Rove Won't Be Charged in C.I.A. Leak Case

WASHINGTON, June 13 — The prosecutor in the C.I.A. leak case on Monday advised Karl Rove, the senior White House adviser, that he would not be charged with any wrongdoing, effectively ending the nearly three-year criminal investigation that had at times focused intensely on Mr. Rove.

The decision by the prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, announced in a letter to Mr. Rove's lawyer, Robert D. Luskin, lifted a pall that had hung over Mr. Rove who testified on five occasions to a federal grand jury about his involvement in the disclosure of an intelligence officer's identity.

In a statement, Mr. Luskin said, "On June 12, 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove."

Mr. Fitzgerald's spokesman, Randall Samborn, said he would not comment on Mr. Rove's status

more...
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/13/washington/13cnd-leak...

What a shame!

With Cheney on the witness stand, should be good for a few larfs.

So the greased pig slipped out of Fitgerald's grasp and I am pissed off. That fat bastard should be slow roasting with a rotten apple in his mouth for treason against America. What happened? Did KKKarl have a get out of jail free card or did Fitz just blow it? I am so disillusioned by this country. We only have a sense of freedom, democracy is crumbling, and justice is a whore to the rich!

than that lowly snake-in-the-grass Rove.

who could he have given up though--libby was more hooked up with cheney than rove (i would imagine)

countdown said fitz didn't want to press charges unless he was positive he could win the case--so fitz was the judge and jury besides...hum....doesn't want to fuck up his great track record.

it's funny (not really) but just outside of chicago, in dupage county, we have prosecutors who don't want to press charges against a man who had been having sex with his three young children for YEARS (joe birkett--r----who is running for lt. governor) isn't positive he could win the case. (and he doesn't want to fuck up his great track record!)

ahh...must be something in the lake michigan water him and fitz have been drinking!

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000889.php

But Truthout.org -- the one publication to report, repeatedly, that Rove was definitely going to be indicted -- isn't buying it. But it's much worse than that, Truthout reported that Rove HAD BEEN indicted and is under indictment RIGHT NOW!

I reached Truthout editor Marc Ash on his cel phone this morning. "I wasn't aware that he had said that," he said of Luskin's announcement, but insisted that Truthout was "absolutely" standing by its earlier reporting.

"We've done a lot of work on this story, we've talked to a lot of people," he said, "and some of the people who provided information for the story are absolutely in a position to know."

So if Truthout's reporting -- by correspondent Jason Leopold -- is correct, is Ruskin lying? "Robert Luskin's allegations are in the best interest of his client, not necessarily the press," Ash said. "I think that the information he is providing is directly contradicted by the information we have."

Yeah, Marc. Might as well stick by your story. You're as fucked as you could possibly be.

We have to demand accountability. TruthOut needs to shut down. It's the only way to resolve this.

still provided valuable information like 'sealed v sealed' and http://www.progressiveu.org/191842-rove-roller-coaster-...

also it doesn't mean that Luskin is telling the truth. Furthermore, Sealed v Sealed is quite interesting wouldn't you say? Hmmm...know of any huge mafia types in the news lately?

Didn't think so!

Only Bush,Cheney, Rove.

So...

Refer to thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Focus on a discussion in a subthread by tom22, marie26, and StopTheBleeding that includes post #189. Last night, these DUers have pretty clearly torpedoed the claim by Leopold that 'Sealed vs. Sealed' is somehow uniquely significant and therefore must be an indictment of somebody important... in fact, there are 31 similar 'Sealed vs. Sealed' cases filed on the DC Dist Court docket this year alone.

Furthermore, this particular subthread makes a pretty compelling case that case '06 cr 128' cited by TruthOut, is most likely a motion to quash subpeona assoc. w/ the case of Time, Inc v. I. Lawrence Libby - not an indictment at all.

(dial up...it's hard to read long threads.)

Which just goes to show how desperate Truthout had become.

Back in the 1970s, Nixon was reported out by the grand jury as an un-indicted co-conspirator. The same precedent would probably govern a sitting VP.

My belief is that the names may well be sealed because they are themselves protected identities at the CIA, the disclosures of which could constitute a crime. They may have given inconsistent or misleading answers to the FBI or grand jury.

Before the cases can go forward, the CIA will have to declassify their names. Based on the current law, it will depend on factors like how long they have been back from overseas - once five years has passed from their return to the US, Public Law 97-200 - the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, no longer applies.

They bring news on far more than the cretins in the White House. Get real. TruthOut is a valuable source of news and information. Did you ask that 60 Minutes be "shut down" after the AWOL story about the Chimp?

Personally, I will keep reading TO and donating to it! My world does not revolve around KKKarl.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

A sheer embarassment.

