wayne Madsen's reputation for truth and veracity? Like Leopold's, or Rove's, or Hersh's, or Bush's reputation, Madsen's rep will depend on who you ask I suppose. Madsen articles at Counterpunch Madsen is a Senior Fellow of the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), a non-partisan privacy public advocacy group in Washington, DC. He works with member of Congress and congressional committees on legislation and hearings of common interest.

    "WMR can confirm that the appearance of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales before the Grand Jury at the US Federal Courthouse in Washington was a formality in which the jury informed the Attorney General of their decision to indict Karl Rove." Does the special prosecutor statute permit or require this? Or DoJ regulations? It certainly isn't standard grand jury practice.

    Apologies to all if it appeared that I was trying to monopolise the top of this thread - I'm just in a time zone far away from the ones that most of you seem to be residing in. I'm new to commenting here, but a long-time reader, and don't wish to violate protocol. Respectfully.

    Re: Another Internet Report of Karl Rove Indictmen (none / 0) (#19)
    by Edger on Thu May 18, 2006 at 07:03:26 AM EST
    bumbaclatt, I enjoyed your post. Most of the commenting here has not been by seasoned professional journalists in my experience, and that is something I for one hope we'll see more of.

    Re: Another Internet Report of Karl Rove Indictmen (none / 0) (#20)
    by Edger on Thu May 18, 2006 at 07:10:12 AM EST
    I would especially like to see commenting here by people like the "three reporters from mainstream media - network level organizations - who shared with us off-the-record confirmation and moral support" that Marc Ash at Truthout mentioned. Even if they were to comment here under pseudonyms...

    Thanks, edger. Some scattered thoughts: We are all so hard-up for news -one way or the other- that in the absence of anything from Fitzgerald we will make the stories about the stories into stories themselves. Human nature, I suppose. That said, I vacillate wildly on l'affaire Leopold. I find it very hard to believe that there's not something there - that Jason, in a rush to start working at McDonald's has gone all in and based his very specific article upon lies and/or hallucinations. But what do I know? At the same time, much of what he has written just doesn't make sense to me. I haven't practiced criminal law in such rarefied, high-stakes cases but the whole "indictment in Rove's face" story just seems a bit off. In short, I'm hopeful that the Leopold story is a bit "off" but that it suggests there is plenty happening below the surface. The fact that Truthout -which may have more credibility than its reporter- is backing him after being made aware of the circumstances of the article- definately increases my hopes that something will happen. The fact that Larry Johnson states that Wilson received -independently- similar information also mitigates towards allowing hope that there will be an indictment. OTOH, I'm prepared -as should we all- to learn that Fitzgerald will decline to indict. If so, we have to dust ourselves off, swallow the disappointment without recriminations and go back to the most important work which is ridding the country of this malign group of yeggs, grifters, con-artists, two-bit carnies and leisure-suited rejects from the Junior Chamber of Commerce. Then, we can go order fries and a latex shake from Leopold's drive-in window.

    Re: Another Internet Report of Karl Rove Indictmen (none / 0) (#22)
    by scribe on Thu May 18, 2006 at 07:25:07 AM EST
    Just for the record, let's not get all wound around the axle on the possibility of Luskin getting charged, too. It's a pretty serious step for any prosecutor to charge a defense attorney with "obstruction of justice". From the point of view of many (most?) prosecutors, the mere existence of defense attorneys constitutes "obstruction of justice", and for that reason alone there are pretty stringent limits on their ability to charge defense attorneys. Also, among attorneys, prosecutors charging a defense attorney relative to his actions in defending a client is often seen as retribution for the defense's being very effective in blunting the prosecution and defending the client. In other words, if a defense lawyer gets the client off, it's a good job. If the defense lawyer does too good of a job, the lawyer gets charged. Moreover, we really have only a little bit of information (compared to what Fitz has, anyway) concerning what I think is the most likely subject of an obstruction charge - the Viveca Novak business. I speculate that the more likely avenue is, if Fitz charges Rover with obstruction or false statements vis-a-vis the Viveca Novak episode, Luskin might wind up as a witness and therefore be subject to being disqualified. Even that's a big maybe, and picking a big fight. If one thinks back, one remembers the huge fights in the John Gotti, Sr. trials, when the US Attorney tried to get Bruce Cutler DQ'd (ultimately succeeding), allegedly because Cutler was more than a defense attorney, giving advice on how to make legal their activities. It turned into an extended sideshow and almost derailed the prosecution. So, maybe it's a good idea to keep this pot on "low", so it doesn't boil over. If Gold Bars is gonna get it over this case, there's three or four more years left on the statute of limitations for Fitz to get him.

    Re: Another Internet Report of Karl Rove Indictmen (none / 0) (#23)
    by orionATL on Thu May 18, 2006 at 07:27:02 AM EST
    i can't keep track of all the details but that has got to be one of the funniest graphics i have seen in ages. lol and lol and lol.

