Jason Leopold: Target Letter Drives Rove Back to Grand Jury (full story)

[WilliamPitt]

Target Letter Drives Rove Back to Grand Jury
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Issue

Wednesday 26 April 2006

Karl Rove's appearance before a grand jury in the CIA leak case Wednesday comes on the heels of a "target letter" sent to his attorney recently by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, signaling that the Deputy White House Chief of Staff may face imminent indictment, sources that are knowledgeable about the probe said Wednesday.

It's unclear when Fitzgerald sent the target letter to Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin. Sources close to the two-year-old leak investigation said when Rove's attorney received the letter Rove volunteered to appear before the grand jury for an unprecedented fifth time to explain why he did not previously disclose conversations he had with the media about covert CIA operative Valerie Plame and her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who criticized the Bush administration's use of pre-war Iraq intelligence.

A federal grand jury target letter is sent to a person in a criminal investigation who is likely to be indicted. A "target" of a grand jury investigation is a person who a prosecutor has substantial evidence to link to a crime.

Last week, Rove was stripped of some of his policy duties in a White House shakeup orchestrated by incoming Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten. The White House insisted that Rove was not demoted, but insiders said the executive branch is bracing for a possible indictment against Rove.

More: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/042606I.shtml

[kstewart33]

1. Don't believe it - another Jason miss.

Sorry, but given this guy's level of credibility, I wouldn't give this story the time of day.

[myrna minx]

7. Please provide an example. I think Mr. Leopold

has been spot on.

[Chimichurri]

9. when has he missed a story?

I look forward to his stuff and have never been let down. But please do shed light if there's something I don't know about.

[Beetwasher]

11. Heh? WTF Are You Talking About?

Leopold has been all over this and very, very accurate. His reporting on this has been top notch. I defy you to show otherwise.

[BurtWorm]

12. What is an example of "another Jason miss"?

I mean, I'd like to read a story that says "Patrick Fitzgerald says" rather than "persons close to the investigation say," but the signs have been pointing at Rove's indictment for a while. Especially the fact that he's been called to testify five times. (And has been taken off the "policy" beat.)

[liberalnurse]

13. This is a credible article....

The story was broke yesterday actually.....Jason has the inside look for anyone willing to read it. I find Jason to be "On Target".

[WilliamPitt]

15. And you are...?

If Jason Leopold were not credible, and his sources not backed up in triplicate, truthout.org would not run him.

End of file.

[liberalnurse]

18. You did good Will.

I know you wanted to say it in a more colorful fashion as did I.

[kstewart33]

23. Will, i wish you were correct.

Jason may be right on this one, but I doubt it. For a look at Mr. Leopold's past, see:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18624-20...

One paragraph:

"The release fleshes out a troubled career. Leopold says his grand larceny conviction in 1996 was for stealing compact discs from his employer, a New York music company, and reselling them to record stores. He says he was fired by the Los Angeles Times "for threatening to rip a reporter's head off." Leopold says he quit Dow Jones Newswires in a dispute over his beat but later learned the news service was planning to fire him because of a correction to one of his Enron stories: "Seems I got all of the facts wrong." "

It seems Mr. Leopold has gone from one writing job to the next. Getting the facts right is a real obstacle to his employment.

I write this as a former news reporter from many years ago.

[WilliamPitt]

25. I am the lead writer and a senior editor for truthout

and as such, am centrally involved in the process of examining these stories. What happened before with Jason is widely known, but has no bearing upon current matters. Jason's sources for these Plame stories are as solid as concrete, and he has backed up each story threefold.

Again: we would not run his stuff if he was not credible, and we have been 100% hands-on in personally vetting each story and each source. Jason's work is above reproach on this matter.

[kstewart33]

27. I hope you're right. nt

[Jacobin]

84. WaPo article today says this is incorrect

Does Jason have something more current?

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[stop the bleeding]

17. Sorry you are flat wrong when it comes to his reporting on the Plame leak

investigation, now you may be able to find something from a few years ago that has nothing to do with his reporting on this story.

Please provide an example of where he has incorrectly reported something on this story.

[myrna minx]

20. You of course notice that no examples

are provided...just a drive-by smearing of a reporter's integrity.

[kstewart33]

26. A smear?

Check the story citation for a look at Mr. Leopold's career that I provided in response to Will's comment. There are plenty of examples in the article. Integrity, he ain't got.

