Luskin thinks his client (Rove) will be indicted

[KipWellsFan]

Cheney's Office Is A Focus in Leak Case

special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has zeroed in on the role of Vice President Cheney's office, according to lawyers familiar with the case and government officials. The prosecutor has assembled evidence that suggests Cheney's long-standing tensions with the CIA contributed to the unmasking of operative Valerie Plame.

 

In a move people involved in the case read as a sign that the end is near, Fitzgerald's spokesman yesterday told the Associated Press that the prosecutor planned to announce his conclusions in Washington, where the grand jury has been meeting, instead of Chicago, where the prosecutor is based. Some lawyers close to the case cited courthouse talk that Fitzgerald might announce his findings as early as tomorrow, though hard evidence about his intentions and timing remained elusive.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1701888_pf.html

 

more at link

[KipWellsFan]

WASHINGTON, Oct. 18 - The special counsel in the C.I.A. leak case has told associates he has no plans to issue a final report about the results of the investigation, heightening the expectation that he intends to bring indictments, lawyers in the case and law enforcement officials said yesterday.

 

The prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, is not expected to take any action in the case this week, government officials said. A spokesman for Mr. Fitzgerald, Randall Samborn, declined to comment.

http://nytimes.com/2005/10/19/politics/19l...agewanted=print

[KipWellsFan]

We got another rat!

 

Second aide assisting leak prosecutor, those close to case say... Developing...

http://www.rawstory.com/

[KipWellsFan]

Bush probably knew all along

 

Other sources confirmed, however, that Bush was initially furious with Rove in 2003 when his deputy chief of staff conceded he had talked to the press about the Plame leak....

 

A second well-placed source said some recently published reports implying Rove had deceived Bush about his involvement in the Wilson counterattack were incorrect and were leaked by White House aides trying to protect the President.

 

"Bush did not feel misled so much by Karl and others as believing that they handled it in a ham-handed and bush-league way," the source said.

 

http://nydailynews.com/front/story/357107p-304312c.html

So:

 

1. We just had a two year investigation costing a ton of taxpayer money to find out something that the president knew all along?

 

2. Bush has kept Rove on staff even though HE KNEW Rove was the leaker.

 

3. It was June 10 of 2004 that Bush said he'd fire anyone involved in the leak. This was AFTER he already knew that Karl was the leaker, Bush knew that in 2003. So Bush lied when he told the public in June of 2004 that he would fire the leaker because he already knew who the leaker was, and clearly hadn't fire him.

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/10/bu...-2003-lied.html

 

Lies and the Lying Liars who tell them

Edited October 19, 2005 by KipWellsFan

[Balta1701]

NY Daily News.

 

WASHINGTON - An angry President Bush rebuked chief political guru Karl Rove two years ago for his role in the Valerie Plame affair, sources told the Daily News.

 

"He made his displeasure known to Karl," a presidential counselor told The News. "He made his life miserable about this."

 

Bush has nevertheless remained doggedly loyal to Rove, who friends and even political adversaries acknowledge is the architect of the President's rise from baseball owner to leader of the free world.

 

As special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald nears a decision, perhaps as early as today, on whether to issue indictments in his two-year probe, Bush has already circled the wagons around Rove, whose departure would be a grievous blow to an already shell-shocked White House staff and a President in deep political trouble.

 

Asked if he believed indictments were forthcoming, a key Bush official said he did not know, then added: "I'm very concerned it could go very, very badly."

 

"Karl is fighting for his life," the official added, "but anything he did was done to help George W. Bush. The President knows that and appreciates that."

 

Other sources confirmed, however, that Bush was initially furious with Rove in 2003 when his deputy chief of staff conceded he had talked to the press about the Plame leak.

By the way...it was as recently as 2004 that Mr. Bush pledged in front of the entire country that he would fire anyone involved in the leak. And also...if this article is correct, he went public with a statement that was directly contrary to information he had, and which could have impeded the work of a federal investigation...something bordering on Obstruction.

 

Edit: Oh and by the way...just so you understand...again if this article is true, it wasn't the leak itself or the associated lying that got the President angry...it was the fact that they were caught.

 

Bush has always known that Rove often talks with reporters anonymously and he generally approved of such contacts, one source said.

 

But the President felt Rove and other members of the White House damage-control team did a clumsy job in their campaign to discredit Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson, the ex-diplomat who criticized Bush's claim that Saddam Hussen tried to buy weapons-grade uranium in Niger.

 

A second well-placed source said some recently published reports implying Rove had deceived Bush about his involvement in the Wilson counterattack were incorrect and were leaked by White House aides trying to protect the President.

 

"Bush did not feel misled so much by Karl and others as believing that they handled it in a ham-handed and bush-league way," the source said

Edited October 19, 2005 by Balta1701

[Balta1701]

This morning's Press Briefing with dancing Scotty...