    Profuse thanks to scribe and bumbaclatt for introducing (or reintroducing) some sane, grounded skepticism into these threads. I've been endeavoring to do so myself, though my smartassy streak probably doesn't help the medicine go down any more easily. Speculation that Fitz might have brought Luskin within the crosshairs of his scope is nothing new -- it surfaced, for good reason, when the Viveca Novak story broke, which suggested that Luskin might should have had reason to believe his client was lying to him quite a while before his client started changing his story re Cooper. But, as bumbacaltt poitns out, charging defense counsel is rather an A-bomb of a weapon, not to be used lightly, especially where there is some room for doubt. If Luskin had been advised that he's become a target -- or even a subject -- I don't think there's any way that he could go on representing Rove, period. So if Luskin doesn't file a motion to withdraw as counsel, I think it's a safe bet that he's not become a target. If there was some buzz that Leopold picked up about Big Things shakin' at Patton Boggs -- a big if by my lights -- then one explanation that does not include a meeting involving Rove, Fitz or Luskin could well be a meeting of the managing partners of the firm to deal with news that Luskin has been informed that the soup around him has gotten deep (might also explain why goldbars wasn't at the office). I'm not saying this is likely, as I don't think based on the admitedly incomplete dribs and drabs that we know -- that Fitz has a solid enough case that Luskin knowingly suborned false testimony to go against him. But it is a possibility, and it's one speculative way to create a scenrio inwhich Leopold gets word of something big happening, speculates on details and embellishes and ends up writing his, in my view, far-fetched article with "Rove already indicted" as its centerpiece. Might have happened. The Madsen stuff is largely just piffle, I believe, for the reasons I outlined above.

    Should really update this entry as he is clearly saying that LUSKIN is the subject.

    I don't think the blogosphere relentlessly bashed Jason. By and large, the blogosphere asked reasonable, skeptical questions of a story that clearly needed to be questioned, and Jason responded as if he was under some kind of grand Rovian attack, instead of offering reasonable, thoughtful explanations. If anything, he owes the blogosphere an apology for treating us as if we're crazy to ask him questions. w0551, I don't know which blogs you travel, too, but OH YES, there was much Jason bashing going on. Entire threads constructed to do nothing but. I don't know why people get that upset. If the guy is wrong, he'll be proven wrong, but Jeebus some people sure seemed to take this like a personal insult. I suspect, Jason is right, but that sources being as hard to come by as they are (notice no MSM press on this) that he has to rely on a sort of grapevine, just like Madsen did when he spoke of a source who talked to a lawyer. So the details get muddled, but on the whole Madsen seems to corroborate what Jason reported. Did he probably rush the story out and would it have been wiser to wait? Well, I guess that depends on if you want any news as soon as you can get it or are willing to wait a week for the news to be perfectly reported by the MSM [cough, cough]. ;)

    Madsen is the guy who reported that the Cole was hit by The Jews(tm). With a cruise missile. Yeahp. Double your bets, folks.

    SDangerfield: Actually, it was scribe who took up the "A-bomb" issue of indicting a defense attorney, not me. But I do wish that I'd thought of it first. Cheers.

    I think there's good reason to be upset if some wannabe-lefty-Drudge serves up a heap of false reporting on a matter of such import. And, in response to a query on an earlier thread as well as this one, there is indeed harm from such a story. First, if (as I think overwhelmingly likely) this story is false in all of its sensationalist particulars, then the credulity with which it was lapped up by some in the left blogosphere will be (and indeed already has been) used by the MSM as yet another club to beat the blogosphere: see, silly people in the leftish fever swamp will believe any old bull -- no matter how facially implausible -- if it reports harm to their ideological enemies; that's why you, the reader, need us, the established gatekeepers. That's really what the WSJ pievce linked above suggests -- just look at the subtitle: "Bloggers Underscore How Net's Reporting Dynamics Provide Grist for the Rumor Mill." Never mind that many many of us greeted this story with appropriate skepticism (even if more than a little vitriol got poured out on Leopold in the process; I do think his behavior when challenged in this and other matters merited at least a little slaparound.) Second, in addition to encouraging hits on the left blogosphere's credibility, this has also proved to be a monumental effing distraction at a time when some quite significant stories are breaking that should be the focus of our attention. third, I simply hate my intelligence being insulted by horese manure such as that produced by truthout and Wayne Madsen.

    SharonW: "...so the details get muddled, but..." I fully realize that my own craft is not a science, but what would you say if the crafstman who built a faulty foundation under your house said: "so, some details got muddled..." If we don't care about the details from our news providers, how can care about the details of the babysitter? "Well, I didn't think there was enough water in the tub to actually drown the kid, but that was just a detail that got muddled..." I don't mean to be flippant (well, maybe I do), but every professional has a duty to be professional, or else get called out on it. Nearly everyone gets reamed out after they make a mistake at their job. What's the big problem? It's part of being an adult. Especially an adult who has chosen a profession that inplies some larger social responsibility.

