As part of a response to Ted Well's request that Fitzgerald reveal which news articles he intends to introduce as evidence at the trial, Fitzgerald released a copy of Joe Wilson's op-ed, which Dick annotated by taking notes and underlining certain passages. The notes say: Have they done this sort of thing before? Send an Amb to answer a question? Do we ordinarily send people out pro bono to work for us? Or did his wife send him on a junket? Consider what these notes mean. For the most part, these questions are not first reactions to information he learned newly from the op-ed. We know from Libby's indictment that Dick already knew the CIA had sent Wilson and presumably he already knew (from the CIA materials faxed to his office on June 9) that Wilson had made the trip pro bono. And note the Plame reference: not only does this reference prove he knew of Plame's purported involvement in Wilson's trip (since Wilson's op-ed makes no mention of Plame, Dick had to have known of it independently). But it suggests that Dick's first response, upon reading Wilson's op-ed, was to insinuate it was just a boondoggle arranged by his wife. And his use of the word "junket" certainly resonates with the word "boondoggle," used to discredit Wilson's trip several times later that week (and specifically used with Walter Pincus on the same day that Cheney discussed Plame with Libby on Air Force 2). In other words, Fitzgerald has just shown us that Dick's first response upon reading Wilson's op-ed was to produce key elements of the smear launched later in the week. http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2006/05/fitzgerald_coll.html#more
The way this investigation keeps chugging along i'm guessing there is no real time limit to wrap things up -- yes/ no?
Karl Rove Indicted on Charges of Perjury, Lying to Investigators By Jason Leopold Saturday 13 May 2006 Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald spent more than half a day Friday at the offices of Patton Boggs, the law firm representing Karl Rove. During the course of that meeting, Fitzgerald served attorneys for former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove with an indictment charging the embattled White House official with perjury and lying to investigators related to his role in the CIA leak case, and instructed one of the attorneys to tell Rove that he has 24 business hours to get his affairs in order, high level sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said Saturday morning. Robert Luskin, Rove's attorney, did not return a call for comment. Sources said Fitzgerald was in Washington, DC, Friday and met with Luskin for about 15 hours to go over the charges against Rove, which include perjury and lying to investigators about how and when Rove discovered that Valerie Plame Wilson was a covert CIA operative and whether he shared that information with reporters, sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said. It was still unknown Saturday whether Fitzgerald charged Rove with a more serious obstruction of justice charge. Sources close to the case said Friday that it appeared very likely that an obstruction charge against Rove would be included with charges of perjury and lying to investigators. http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051306W.shtml
No, photoshopped. Look at the change in tint on the right side of his head. Rove's face was chopped and pasted onto someone else.
Wondering the same thing. Conspiracy theorists would say that one possibility is that Bolton may have found out Leopold's WH leaker (he's been remarkably on the mark with the last two year's articles on the Rove Kurfuffle) and set him up. But reports say he stands by the article. Another thing, read the article, it says that Fitz gave him 24 "business" hours to get his affairs in order before the shoe drops. This was late Friday. 24 business hours will be sometime Wednesday. So we'll see. I do know that the MSM are paying attention to this article and are watching to see what goes down.
Wow. It seems like Rove was destined to go down this road. You just can't play full on dirtyball without getting your just desserts.
Another theory is that the 15 hours that Fitz spent at Luskin's office on Friday might have been to work out a plea bargain (fingering Cheney?).
please, what "less than insane" person ever refers to "business hours?" in any case that was a later edit, so it definitely doesn't pass the smell test. what does "business hours even mean? a business day, sure, but hours? it's laughable. and also, please highlight how you "know" the the MSM is paying attention, as opposed to just staying as far away as possible...
How Accurate Was the 'Rove Indicted' Story? By Marc Ash, On Saturday afternoon, we ran a breaking story titled, "Karl Rove Indicted on Charges of Perjury, Lying to Investigators." We assumed that we were well ahead of the mainstream media and that we would be subsequently questioned. Right on both counts. What everyone is asking right now is how accurate is the story? Has Rove in fact been indicted? The story is accurate, and Karl Rove's attorneys have been served with an indictment. In short, we had two sources close to the Fitzgerald investigation who were explicit about the information that we published, and a former high-ranking state department official who reported communication with a source who had "direct knowledge" of the meeting at Patton Boggs. In both instances, substantial detail was provided and matched. We had confirmation. We ran the story. http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051306W.shtml Leopold just might be the Woodward/Bernstein of our time.
i know it's a small point, but indictments are filed, supeonas are served. and why won't TO name their sources?
Too late now I think ~ he's rightfully getting shredded at Truthout. It's water under the bridge if Rove is indicted but that doesn't look to be the case - Rove is continuing about his normal routine, interviews etc. I don't understand how he could run such a bombshell headline on such sketchy 'insider sources' ~ credibility sinking fast... Has he Leopold ever struck out in such grandiose fashion before?
True dat! If this falls through, I'll have to seriously take anything TO says in the future with a grain of salt. But their reporting has been spot on this whole time. weird