Ever wonder why Leopold is not quoted in the top liberal blogs like Murray Waas and a few other online reporters are? No one takes him seriously.

I mean no ill will to Jason personally, but don't give him credibility he doesn't deserve just because you want to believe what he writes.

[myrna minx]

29. Thank you for the WP article. I'll check it out.

You may not trust him, but so far, all of his research and writing about the Plame affair has panned out.

[WilliamPitt]

32. Jason

is completely up-front about the troubles in his past. Hell, he even wrote a book about it. He isn't hiding the mistakes he has made, and speaking personally, I can say that he has moved mountains to do his job with passion and integrity. His work on this matter is above reproach.

[myrna minx]

38. Thanks Will.

I appreciate his full disclosure. It appears that he has been forthcoming. I trust the integrity of Truthout, and considering his top notch reporting on Plame, I have no reason to be dubious.

on edit-spelling

[stop the bleeding]

44. So no on the Plame reporting but yes on his past other history

just as I stated in my post.

We all have made mistakes, but when we right the ship then we should be absolved of these mistakes.

Bringing out the skeletons is not a way to absolve one of their past corrected transgressions, please note that JL's reporting on Plame is top notch.

[H2O Man]

57. Yep.

I find the references to Jason's past to be unnecessary. History is filled with examples of people who had issues involving bad behavior in their past, and who became good and decent people.

[Cha]

61. And bush just doesn't happen

to be one of them

[Media_Lies_Daily]

66. With Junior, it's hereditary.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

64. In this case, if you question Jason's integrity, aren't you also...

...questioning Will Pitt's integrity as lead writer and senior editor of Truthout? Isn't that what you're really saying?

Don't you think Will fact-checks Jason's work before he allows it to be published on the Truthout website?

[SidDithers]

36. Enlighten us to a previous miss, please...

Apart from his personal history, you are questioning the quality of his reporting. Can you back it up?

Sid

[kstewart33]

41. CNN is reporting no targete letter sent to Rove nt

[WilliamPitt]

42. ...and CNN is never wrong.

Or something.

[VolcanoJen]

47. Luskin just issued a statement...

... saying the prosecutor has informed his client that he is not a target of the investigation.

The statement was read on CNN a few minutes ago.

[WilliamPitt]

49. Jason

is adding this denial to his story.

Smells like bullshit to me. Luskin is under no obligation to tell the truth to the press.

[VolcanoJen]

51. Have you found a link to Luskin's statement yet?

I keep searching and can't find it... I want to re-read it.

While Luskin is under no obligation to tell the truth to the media, wouldn't it be unusual for an attorney to lie about what a prosecutor told his client? Especially at this stage in the investigation, and especially if his client is under danger of indictment?

I hope Luskin's a liar. I'll say that much.

[myrna minx]

52. I haven't read Luskin's statement, but he's crafty, and he

would be veeery careful in how he phrased it.

[Beetwasher]

53. Or He's Acutely Parsing His Statement

Rove may have recieved a target letter, but not directly from Fitz, just as an example.

[myrna minx]

54. Yeah, Rove didn't receive a target letter from Fitzgerald, he received

from a courier.

[WilliamPitt]

55. Consider this analysis

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/26/155950/922

[VolcanoJen]

65. Tim Grieve's got an informative post up at Salon

This is some decent speculation, and also includes some of the words used in Luskin's statement, which I still can't find in its entirety.

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room /

Excerpt:

Rove lawyer: My client is not a target

Karl Rove seems to be done testifying before the grand jury -- at least for today -- and his lawyer is throwing some cold water on the indictment watch. In a statement distributed to the press, Robert Luskin says that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has advised Rove that he is "not a target" of his investigation.

"Target" is a term of legal significance here. The U.S. Attorneys' Manual defines a "target" as someone "to whom the prosecutor or the grand jury has substantial evidence linking him or her to the commission of a crime and who, in the judgment of the prosecutor, is a putative defendant." If Rove isn't a "target," what is he? Scooter Libby's lawyers have said that Rove is a "subject," and Luskin has all but confirmed as much in the past. A "subject," the U.S. Attorneys' Manual says, is a person "whose conduct is within the scope of the grand jury's investigation."