    I know people are compaining about smears, but JL did WRITE A BOOK about what he'd done, and that book was withdrawn thanks to a dispute on the accuracy of slaims in the book! Interesting way of writing a Mea Culpa! So for this story we have JL at a questionable site, and Jewish Cruise Missle Madsen. I know people want this story to be true, but... It's like claiming that Jerry Falwell is a good source on conspiracies in the Catholic Church or Gays putting something in the water to create more gay people. These guys always have fantastic scoops, but they tend to be more fantastical than scoop. Would you believe Gay Escort with a scoop on a future Dem administration (or somethign about Hillary)? Of course not. Same reason other people just don't credit JL. Even when he's coming clean he's lying... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18624-2005Mar8.html

    Bumbaclatt, I too, enjoyed your post. Although I am here almost every day reading (lurking?) I do not feel I have a lot to offer in analysis, so do not post, but I appreciate those who do and who have thoughtful analysis to offer. With the dribble of (non)information that comes daily from the MSM (see Christy at FDL, "Waiting for Godot...with Tea"), I am so thankful for these sites. So thank you, TL and FDL, and Murray Waas (who I might not have found without a link from here). More often than not the MSM just don't bother, or are constrained by the megacompanies that own them or just by living too close to the flame. More often than not, I think that you get it more right than wrong. Almost every night I say to my husband, What would we do without the bloggers? edger, that tune has been going through my head for the longest time, "The waiting is the hardest part..." For me it is not just rove, it's everything---the whole d*** house of cards. Waiting without all of you would have been so much harder.

    FWIW I've seen Madsen's name bandied about in other contexts (can't remember precisely where) in the greater liberal blogosphere, and my sense is that he is less credible even than Leopold. The whole bit about Gonzales's visit to the GJ seems to be speculation on top of speculation dripping with speculation.

    I don't mean to be flippant (well, maybe I do), but every professional has a duty to be professional, or else get called out on it. Nearly everyone gets reamed out after they make a mistake at their job. What's the big problem? It's part of being an adult. Especially an adult who has chosen a profession that inplies some larger social responsibility. Maybe the difference is that I don't view him as anything more than a gossip columnist. They're often right, but not always. I think half the fun is conjecturing whether he's really on to something that the MSM isn't. But, Jeebus, it's not like he's reporting for the Washington Post. Then he'd have to be much looser with his facts and a far better liar/spinner. :D

    To: whomever was the poster who posited that much of the furore of the marathon meetings in Luskin's law firm was probably a series of frantic internal meetings held by the partners of said law firm, I think you probably hit it squarely on its pointy head there. It's not only this criminal administration and some of its criminals (and the US democracy) at stake; partners of a major established law firm get really upset when they suddenly find that their own tits have gotten caught in a wringer. Again, whether it's about journalists or law firms, it's all about the credibility. As I suggested before, Fitz didn't spend 15 hours in that fetid swamp. Those 15 hours of meetings before and after Fitz might've been there would have all about the firm's crisis-damage-control strategy. It'd be the cherry on the cake if they fire Luskin. Oops, sorry, I meant if he announces that he's decided to spend more quality time taking care of his cat.

    SharonW: thanks for that clarification. Sorry if my knee jerked out of joint.

    Re: Another Internet Report of Karl Rove Indictmen (none / 0) (#37)
    by squeaky on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:19:30 AM EST
    Clearly Madsen is saying that Luskin is a subject. I have been following Madsen for a couple of years now and he is a good source of info. Definitely on the fringe and very tinfoil hat, but a great addition to the blogosphere as his divining rod is often right on. Truly a fighter for getting to the truth even if he overdoes it sometimes. I do not understand all the hoopla about irresponsible writing and journalistic ethics regarding Leopold and Madsen. The nastiness toward Leopold is shocking to me. To get to the truth is often a very circuitous route. Those given the highest mantle of respectability are sometimes discredited later, sometimes after they are dead. To understand the whole story many voices are needed. The fool's voice often is key. The great thing about the blogosphere is that there are so many voices. I read many including Madsen and Leopold. Both have gotten me closer to the whole picture, tin foil hat and all. All writers that have something to offer do not necessarily have the same level of credibility... so what. It doesn't mean that they should be never trusted or that they are useless. Both Madsen and Leopold are hard working members of the blogosphere and contribute big time. BTW edger- Madsen has had credibility problems. Counterpunch had a disclaimer on their site for some time disassociating themselves from Madsen. I took it as a legal disclaimer to avoid a law suit or something.

    1) it's true that the general consensus is that Madsen is nearly never correct about anything - I haven't followed him enough to confirm that 2) but the general consensus among expert legal minds seems to be that Fitz could easily indict Rove on an at least false statements and perjury 3) so the only logical conclusion is that, (unlike those of us who are horrified by what we see as Rove's ongoing corruption of the electoral process and who see the Plame case as a means to the end of stopping him before he does more damage), Fitzgerald doesn't really care about putting Rove out of commission -- only in getting him to testify against others. 4) My conclusion is that Rove is in the driver's seat. He knows he can get pardoned whenever he wants and he's just toying with Fitz just enough to keep the hope alive that he'll flip -- buying time so that he and his cronies can continue to steal elections and rob the treasury blind.

    Re: Another Internet Report of Karl Rove Indictmen (none / 0) (#39)
    by Edger on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:34:00 AM EST
    Squeaky: BTW edger- Madsen has had credibility problems. I saw that, yes. I've also not seen disclaimers from the WH dissociating themselves from rove. ;-)

    SharonW: thanks for that clarification. Sorry if my knee jerked out of joint. Oh, not to worry, my skin is thicker than that. I think emotions are running high for alot of us. In some ways, I suspect that was as much of the cause for anger towards Jason as was his somewhat odd writing.

    The great thing about the blogosphere is that there are so many voices. I read many including Madsen and Leopold. Both have gotten me closer to the whole picture, tin foil hat and all. All writers that have something to offer do not necessarily have the same level of credibility... so what. It doesn't mean that they should be never trusted or that they are useless. Both Madsen and Leopold are hard working members of the blogosphere and contribute big time. Squeaky, I couldn't agree more.

