Thursday, May 18, 2006

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.

05/18 04:52 PMShare