<snip>

But before reading too much into Luskin's statement, let us say this about that. We know a little bit about federal grand juries, and we've never heard of anyone -- particularly anyone in legal jeopardy -- going before a grand jury to "explore" anything. People testify before grand juries because they have to or because they think doing so will get them out of whatever jam they're in. Which description describes Rove? Luskin's statement was pretty circumspect; he said that his client testified "voluntarily" and "unconditionally" today, but he also said that he did so at Fitzgerald's request. Our translation: Rove and Luskin, eager to show Fitzgerald and the world that they're "cooperating," didn't insist that the prosecutor serve them with a subpoena in order to compel Rove's appearance.

Update: Truthout is reporting that sources "knowledgeable about the probe" are saying that Fitzgerald has notified Luskin in a letter that his client is, in fact, a target of the investigation. At the federal courthouse in Washington, a spokesman for Rove just told Salon's Michael Scherer that the report is "utterly false."

[robertpaulsen]

69. A SPOKESMAN for Rove? Not Luskin himself?

I smell MAJOR Rovian bullshit!

[VolcanoJen]

71. Luskin left the courthouse with Rove; he wasn't at the courthouse...

... when Salon's Michael Scherer went fishing for comments.

[robertpaulsen]

80. I see. It's still, to use an All the President's Men phrase....

a "non-denial denial".

The report can be characterized as "utterly false". That doesn't mean Rove isn't a target.

[VolcanoJen]

82. It certainly doesn't mean Rove *isn't* a target.

I guess the thing I'm having trouble with is the "target letter" story.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

58. And we all know that CNN never lies or misses a story, don't we?

[SidDithers]

60. No, I asked for a previous miss...

You explicitly stated that this was "another miss" for Jason. Give us a previous miss.

Sid

[UpInArms]

63. didn't CNN report there were WMD's in Iraq? n/t

[stepnw1f]

72. CNN is Credible? No shit

how do you do it masked man?

[rpgamerd00d]

2. Woot!

[faithnotgreed]

3. beautiful news

[myrna minx]

4. Oh gawd! I love the words "imminent indictment. "

It's better than chocolate.

[elehhhhna]

5. Did you know a target letter is not mandatory and is generally used

to inspire the person to MAKE A DEAL? Yay!

[Chimichurri]

6. so he volunteered to revisit the grand jury after receiving

the target letter!!

He's done.

[liberalnurse]

16. Rove and his minion want to try

to twist the truth a little more......It won't work...that is my gut instinct call that tidbit.

[Beetwasher]

8. *Giggle*

n/t

[wicket]

10. Egggggggcellent

[debbierlus]

14. Volunteered?

Like in, if you don't show up for further questioning, I will supeona your doughy ass....

As if he had a choice!

Great news! The Irish Alligator is going to CHOMP ROVE!

[dave29]

19. "Rove lied.." "eight out of the nine times he was asked"

My favorite quote

"People close to the case said that Fitzgerald has presented additional evidence to the grand jury in the past week that shows Rove lied to federal investigators and a grand jury eight out of the nine times he was asked about his knowledge of the leak since October 2003."

[spanone]

21. My favorite two sentences....Go Mr. Fitz

A federal grand jury target letter is sent to a person in a criminal investigation who is likely to be indicted. A "target" of a grand jury investigation is a person who a prosecutor has substantial evidence to link to a crime.

[lancdem]

22. What I like is that even if Rove provides satisfactory answers

he will still be indicted for perjury and making false statements.

[Jack from Charlotte]

35. Everyone THINKS they can just explain away what happened...

"If I could only get a chance to give.... MY SIDE OF THE STORY... they won't indict me." So Fitz says, "Here's your chance, Fat-boy." Fat-Karl gets up and says,..... "I Forgot." Fitz asks the GJ to indict. They do. He's convicted and The AWOL/moron pardons him.

[tgnyc]

24. CNN: Luskin says NO target letter came from Fitz

[AnnInLa]

30. And, that rove VOLUNTEERED to visit the GJ yet again

Would Luskin state absolutely that rove had NOT rec'd a target letter if he knew he DID receive one? While he is a fool, he is not that much of one, IMHO.

[Catherine Vincent]

33. Whatever. Luskin is Rove's defense and he will say anything

to deflect negativity away from his client. The target letter probably came from the DOJ.

[myrna minx]

50. Exactly. Luskin is not a known truth teller. n/t

[VolcanoJen]

70. Tim Grieve at Salon has some interesting speculation here:

This makes sense to me.