    Obsessed: I fear you are correct. I look at it just slightly differently, as I think that Fitz would, as part of his Boy Scout Manual due diligence absolutely would have to at least try to pressure Rove to give something (or somebody) up, but I'm not sure that I can buy that Fitz would allow Rove to string this out indefinitely based on othing more than the hope that a lifelong black-ops political operative, who is chained for life to the Shrub and its clan, would flip on his masters. (Unless, of course, Fitz picked up some indication that for its own ulterior reasons the Shrub clan has decided that it should pitch Dick.) But Rove definitely has some cards in his hands, including of course a pardon. So I definitely agree that Job No. 1 for Rove throughout is to buy T-I-M-E, temporize, delay, keep just enough doubt alive in the public perception of things to make his master/slave's continuing reliance on him politically feasible, get through the elections, collect pardon on Christmas Eve of '06 (or '08, depending on whether Libby can put off the trial). (Explanation: The pardons will come at the exact point at which the political harm from the investigation/prosecution outweighs the political harm coming from pardons. There's no way that will be before the midterms, unless the cabal figures out that Fitz has possession of a smoking bazooka that they have to keep under wraps. Otherwise, Libby will surely be pardoned before his case can go to trial, as a public trial of all of this stuff would shave off another significant percentage of those remaining in their camp.) This also is where one more piece of potential harm from fevered reporting from outfits like Truthout(TheWindow).com figures in. If there is any Rovian machinations at work right now, my guess (*speculation alert*) is that it's something like this: Rove could have quietly pushed out word that a decision from Fitz was imminent, to create a general furore of buzz and anticipation, even though he has no idea if or when Fitz is going to pounce. (The basis for this speculation is that fact that Matthews, Shuster, and Edsall have eached been dropping public hints -- with Shuster I think getting waaay ahead of himself.) This could create a fevered bubble of anticipation that pops when nothing happens for another few weeks, at which point the Tweeties and disappointed others in the penis gallery then get pissed off and start saying on their shows, "what the hell is wrong with this prosecutor; he should wrap this up and go home already; x years and x million dollars and he ony has one measely indictment to show for it." This would be both a PR coup for Rove and a nightmare distraction for Fitz (or worse, an excuse for his summary removal by the President). I fthis is what's going on, maroons like Leopold and his "editors" are just ramping it all up nicely.

    edger, aqueaky, et.al., it appears that leopold has had some alarming credibility problems in the past, too. that's exactly why it is valid to question his work, but at least for me it's not akin to a witch-hunt. to be fair, these days i question nearly everybody who writes for the washington post and the nyt.

    Squeaky, JL does not present himself as just some blogger who is digging around for truth and using guesses, speculation, deduction, and the like to figure out the turth. He has pretensions toward being a serious investigative journalist (look at his self-authored bio-squibs, or those presented by his various sockpuppet personae). And, after getting canned from a wire service, blowing it big-time with Salon (over plagiarism and over-reaching in the story), blowing it with a book publisher (again on over-reaching), getting "dissassociated" from RawStory, the guy is now penning what purport to be factual, multiple-sourced articles for an outfit calling itself "Truthout" -- all about getting "The Truth" out to the peeps, it seems. And the only place the truth is going is out the window. (Also, please note the career trajectory here: established news service, semi-respectable webzine, not-very-respectable webzine with sensationalist inclination, nutty little startup 'zine that nobody seems to know much of anything about. This does not fill me with confidence. One aside: To be fair -- cuz I am -- I'm not suggesting that JL never wrote a story that checked out and never did any good journalism. for instance, while at rawStory (which I dis but I love anyway), he broke the amusingly salacious story that the key to the Abramoff prosecution came about because Michael Scanlon's jilted former finacee blabbed to the feds. Not real substantive, but cerainly juicy and newsworthy. That story apparently checked out -- no denials (actually nothing but crickets) from the Scanlon camp and eventually it was reported in the WSJ (who didn't acknowledge that the story had been broken earleir on webzine). That was a good story. Unfortunately this one ain't. wishin' it were so don't make it so. Let's move on and let Fitz do his thing. In the meantime, Murtha sez that a government report is going to confirm that the Haditha atrocity is our generation's My Lai. There's something to pounce on and git yer teeth into.

    Re: Another Internet Report of Karl Rove Indictmen (none / 0) (#45)
    by fireback on Thu May 18, 2006 at 10:11:28 AM EST
    Squeaky, well said. SDangerfield. I appreciate your push-back on this subject. It causes one to think a bit more and is needed. I have been confused however, at how convicted you have been in your skeptism of JL and Madsen. I think logic tells us that we need to be a bit more skeptical of non-MSM reports. They are the ones digging for the scoop and probably more willing to reveal what they have even if everything it is not 100% accurate, or their sources aren't as rock solid. There the ones talking to secretaries, janitors, sitting in restaurants listening to conversations (seriously, I read a Madsen report where they overheard a Fitzgerald reporter needing to book his room for an additional night). It's not Deep Throat, but its value we need. And when you consider that the alternative is no news by the MSM or "scribe" reporting of spin. Both of which we find ourselves looking deeper into the meaning. Seriously, how many times have you found yourself ripping apart every word of Vanderhei or Woodward to figure out the truth? The point is, I don't think you give these guys enough credit. You expect perfect accuracy in their space of reporting without understanding that imperfection is implied.

