10/07/2005

Rove to Testify Again in CIA Leak Case - Los Angeles Times

Federal prosecutors warn they cannot guarantee the presidential adviser won't be indicted. [translation: he is toast -- law]

WASHINGTON -- Presidential adviser Karl Rove has agreed to give last-minute testimony to a grand jury in the ongoing investigation into the leak of a covert CIA agent's identity.

It is unclear why Rove has been asked to make another trip — his fourth — to the grand jury investigating who leaked the name of CIA agent Valerie Plame...

After New York Times reporter Judith Miller testified before the grand jury last week, Luskin said, "I was advised ... that [prosecutors] might like his further cooperation and the prosecutor affirmed that he has made no decision on whether to charge Karl," Luskin said.

He declined comment when asked whether there was increased likelihood that his client would face charges. Luskin said Rove has not received a "target letter," customarily sent to grand jury witnesses about to be indicted...

Today, that speculation increased significantly with reports of Rove's reappearance before the grand jury, which one Justice Department official said was clearly an ominous sign for Rove and the White House.

"Certainly, it's not particularly good," said the Justice Department official. "What, exactly, the significance is, I can't say. But it can't be good."

Rove to Testify Again in CIA Leak Case - Los Angeles Times

1 Comments:

Anonymous instarx said...

Rules prevent Fitzerald from calling witnesses who are also potential defendants to testify before the Grand Jury without first telling them their testimony might be used against them. Because Rove was not told he was a potential target of the Grand Jury before his three previous appearances, he could argue that he was not given the opportunity to invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination. This would give Rove a perfect defense if he was charged in the future.

I am sure Fitzgerald recognized this problem. Hence Rove was told before his latest appearance that his testimony might be used against him in the future.

I suspect Fitzgerald's purpose in calling Rove for a fourth time was to get Rove's testimony presented to the Grand Jury in a form that would be admissible in court. If smart, Fitzgerald asked Rove the same questions as previously asked and took him over the same ground that was covered in his previous three appearances. The difference is that Rove's new testimony can be used in court against him.

Since there would be no reason for Fitzgerald to do this if Rove's testimony was only going to be used against others and not against Rove himself this looks bad for Rove. I suspect his lawyers are right to be very, very worried at this point.

10/07/2005 05:02:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home