At a time when we need an independent journalistic voice, we shoot ourselves in our collective feet when we defend reporting that borders on irresponsible journalism and fiction.

we don't know enough yet to be able to say they were wrong.

and he was saying that he stands by his story--believes it was true--and that something must have happened in the interim to change things (kind of implying that rove sold someone else out)

????

on edit: jason was saying that luskin needs to make public the letter he is talking about from fitz--show us the letter--and he also said he still would not reveal his source even if the letter letting karl off the hook is provided for public viewing

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Statement_from_Joseph...

Statement of Christopher Wolf, Proskauer Rose LLP, Counsel for Ambassador Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame Wilson

"We have become aware of the communication between Mr. Fitzgerald and Mr. Luskin concerning Karl. Rove's status in the criminal investigation. We have no first-hand knowledge of the reason for the communication or what further developments in the criminal investigation it may signal. While it appears that Mr. Rove will not be called to answer in criminal court for his participation in the wrongful disclosure of Valerie Wilson's classified employment status at the CIA in retaliation against Joe Wilson for questioning the rationale for war in Iraq, that obviously does not end the matter. The day still may come when Mr. Rove and others are called to account in a court of law for their attacks on the Wilsons."

and also the official statements His Fatass-ship gave to the FBI. And I have a feeling we WILL see those things, in the not-too-distant future.

I think the Rove malingering was partly Fitz playing games with Libby's head. Making Libby and his counsel bite their nails over what harm to Libby all the maneuverings with Rove might cause. What, they probably wondered, was Rove telling the prosecutor? Could the inside info he was possibly spilling be harmful to Libby's case? And maybe, just maybe, this cutesy "sigh of relief for Rove" bit might also be partly a maneuver to step up the pressure on Libby. And since Libby and Rove seem to have been on competing teams--the Bush butt-boys vs. the Cheney butt-boys-- I bet this business of Rove (for now) "skating" has got Libby seeing red. Heh heh--good, let him get angry; people don't think clearly when they're angry...

have threatened his and/or loved ones safety-from their dirty history I wouldn't discount severe threats from this gang, ever-it's their specialty.

Libby case. Meanwhile, at least we have the Wilsons' civil suit to look forward to.

november?) now that fitz let karl off?

Wonder if Fitzgerald would give me FIVE tries before the Grand Jury to get MY story straight?

I doubt it.

This really pisses me off ...

Look at it this way: Most of us would love to win the lottery or somehow find a way to never work again, while living in some beautiful, luxurious place... but just because that hasn't happened doesn't mean we're going to be unhappy.

And there's something else: an indictment of Rove--or a lack of an indictment of Rove--is largely a symbolic victory. The wingnuts won a cheap, symbolic "victory"--for now. We all feel like Rove is at the heart of the Bush malignancy (or the "brain"), but in reality, Rove is just the Bush cancer's Madison Avenue guy. He's not the center of the Bush mal-administration, not really. Back when I was a deluded supporter of repukelicans, we thought James Carville was, like, evil incarnate, or something. Carville always managed to make the repukes look as stupid and clumsy as they really were! But actually Carville, like any campaign or publicity guy, was a paid shill--and so is Rove. They are part of the whole machine, but they are only one small part.

Rove's been in trouble before (remember, he got fired from Daddy Bush's campaign because of something he leaked to Robert Novak). He's still currently in trouble, in that the public have all been made aware that he had SOME role in the dirty Plame outing affair. And we both know that he will be in trouble again someday. I mean, that ass Jonah Goldberg now asks, "When will Rove get his reputation back?"

BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA! His "reputation", Jonah? You mean, his "reputation" for being an honest, upright, guileless, saintly man? BWAAAHAHAHA! Fat Karl's reputation has stayed the same throughout all this: his reputation is as a revolting, crooked, sleazy, dishonest, cheating, gossip-mongering scumbag. He doesn't need it "back" because he never lost it.

IOKIYAR = It's OK If You Are Republican

If only a Clinton adviser had done half of what Rove did, the Republicans wouldn't have stopped until the guy had gotten the chair. They would have instituted special prosecutors and gone relentlessly all the way until indictments were handed, no matter what.

Heck, these bastards shoot old people in the face, and then their victims have to apologize to them.

They are the severe right's FOX news II, and you should know it. Rove rolled. The evidence need not be presented in court folks. These are new times, and if needed the five federal magistrates will dump what they know about the "big conspiracy." That will represent the worst case scenario for BushCo.

And the revolution will commence. Are YOU ready? Or, are you ready to roll over?

US government since 1994 that is depressing.

I just can't imagine what these mob$ter$ would be doing if Clinton did just a tiny fraction of what they've done since their 2000 coup d'etat. They would be screaming for the firing squad 24/7/365.

except the weasel.

watch the freepers rally around this g.d. traitor, never once asking themselves how they would behave if this was a DEMOCRAT....yeah that's right freepers, you hypocritical pathetic pieces of SHIT

as they were the first journalists (AS THEY HAVE REVEALED) that were contacted by Rove and told the dish about Plame.