    Re: Another Internet Report of Karl Rove Indictmen (none / 0) (#46)
    by ltgesq on Thu May 18, 2006 at 10:12:01 AM EST
    I believe fitz did meet at Patton Boggs last friday. I also believe that luskin is a subject now. It really creats a problem when you represent a client and then cross over into a witness for the client. That whole garbage story regarding vivica novak that luskin testified to, has resulted in putting his t*t in a wringer. My guess is that there was a marathon session at patton boggs, but the reason for the marathon was the intent to describe Luskin as a subject and subseqently disqualify him from further representation. My guess is that rove has been informed of the indictment, but that the indictment has not yet been filed. I wonder if that is to give rove time to find substitute counsel. It is a difficult thing to represent a client at the grand jury level, and then at the trial level. My personal preference is to have a difference lawyer for each stage. I feel for Luskin, if he is being investigated, but covering for your client is different than vigorously representing him. The whole vivica novak story was created to prevent Fitz from indicting rove on obstruction charges for failing to produce the relevant emails. Once she testified that the date of that event did not match Luskin's recollection (and was backed up by notes), it put luskin in danger of being a subject. Careless.

    The hostility towards Leopold and now Madsen is a little breathtaking to me as well. As if a story that doesn't get every single detail accurate discredits the entire piece - it doesn't. I think the smart thing to do here is to stand back and let this unfold. There is no evidence that Leopold's story is essentially wrong - all journalistic undertakings have details that are questionable. A source misunderstands something, someone changes their mind - who knows. I think the essential story is this - there was some kind of meeting between Luskin and Fitzgerald on Friday and Rove was told that he has been/will be indicted. The essential elements that Madsen adds are that the GJ notified Gonzalez of the indictment (according to Madsen, the same as they did with Libby) and that Luskin has been notified that he a subject of the investigation. Madsen adds that Fitzgerald has done this before in the Hollinger case - charging the defense attorney with obstruction (or some such thing). The whole reaction from Rove's attorney's seems very odd to me and in combination with the president's speech on Monday, leads me to believe that something may be going on in deed. In the end, it strikes me as bizarre in the extreme to take positions on stuff we have no where enough information to take a stand on. I understand asking Leopold questions, but to conclude he is lying or has jumped the gun at this point in time, seems premature. All of our deducing aside - people make mistakes. Finding an aspect of the story that is false, does not mean the story is false.

    Thanks to the commenters above for clearing up the pronoun issue on whether Madsen meant Luskin, rather than Rove, had become a subject. I've edited the post to reflect my misunderstanding of what Madsen meant.

    Meanwhile, back in the real world... * The DOW dropped 214 points on the same day the capital gains tax cut was extended * The Bushies decided that... aw shucks, they can probably talk to North Korea after all * The prime minister of Iraq plans to announce his cabinet on Saturday and allocate two of the most powerful ministries TO HIMSELF * a group of marines are being investigated for a My Lai style massacre in Haditha * RASMUSSEN has Bush's approval today at 36%. (That means he must now be solidly in the 20's everywhere else.) According to Rasmussem, three Americans now "strongly disapprove" of Bush for every one who "strongly approves." (Yowsers!) I think it's more than possible that we who are truly Fitz-obsessed will soon climb out of our caves, bleary-eyed and disoriented from weeks of "reboot, surf, refresh..." to find that the Rove indictment has come and gone and already become largely irrelevant. In the months to come it will be a minor note in the giant roar that results when a great nation begins, slowly and inexorably, to turn on its axis.

    Shirley1: I know exactly what you mean. Even though I now toil on a second-level tier of the MSM (I used to work for NYT, actually, but I finally could no longer abide the pomposity of that horrible institution - they truly do believe themselves akin to Mt. Olympians: immortals who are allowed to go down and play around with the pitiful mortals every once in awhile), I find much of my news and solace in blogs like this one. I checked into the Huffington Post merely out of curiosity, when it started up (and was skeptical, recalling Arianna's shady and flaky GOP past), but I was pleasantly surprised, and still am. And grateful, too, because that's what directed me toward the incomparable Jane at FDL. And then Jane directed me over here to Jeralyn and to emptywheel at the NextHurrah, and they all sent me over to Murray Waas, and so on and so on... This is a bountiful resource we have out here, and I'm tickled to see so many smart people using it to learn and to teach each other. Cheers to you all. BTW: if anyone is the least bit interested, I'm the guy who caused a huge stink over at Romenesko and lots of other places a few years ago, after a what I thought was a private e-mail of mine got leaked without my knowledge or permission to a radical website with the strange name of Narco News Bulletin. The odd guy over there trumpeted it as his big "scoop," and he put a screaming headline over it: "NYT Stringer Blows Whistle on Unethical LatAm coverage." I won't link to it (I never intended it to be public), but it certainly is public and out there, forever. So much for my short-lived anonymity here. Damn, this is only my first day of commenting on "the internets" under a pseudonym. Oh well...