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room /

But before reading too much into Luskin's statement, let us say this about that. We know a little bit about federal grand juries, and we've never heard of anyone -- particularly anyone in legal jeopardy -- going before a grand jury to "explore" anything. People testify before grand juries because they have to or because they think doing so will get them out of whatever jam they're in. Which description describes Rove? Luskin's statement was pretty circumspect; he said that his client testified "voluntarily" and "unconditionally" today, but he also said that he did so at Fitzgerald's request. Our translation: Rove and Luskin, eager to show Fitzgerald and the world that they're "cooperating," didn't insist that the prosecutor serve them with a subpoena in order to compel Rove's appearance.

[Jacobin]

34. Hmm, guess its not the end of the file, yet

But I continue to hope there is a target letter, and maybe Luskin is lying.

[The Witch]

37. But what were his exact words?

Luskin is incredibly good at mincing words. Crushing them into a fine powder, i should say.

[Beetwasher]

39. I'm Sure That's A Parsed Response

Rove could have recieved a target letter from DOJ and not PERSONALLY from Fitz, etc.

[Jersey Devil]

45. exactly, probably another atty on Fitz's team

Most likely the prosecutor who was taking the lead before the GJ in Fitz's absence while he was working on other cases.

[Jersey Devil]

48. Jack Cafferty's take from Kos

CNN reports that Karl Rove has just finished his testimony before in the grand jury after four hours in his fifth time to the Grandy jury. John King reports that Rove's camp the grand jury just has as few loose ends to rap up to clear his name. However, other legal experts support the Jason Leopold version that Luskin is now convinced this was their last chance to avoid indictment. Possible Explanation of Target Letter Dispute?

I am wondering if the explanation of this apparently contradictory information is that Rove's lawyer Luskin may have received the letter identifying Rove as a target as reported by Leopold, but Luskin negotiated a suspension, or delay in that designated target status pending this voluntary grand jury testimony. So Luskin's press release that Rove is not now a designated target doesn't necessarily mean that they did recieve a target letter. Could it mean that the target designation is "in abeyence." Jack Cafferty

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/26/155950/922

[Media_Lies_Daily]

75. It all depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

[stepnw1f]

86. Luskin Also Leaked to the Press

after being told by the judge not to bring this trial to the public.

[Jack Rabbit]

31. We now have the subject of the first Snow Job

OK, Tony. Show us your stuff.

[helderheid]

40. Will, do you think he'll be indicted???

[stop the bleeding]

46. we in the south have a saying for this

Is a frog's ass water-tight?




yes

[AnnInLa]

43. Another reason for appearing 5 times:

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014674.html

If I as have speculated all along, Karl Rove is singing his heart out to avoid indictment on multiple charges and limit his liability to either a single charge of making a false statement to FBI investigators before the grand jury was convened, or to false statement and perjury charges, I think Rove's appearance before the grand jury today means he's both still trying to avoid an obstruction of justice charge and putting a final nail in someone else's coffin.

Rove has to know he is not getting a complete pass from Fitz. He's trying to work his way down to a no-jail sentence, which will be much harder with an obstruction of justice charge as well as false statements and perjury.

snip

A fifth appearance is unusual for a subject without a deal, but not for a subject who has agreed to become a key prosecution witness. When Luskin says Rove has no deal with Fitz, I think he's saying there has been no final promises as to the amount of a sentencing reduction Rove will get for his cooperation -- or even an agreeement as to the precise charges that will be brought against him. That doesn't mean that Rove has not agreed to help Fitz in exchange for whatever Fitz decides his reward should be.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

62. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[garybeck]

59. do you think Fitz knows who forged the Niger docs?

or,

who authorized the 16 words to be put into the state of the union address?


this could get interesting as it unravels.

[Finder]

67. From The Nation...

Fitzgerald recently sent a letter to Libby's defense team noting, "In an abundance of caution, we advise you that we have learned that not all e-mail of the Office of the Vice President and the Executive Office of the President for certain time periods in 2003 was preserved through the normal archiving process on the White House computer system." Hmmmm. The White House has lost chunks of e-mail from Cheney's and Bush's offices for 2003, the year Bush invaded Iraq, the year of the CIA leak. Must just be an accident, right?

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?bid=3&pid=5...

[Left Coast Lynn]

68. Looks like Jason may have been wrong

Rove spokesman says he didn't receive target letter

RAW STORY
Published: Wednesday April 26, 2006


Print This | Email This


Asked about a Truthout report which asserted that Karl Rove had received a so-called "target letter," a spokesman for Rove told Salon's Michael Scherer that the report is "utterly false."