It all stays in the family. They are all safe now. They all got away with TREASON!

Bush stated he would do on camera for all the world to see---fire anyone responsible for Plameleak. Tweety basically said that Rove was a Plameleaker twice (as documented by Fitz). So, even if Rove is not indicted, why shouldn't he be fired?

Trent Lott fussed, fumed, sort of agreed begrudgingly and then said something like, "No one likes being ruthless---I don't like it when I'm ruthless."

I would like to have pressed him further on that statement, LOL. But Tweety dropped the subject. Still, he got a great statement out of Lott.

I'm so disappointed - when I heard it on NPR I just said "Fuck!" and turned off the radio.

"...We'd hoped for a good one, with lots of good cheer."

Wonder what's up with this?

On the other hand, I am sure that there are numerous other criminal enterprises that Kkkarl has participated in, so we just have to keep digging. Perhaps Fitz is doing just that--he has the license to do so.

Or am I approaching the definition of insanity, here?

It may well be that it is fruitless to continue to persue criminal charges against him, at least under this congress.

which was much easier than getting them on racketeering or criminal activities. Maybe they'll catch that snake buying child porn -- but that shows how low I've fallen to even think such a heinous thing.

He kept digging, and voila! Monica.

before the FBI busts down his door to search his office.

Don't lay this on our reptile friends.

... maybe he goin after cheney instead? ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

I'm guessing his credibility is shot to hell and back at this point.

And he never had any in the first place.

someone probably intervened on Rove's behalf and nixed it.

You're joking, right?

BigOil buddies with deep, deep pockets.

In the ruling class newbies like Lay can get flushed, but real power never is called to task -which is why the Bush's will never pay for their sins in this life.

Looks like Fitzs' case against Libby is going down the toilet as well. Wonder how much the payoff was?

connections. It will be interesting to watch.

a family. Unlike the Bush's, Libby is fair game.

When I entered the structured investment game in New York in 1997 I was amazed at how many "folks" could cut a $5 billion dollar check as a third party to a given deal. The money is all hidden - and I am sure even more money is hidden now. The checks were not corporate checks - indeed there were no checks and no trail - money just moved. "Families" have the money under the control of an individual - it truly was a different world from mine.

Maybe Bush told Fitz he was going to pardon Rove.

Fitz's M.O.

I'm glad I didn't weigh in on that one! But actually, if anyone guessed yesterday that Rove might have been secretly indicted, or might be in the near future, that doesn't mean they're stupid. This was apparently a close call on Fitzgerald's part, since it's taken him this long to decide not to go after Rove.

Jason Leopold threw out the story about Rove's indictment as fact, though, and he's bound to have credibility problems from here on because of that. According to Dr_eldritch's response 158 in that thread, Leopold has said that if his source turned out to be misleading, he would reveal their identity. It will be interesting to see what Leopold does now in that respect.

Within that particularly long thread, there is a sub-thread in which some excellent tag-team sleuthing work is hammered-out by several DUers (Marie26, Tom22, StopTheBleeding) that pretty well refuted the claims of Leopold in the OP. Look for that subthread in the posts centered around #189.

Excellent 'home-grown' investigative work that puts to shame the claims of Leopold in the OP - that's why I personally rec'd that thread, NOT for the story in the OP.

chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby Jr., on charges for perjury and obstruction of justice, and the prospect that Mr. Cheney could be called to testify in that case.

I'm not sure, though.

It's easy to forget, because it was just another scandal in a sea of them.

damn

This is quite a development, but I'm going to hold out and wait until I learn more before I process this one.

blow!

"Mr. Rove told the grand jury that he forgot the conversation with Mr. Cooper and volunteered it to Mr. Fitzgerald as soon as he recalled it, when his memory was jogged by the e-mail to Stephen J. Hadley, then deputy national security adviser, in which Mr. Rove referred to his discussion with Mr. Cooper." (from NY Times article; link in OP)

I must say, though, Fitzgerald is a class act. Compared to Ken Starr, especially. Fitzgerald seems to do everything properly, perfectly legally and in accordance with the spirit of the law, as should be in courts.
For example, see http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-CIA-Leak.html

there's nothing he can do - the little shit-turd Rove walks.

Junior would have pardoned him anyway.

The guy probably covered his ass as soon as the whole thing started.

When the Libby indictment came down, I was very disappointed and said so. I was practically blown off the website by people who said I was spreading "gloom and doom". (By the way, I don't see these people posting this morning).
We have to STOP LOOKING FOR A HERO! Nobody is willing to step up to the plate, and nobody is going to ride in on a white horse. WE'RE THE HEROES. And until we recognize that, get up off our asses and get involved and rescue this country ourselves, it ain't gonna happen. It's just not that simple. And PLEASE don't bore me with statements like "Well, maybe there are other plans".....
We have to stop guessing about what our "leaders" have in mind in an ultra-secret plan to save our asses. WE have to be the leaders.