    It may be time to give up on the Rove indictment story. We probably would have heard news that Fitzgerald would be calling a press conference tomorrow. According to Leopold himself, Fitzgerald would be giving the press 24 hours notice of an announcement. Looks more and more like we've been had, not by Leopold and TruthOut, but by their sources. I'll hold on until tomorrow at 4:00. But it doesn't look like we're hearing anything this week.

    It may be time to give up on the Rove indictment story. We probably would have heard news that Fitzgerald would be calling a press conference tomorrow. According to Leopold himself, Fitzgerald would be giving the press 24 hours notice of an announcement. Looks more and more like we've been had, not by Leopold and TruthOut, but by their sources. I'll hold on until tomorrow at 4:00. But it doesn't look like we're hearing anything this week.

    Re: Another Internet Report of Karl Rove Indictmen (none / 0) (#53)
    by fireback on Thu May 18, 2006 at 11:09:30 AM EST
    Easy Dem4Warner08. I don't recall an announcement on Libby until the day of. I'm pretty sure about that. Anyone recall?

    Yup, I read it as Luskin becomming a target. What happens when a person's lawyer is also part of the investigation?

    For the record, Jay Rosen responds
    to the use of his comments in the Wall Street Journal article by Anne Marie Squeo.

    Re: Another Internet Report of Karl Rove Indictmen (none / 0) (#56)
    by fireback on Thu May 18, 2006 at 11:13:31 AM EST
    I looked at Fizgerald's site. The announcement and the indictment came out the same say - Oct. 28th. Here's his site.

    What about the heads up to the news media? Leopold wrote that they'd be getting 24 hours. Don't you think that someone, anyone other than Leopold and Madsen would have this by now, or at least be willing to speculate again?

    Re: Another Internet Report of Karl Rove Indictmen (none / 0) (#58)
    by fireback on Thu May 18, 2006 at 11:21:17 AM EST
    I think there's truth in JL's report, but not everything in it is true. So I won't base my thoughts on just that. I'm not totally sure on this, but I don't think the buzz of the Libby indictment began until the day of.

    fireback, As I remember, there was a lot of speculation in the week before the Libby indictment, with stories nearly every day in NYT and WaPo. The NYT was the first to report correctly that it would be Libby only and that there would be no IIPA or conspiracy charges. That article appeared on the NYT website at about 9 ET the night before Fitzgerald's press conference and was considered highly suspect by readers of Raw Story, where Leopold was reporting multiple indictments. Most of the real confusion in the press, though, was about whether the investigation was continuing. Everybody, MSM included, had their facts wrong on whether Fitzgerald would extend the grand jury, would impanel a new grand jury, would close the investigation, etc.

    I hope I'm wrong, I really do.

    fireback - nope, there was definitely "buzz" the day before. For example, here is a Wapo story from Oct 27:
    Grand Jury Hears Summary of Case On CIA Leak Probe Decision on Charges May Come Friday By Carol D. Leonnig and Jim VandeHeiWashington Post Staff Writers Thursday, October 27, 2005; Page A01 The prosecutor in the CIA leak investigation presented a summary of his case to a federal grand jury yesterday and is expected to announce a final decision on charges in the two-year-long probe tomorrow, according to people familiar with the case.


    Re: Another Internet Report of Karl Rove Indictmen (none / 0) (#62)
    by fireback on Thu May 18, 2006 at 11:47:17 AM EST
    You may be right. However, let's not forget that that Grand Jury was ending. Everyone knew that Friday was the last day to do something, or extend. There's no timing issue here the MSM can leverage against. My bet's on tomorrow. Maybe some leaks tonight. And I'm as objective as they get....NOT

    Good point about the grand jury ending in Libby, Fireback. And please keep thread on Rove Indictment and not other news. Thanks.

    Dumb (or maybe not so dumb) question if folks are still posting on this thread: Do we know whether Fitz met with the FJ yesterday? (We never did find out what city he was in last Friday, do we know what city he was in yesterday? Or will be in tomorrow for that matter?) Have the media even been bothering to stake out the courthouse? Because if not, that seems to indicate that no one has tipped them off that there's going to be a session taking place. (Or, of course, alternatively, it could just be another example of the lazy SCLM.) Anyone hear anything?

    Re: Another Internet Report of Karl Rove Indictmen (none / 0) (#66)
    by fireback on Thu May 18, 2006 at 01:50:54 PM EST
    For what its worth, I just got off the phone with the receptionist for Randall Samborn, the spokesman for Fitzgerald. I asked if Mr. Fitzgerald was in Chicago or Washington. She said he was in Chicago. Here's to a late afternoon/night or early morning flight to DC.

    Up until yesterday, Abu Gonzales' DOJ web page (www.doj.gov) had a direct link at the bottom of the home page to Office of the Special Counsel's (Fitzgerald's) web site containing all the pleadings etc in the Libby case. My wife said it was there this morning. It is now gone. Coupled with the purported sightings of ABU at the grand jury room last week, this may be significant.