 

QUESTION:  Scott, is it true that the President --

 

SCOTT McCLELLAN:  Welcome back.

 

QUESTION:  Thanks.  Is it true that the President slapped Karl Rove upside the head a couple of years ago over the CIA leak?

 

SCOTT McCLELLAN:  Are you referring to, what, a New York Daily News report?  Two things:  One, we're not commenting on an ongoing investigation; two, and I would challenge the overall accuracy of that news account.

 

QUESTION:  That's a comment.

 

QUESTION:  Which part of it?

 

QUESTION:  Yes, that is.

 

QUESTION:  Which facts --

 

SCOTT McCLELLAN:  No, I'm just saying -- no, I'm just trying to help you all.

 

QUESTION:  So what facts are you challenging?

 

SCOTT McCLELLAN:  Again, I'm not going to comment on an ongoing investigation.

 

QUESTION:  You can't say you're challenging the facts and then not say which ones you're challenging.

 

SCOTT McCLELLAN:  Yes, I can.  I just did.  (Laughter.)

 

...

 

QUESTION:  Scott, let me come back to -- so you say you're challenging the accuracy, but you won't tell us why.  Why would it be irresponsible for us to report that?

 

SCOTT McCLELLAN:  Report what?

 

QUESTION:  What you said --

 

SCOTT McCLELLAN:  It's up to you what you want to report.  I'm just trying to --

 

QUESTION:  Well, if you want us to say it's inaccurate, you need to give us a reason why, or it wouldn't be responsible to report it.

 

SCOTT McCLELLAN:  Well, there's an ongoing investigation, and as you know, our policy is not to comment on it.  So that's where we are.

 

QUESTION:  You just did.

 

SCOTT McCLELLAN:  Go ahead.

 

QUESTION:  Based on your personal knowledge, based on your opinion, based on your frustration with the story -- what caused you to say that?

 

SCOTT McCLELLAN:  No, I mean, I read the story and I didn't view it as an accurate story.

 

QUESTION:  Why not?

 

SCOTT McCLELLAN:  Again, I'm not going to go any further than that.  There's an ongoing investigation.  This is bringing up matters related to an ongoing investigation.

 

QUESTION:  After you read the story, Scott, did you check with either the two people mentioned, the President or Rove, to ask them?  Is that what you base --

 

SCOTT McCLELLAN:  I don't have any further comment, Peter.

 

QUESTION:  Well, is that what you base your guidance on, or is it just -- you know, is it just you're feeling that this couldn't have happened?

 

SCOTT McCLELLAN:  I stand by what I just said and I'm going to leave it at that.

 

...

 

QUESTION:  No, just some details on why you're challenging the facts of this case by the briefing would be great.

 

SCOTT McCLELLAN:  Because you asked the question.

 

QUESTION:  No, I think we're all interested to know on what basis you're challenging it.

 

SCOTT McCLELLAN:  Like I said, I'll be glad to talk about the investigation once it has come to a conclusion, but until that time --

 

QUESTION:  You're on the record now.  We expect you to really talk about it.

 

SCOTT McCLELLAN:  I'm on the record every day.

 

QUESTION:  Well, I mean, this is really -- you have said you really are going to go into a deep, profiled explanation --

 

SCOTT McCLELLAN:  No, I said I'd be glad to talk about it.  I don't know all the facts, Helen.

 

QUESTION:  Didn't you say you were going to write a book about it? (Laughter.)

 

QUESTION:  I mean when it's all over, you said you were going to give us a total explanation --

 

SCOTT McCLELLAN:  Exclusive interview for John Roberts.

 

QUESTION:  A PowerPoint presentation, the whole thing.  (Laughter.)

 

SCOTT McCLELLAN:  No, I'm not committing to that.  Welcome back.  I'm glad your gloves are left back there.  (Laughter.)

 

QUESTION:  Was that particular story part of what you shared with the President today from highlights of the news?

 

SCOTT McCLELLAN:  Again, you have my comment on it and I'll leave it there.

[KipWellsFan]

Now, those close to the investigation say that a second Cheney aide, David Wurmser, has agreed to provide the prosecution with evidence that the leak was a coordinated effort by Cheney’s office to discredit the agent's husband.

 

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Second_Chene..._leak_1019.html

 

Both cooperators have connections with Bolton.

 

full story at link

[KipWellsFan]

Did George Bush lie to special investigator?

 

In his own interview with prosecutors on

June 24, 2004, Bush testified that Rove

assured him he had not disclosed Plame as a

CIA employee and had said nothing to the

press to discredit Wilson, according to sources

familiar with the president's interview.

http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/...005/1007nj3.htm

 

Combined with the New York Daily News article being true this is somehwat of a bombshell