There will be no change unless the people make it happen. As Bush whips his base with homophobia, that should also serve to whip the progressive base to come out and get his clowns out of office.

It would be nice for a D.C. official to step up, but apparently that's not gonna happen.

Why won't fitz office comment?

Read this firedoglake entry:

http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/06/13/dodging-cipa-gray... /

<snip>

First, the NYTimes article from David Johnston this morning. (And a hat tip to Holden for the heads up on the article.) If Luskin is coming out and saying publicly that they got a letter from Pat Fitzgerald which says that Rove will not be charged, there are two things that I want to see and know: (1) what does the letter actually say, word for word; and (2) does it say something along the lines of "Please thank Karl for his cooperation in this matter."

<snip>

Here’s what the {NYT} article does say:

In a statement, Mr. Luskin said, "On June 12, 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove."

Well, that’s a bit of overhype, frankly. Rove was not the only person that Fitzgerald was looking at in the grand scheme of this investigation. And to spin this as the case being over is laziness on the part of David Johnston — and the media writ large, frankly — who have never dug into this case to realize that the players were larger than the Libby and Rove narrative frame that the corporate media types have conveniently used throughout the investigation. And that the be all and end all of the case was not the ultimate criminal charges, but the exposure of the smarmy underbelly of the Bush Administration and their standard MO of attacking, with a vengeance, anyone who dares to question them — even when those questions are not only appropriate but also expose them in a lie.

<snip>

Now you're talkin'.

'nuff said.

@#$^%$#^%$.

That's all I have to say in the matter...

So far it's only an assertion from Rove's lawyer.

Fitzgerald's spokesman refused to comment, so is there any reason to believe this report?

So why bring it up?

I said that the only reports of "no indictment" have come from Rove's attorney, and that Fitzgerald's spokesman refused to comment. So why lend this report any credibility at this time?

Even Karl Rove's isn't going to make a public statement like that unless it's true.

yeah, because Rove nor anyone he works with would ever lie to manipulate public opinion...

:eyeroll:

they slammed the parents reputation, all the while knowing their client was guilty....

it's their job to discredit witnesses against their client. No matter how much you all want to keep dreaming. There is no indictment and never has been.

How do you get me dreaming from that? Check yourself please....

to start a day.

Not what I wanted to hear this morning.

was not really outed as a CIA agent. It will energize Rove to be even more cutthroat
and dishonest because he knows he can get away with it.

OK. This is the playing field now. We will have to fight harder. This incompetent,
corrupt Republican government cannot stand.

Their glee is going to disappear when Libby's trial rolls around.

I know they say he spotless, but everybody has skeletons, of some sort in their closet.

Rove has done a lot of dirty shit involved in this case, he isn't so good that he can hide all the bodies, there is something waiting to be uncovered and it will come up soon.

As in a big, fat, evil one with heart problems!

The man shot someone in the face, and the person he shot apologized, fercripessake!

The hell with Teflon, I want my next frypan to be lined with Republican! --- Nothing sticks to these people. Nothing.

TC

A lousy way to start the day, though.

ten ways to Sunday!

I've been patient thinking these charges were coming down, and now -- N A D A .

F*CK.

TC

pretty strange timing i've gotta say. and no comment from fitzgeralds people? not that it is really a big surprise rove managed to engineer an escape route. since when are people told (in writing no less) when they AREN'T going to be charged with a crime?

as well.

Admittedly I'm not one of those folks that has gotten over excited about Rove being indicted one way or the other. Where politics are concerned I tend to be cautious and leary and take a "wait and see" attitude". Since something just doesn't feel right about this whole thing I think, for now, I think that I'll stay with that tact and watch how things play out (still hoping justice will prevail and all things will be revealed).

I just read the MSNBC article and, unless I missed something, they did not even mention attempting to talk to Fitzgerald's office. They are just reporting everything Rove's lawyer is saying as fact. Regardless of whether or not what the lawyer is saying is true...which it is impossible to ascertain without a confirmation or denial from Fitzgerald....it is poor journalism from MSNBC, and something I am sure that many people are going to miss.

In my opinion, reporting this story as fact without that confirmation from Fitzgerald's office (even the "no comment" apparently being reported in other stories is not good enough) is the equivalent, in the other direction, of what the Leopold story did. I feel that any people who have been quick to jump on him should be equally suspicious of this reporting. It is unsubstantiated, and therefore suspect.

on edit: I just checked out the Washington Post and the New York Times, and both are reporting that it is just Rove's lawyer saying this stuff, so at least some journalists are being more responsible about it all.