    Byron York's Latest Fact Checking... This time he takes on Madsen, and his comments need to be taken seriously. THE ROVE INDICTMENT WATCH, CONT'D [Byron York] I had to be away for much of the day, so I have just caught up with some new developments in the lefty-blog Karl Rove indictment watch. The focus of the story seems to have shifted away from the Jason Leopold report , in which CIA leak prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is said to have informed Rove last Friday that Rove had been indicted, to a new report by Wayne Madsen, a freelance writer in Washington who has written for The Village Voice, The Progressive, Counterpunch, and other publications, and who now publishes on his own website, Wayne Madsen Report. Last night Madsen reported that a number of the details in the Leopold story -- the 15-hour meeting, the 24-hour "get your affairs in order" notice -- were wrong. They might even have been put out by Rove himself, Madsen suggested, as part of a Rove effort "to create diversions and smokescreens." The real news, Madsen reported, was that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales went to the U.S. Courthouse in Washington last Friday, where he met with the grand jury in the CIA leak case and was told about the Rove indictment. From Madsen: WMR can confirm that the appearance of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales before the Grand Jury at the US Federal Courthouse in Washington was a formality in which the jury informed the Attorney General of their decision to indict Karl Rove. That proceeding lasted for less than 30 minutes and took place shortly after noon. Gonzales's personal security detachment was present in the courthouse during the Grand Jury briefing. From the courthouse, Gonzales's motorcade proceeded directly down Constitution Avenue to the Department of Justice. According to sources within the Patton and Boggs law firm, Karl Rove was present at the law firm's building on M Street. WMR was told by a credible source that a Patton and Boggs attorney confirmed that Fitzgerald paid a visit to the law firm to inform Rove attorney Robert Luskin and Rove that an indictment would be returned by the Grand Jury against Rove. Contrary to other reports, some of which may have emanated from the Rove camp in order to create diversions and smokescreens, the meetings at Patton and Boggs did not last 15 hours nor was a 24-hour notice of intent to indict delivered to Rove. In the Scooter Libby case last October, after the Grand Jury decided to indict Libby on Friday, October 21 and the Attorney General personally heard the decision the same day at a meeting with the jury, the actual indictment was issued the following Friday, October 28. Several sources have told WMR that an announcement concerning the indictment of Rove will be made on Friday, May 19 generally following the same scenario from October 28, 2005 -- the posting of the indictment on the Special Prosecutor's web site followed by a press conference at Main Justice. Madsen's report has raised the hopes of Rove indictment fans who have become somewhat dispirited after Leopold's "24 business hours" passed without action against Rove. But it appears that they might again be destined for disappointment, because the details of Madsen's account are, if anything, even more farfetched than Leopold's. First, a Justice Department source, speaking on background, says that Alberto Gonzales did not go to the courthouse on Friday, May 12. Second, Gonzales, like his predecessor John Ashcroft, has recused himself from the CIA leak investigation. Gonzales, as White House counsel, had taken part in the White House's response to the Justice Department in the early days of the probe. When he became attorney general, there was no doubt that he would have to recuse himself from the matter. He was asked about it during a press conference in October 2005, when there was great anticipation that indictments were coming in the CIA leak affair, and this is what he had to say: QUESTION: And does Patrick Fitzgerald -- will he notify you if he's about to indict anyone? And lastly, is he under any obligation [to file] a public report? ATTY GEN. GONZALES: I am recused from this investigation. I have been since coming to the Department of Justice. That means that not only am I recused from making decisions or participating in decisions regarding this investigation, I am recused from receiving information about the investigation. Quite frankly, you probably know more about this case than I do. I do not receive briefings. I do not receive any information about this particular case. And in terms of what will happen going forward, you -- you have as much information about that as I do. That's -- that'll be a decision made by Pat Fitzgerald. Finally, it simply defies common sense to think that Fitzgerald and the grand jury would give the attorney general a preview of an indictment in the CIA leak matter. "Gonzales would not be given that kind of information," says one insider. "The reason one is recused from the case is so that one cannot make decisions that would affect the case -- like he might tell the White House." And one more note. Madsen also reported that Fitzgerald told Rove lawyer Robert Luskin that he, Luskin, is now a "subject" in the probe because Fitzgerald is investigating whether Luskin "may have violated laws on obstruction of justice." I asked Rove spokesman Mark Corallo whether Fitzgerald has informed Luskin that he, Luskin, is a subject of the investigation. "No," was Corallo's answer. And Corallo repeated his earlier denials about the purported meeting last Friday at Patton Boggs. It simply did not happen, Corallo said.

    Just reviewed www.usdoj.gov, and while the link to Fitzgerald's site at the bottom of the page has been removed, a more vague reference and link is available at "Highlights," on the doj homepage.

    Re: Another Internet Report of Karl Rove Indictmen (none / 0) (#70)
    by squeaky on Thu May 18, 2006 at 03:03:36 PM EST
    red mac-here is Fitzgeralds page: Office of Special Counsel

    Re: Another Internet Report of Karl Rove Indictmen (none / 0) (#71)
    by squeaky on Thu May 18, 2006 at 03:05:19 PM EST
    Re: Another Internet Report of Karl Rove Indictmen (none / 0) (#72)
    by squeaky on Thu May 18, 2006 at 03:07:19 PM EST
    OK I was right the first time: Patrick Fitzgerald

    6:30 p.m. and zero buzz. I mean nothing. This aint happening, folks, and I hope Leopold and Truthout will start coming forward with some hard answers. Looks more and more like they got played. Hoping I'm wrong...

    Re: Another Internet Report of Karl Rove Indictmen (none / 0) (#74)
    by squeaky on Thu May 18, 2006 at 03:38:55 PM EST
    Dem4Warner08-I thought you were waiting until tomorrow eve to throw in the towel. More likely a time for news.