The section of the United States Attorney manual pertaining to target notification does not specify the form in which the notice is to be delivered. In other words, the spokesman's assertion that Rove did not receive a target letter does not resolve whether Rove received notice of any kind.

If Rove did not receive a letter, the lack of a target notice does not necessarily mean that Rove is not a target. The manual does not require that targets be notified before indictment; it simply states that the prosecutor is "encouraged" to notify targets before seeking an indictment against them.

READ MORE FROM SALON.COM'S TIM GRIEVE

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

[garybeck]

73. let's hope this is parsing and semantics

perhaps he received the notice by email or fax, which would not be considered a "letter". I can think of other ways to get around the wording....

[Media_Lies_Daily]

74. The information you quoted doesn't say anything of the kind, does it?....

...here's what you quoted in your post:

"The section of the United States Attorney manual pertaining to target notification does not specify the form in which the notice is to be delivered. In other words, the spokesman's assertion that Rove did not receive a target letter does not resolve whether Rove received notice of any kind.

If Rove did not receive a letter, the lack of a target notice does not necessarily mean that Rove is not a target. The manual does not require that targets be notified before indictment; it simply states that the prosecutor is 'encouraged' to notify targets before seeking an indictment against them."

Additionally, Rove's spokesman is not exactly a truthful source, is he?

[VolcanoJen]

76. A lawyer dude on MSNBC just offered some decent speculation.

I can't remember his name, but he said it would be highly unusual for any prosecutor to send a "target letter" to a subject unless the letter was to inform him that he was about to be indicted.

The lawyer said that when such letters go out, it's more like hours, not days, before an actual indictment takes place.

Further, he said that taking that under consideration, Luskin is doing what any good defense attorney would do... insisting that his client isn't a target, but using as a basis for his argument the fact that no letter has been received.

I'm in the "Rove didn't receive a letter, but he's not out of the woods" camp. I really don't buy Leopold's story.

[Catherine Vincent]

77. delete

[VolcanoJen]

78. Isn't Jeffrey Toobin a CNN guy?

I was watching "Hardball" on MSNBC... didn't want to miss another great David Schuster report!

[Catherine Vincent]

79. Yeah, he was on CNN

Sorry, I didn't see the MSNBC part

[VolcanoJen]

81. Did Toobin concur that "target letters" are highly unusual...

... unless indictment is imminent?

Or that no further grand jury testimony would be required after the receipt of a "target letter"?

[Catherine Vincent]

83. I don't remember everything he said, but he did say that Rove is

a "subject". And explained he could be indicted or he could not. It's still undecided.

[Left Coast Lynn]

92. I said it appears the Truthout story is wrong

"Karl Rove's appearance before a grand jury in the CIA leak case Wednesday comes on the heels of a "target letter" sent to his attorney recently by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, signaling that the Deputy White House Chief of Staff may face imminent indictment, sources that are knowledgeable about the probe said Wednesday."

That's what Jason said. But it doesn't look like it happened. Sure, Rove could have gotten some other kind of notice. But Jason didn't say that. He said Rove got a target letter. And, sure, Rove could still be a target despite not getting a target letter yet.

But Jason's story states Rove got a target letter. It doesn't appear he did.

[Radio_Guy]

93. Enjoy your short stay

William Pitt and Jason Leopold are above reproach. If they say Karl Rove received a target letter, you can put money on that he did. They didn't get to where they are by firing at a dartboard and hoping they hit something. Journalism is hard, painstaking work and they do it well. What is your source, Lynn?

[Left Coast Lynn]

95. No reason to think my stay will be short.

Someone with less posts and a different opinion is a troll? Give me a break.

See post 68 for a source.

I hope Leopold is right. On balance, it just doesn't look that way. We'll see.

[Maddy McCall]

85. Kick/Rec

[DoYouEverWonder]

87. Now we know why Condi and Rummie

got their butts out of the country for a few days. They want to be as far away from the shit hitting the fan as possible.

[Maddy McCall]

88. Pretty bad when the war zone is more peaceful than stateside.

[DoYouEverWonder]

89. Ironic

Isn't it?

[lala_rawraw]

90. I just plugged this story on Young Turks!!! Go JL

[bleever]

91. Linky?

And, clinky!

[lala_rawraw]

94. air america should have, no?

does White Rose house those?