    There would have at least been a peep out there, a simple, "Some people are wondering about whether or not Fitzgerald will indict" on the MSM. There's nothing. Again, I hope I'm wrong, but before the Libby announcement, the buzz was deafening.

    Re: Another Internet Report of Karl Rove Indictmen (none / 0) (#76)
    by squeaky on Thu May 18, 2006 at 03:50:04 PM EST
    We'll see. Rove is a bigger fish than Libby. The brains of the WH Pol/ops. Nothing would surprise me when it comes to the details involved with landing him.

    Re: Another Internet Report of Karl Rove Indictmen (none / 0) (#77)
    by JK on Thu May 18, 2006 at 04:29:54 PM EST
    I would not put too much stock into the lack of buzz. Obviously, it could mean that nothing will happen tomorrow. But the situation here is much different than before the Libby indictment. Remember, the Libby indictment occurred at the end of a special Grand Jury session. There was built in buzz there -- will an indictment occur when the special grand jury session ends? There was tons of speculation as to what will occur at that time -- but all of it was pure speculation. Even without any official word from fitzgerald, there was reason for everyone to be buzzing about the end of the session. the main question was: will anything happen? that in itself was a news story. we are simply not in the same situation right now. fitzgerald does not give any indication as to what he is doing. so the media has absolutely no official word as to what is going to happen. thus, anything that anybody in the media hears is rumor. my guess is that there is a ton of talk around washington right now, but the corporate media simply won't share it believing that it simply cannot be verified from fitzgerald. assuming this dynamic is true, i would find it hard to blame them for that.

    There was tons of speculation as to what will occur at that time -- but all of it was pure speculation. Yes and no. Chris Matthews was pure speculation. But much of the newspapers' reporting had "sources close to the investigation" -- probably Rove's and Libby's lawyers. Whether those sources were credible or not can't be known, but I wouldn't call it pure speculation. It's true that Fitzgerald doesn't leak. It's interesting that you don't hear the buzz of "informed speculation" this time around, and I'd suspect it's because Luskin and Corallo themselves aren't talking. They may not know what's about to happen. Or they may have other reasons for shutting up. But so far their strategy seems to be to project a kind of false confidence. (It should be noted also that Luskin has been much quieter since the Viveca Novak embarrassment.) Regardless, I think if Rove had already been indicted, we would have heard it by now in a Jim Vandehei article. If anybody has the direct line to Luskin, it's him. I really think Luskin does not know what's about to hit him (although I suspect he thinks it may be bad).

    History Channel ran a special tonight on NSA's Echelon. It's a really interesting piece. AND there was Wayne Madsen interviewed several times! I didn't catch the whole program but there was an interesting part about how NSA's mandate includes Economic Eavesdropping - which NSA has used to collect phone calls & faxes of foreign competitors such as AirBus when they were competing against Boeing for contracts. Also did some listening for Margaret Thatcher. Also, mentioned the fact that the Brits & Canada all work together to cover the other guys' asses ... ie, "Wasn't me, I didn't do it" when in reality they called up a counterpart and asked them to do it for them ...

    RE: Luskin as a Subject of the Investigation Perhaps this is related to the suddenly discovered "mystery email"??? I've been wondering about that email for awhile, and wrote about it at DKos here ... To refresh, that email did a couple things to help Rove's case: (1) it seemed to back up his assertation that he didn't get into deep details on Plame, and (2) it provided a reason for Rove to tell Fitz about the Cooper conversation, because he had supposedly just "remembered" the conversation by finding the email. But bizarrely, the email always seemed weird -- perhaps containing misinformation (that the Cooper talk was about welfare, and that Plame was not mentioned). Luskin is intimately tied into the story about the e-mail -- supposedly Rove FOUND the email during a new search requested by Luskin, after the Vivica Novak revelation. Frankly, the email always sounded fishy, like it was a plant. But if it was a plant, the big question is: when was is planted?? In Summer 2003, or later after the Vivica Novak's tip? If the email IS a plant, and it was created after the Novak tipoff, then Luskin very well might have something to do with it. And if Luskin helped Rove fake evidence to support his case, then that would certainly be grounds for an obstruction investigation on Luskin -- overcoming the high bar of a prosecutor's reluctance to investigate a defense attorney. (This theory does not answer WHY the hell Luskin would torpedo his career by forging this email.... Or maybe Luskin didn't forge the email, but knows that Rove did. Maybe Fitz is threatening Luskin with charges so he'll spill the beans on Rove's shenanigans....)

    p.s. great site, and great conversation going on here. very thoughtful analysis for all us Plame geeks out there!! ** hoping tomorrow is the day **

    Question for all you lawyers... If a lawyer becomes a subject or target of an investigation involving a client, what are his options related to plea negotiations? It seems he would be unable to offer up any kind of helpful information to the prosecutor to mitigate potential charges, since all the information he has would be privileged. But it seems unfair, really, if a lawyer thus has fewer options than his client.

    Re: Another Internet Report of Karl Rove Indictmen (none / 0) (#83)
    by squeaky on Thu May 18, 2006 at 08:18:00 PM EST
    It may be an obstruction charge for not revealing V. Novaks conversation sooner and messing with the dates in a very self serving manner.

    I've started a new thread, same topic, here.