FIFTH TIME to Grand Jury for Karl Rove

-

rove100.jpg
Karl Rove is back before the Valerie Plame case grand jury this morning — being reported everywhere.
What would a Rove indictment be worth in terms of Bush approval rating points — now at 32%.
Lots of folks have already jumped out of the Bush Kool-Aid ring (Tony Snow actually said that he would work for Bush but wouldn’t “drink the kool-aid“), so the hard core Bush advocates are getting condensed.
My bet is that if a Rove indictment comes down, we’ll see Bush lose 4 points, down to 28%, all other things remaining equal.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

44 comments on “FIFTH TIME to Grand Jury for Karl Rove

  1. i? ilan says:

    In World of Warcraft, every gamers are striving wow power leveling and make wow gold. However, not every gamers all OK been wow power leveling. Because they still much to do. Please visit our website http://www.toppowerlevel . net Let us for you saving time and money help you wow power leveling. We promised you buy our wow power leveling services, we will soon begin your orders and guarantee in wow power

    Reply

  2. wow power leveling says:

    you’re going to dish dirt on me you’ll need to be original. I have already written a book about my felonious past. I outed myself, so to speak so there is nothing revelatory about these so-called factoids. The book is called News Junkie. It was published last week.
    http://www.wowgold-powerleveling.com

    Reply

  3. wow power leveling says:

    you’re going to dish dirt on me you’ll need to be original. I have already written a book about my felonious past. I outed myself, so to speak so there is nothing revelatory about these so-called factoids. The book is called News Junkie. It was published last week.
    http://www.wowgold-powerleveling.com

    Reply

  4. mantolama says:

    On a side note, if you’re going to dish dirt on me you’ll need to be original. I have already written a book about my felonious past. I outed myself, so to speak so there is nothing revelatory about these so-called factoids. The book is called News Junkie. It was published last week.

    Reply

  5. wow power leveling says:

    In World of Warcraft, every gamers are striving wow power leveling and make wow gold. However, not every gamers all OK been wow power leveling. Because they still much to do. Please visit our website http://www.toppowerlevel . net Let us for you saving time and money help you wow power leveling. We promised you buy our wow power leveling services, we will soon begin your orders and guarantee in wow power leveling in Account safety. in our here not only wow power leveling many services. example: AOC Power Leveling, Warhammer Online Power Leveling, MapleStory Mesos, EVE ISK, WOTLK power leveling, AOC Gold, LOTRO Gold. We need your support Thank!!!
    http://www.toppowerlevel.net/buy.php : wow gold
    LWB

    Reply

  6. wow power leveling says:

    In World of Warcraft, every gamers are striving wow power leveling and make wow gold. However, not every gamers all OK been wow power leveling. Because they still much to do. Please visit our website http://www.toppowerlevel . net Let us for you saving time and money help you wow power leveling. We promised you buy our wow power leveling services, we will soon begin your orders and guarantee in wow power leveling in Account safety. in our here not only wow power leveling many services. example: AOC Power Leveling, Warhammer Online Power Leveling, MapleStory Mesos, EVE ISK, WOTLK power leveling, AOC Gold, LOTRO Gold. We need your support Thank!!!
    http://www.toppowerlevel.net/buy.php : wow gold
    LWB

    Reply

  7. Eli Rabett says:

    Ever notice how Karl Rove looks and acts like Truman Capote. This explains a lot about his tactics.

    Reply

  8. Mythbuster says:

    Talk about drinking the kool-aid. An attack on Iran would be the biggest moral and tactical mistake of the last 100 years. It demonstrates the nuttiness of the pre-emption argument: We are planning on murdering people in a war of choice on the chance they might murder people in the future. There is absolutely zero moral justification for that. Moreover, if threatening your neighbors–after they had threatened you was grounds for pre-emption–then other countries would have have license to attack us at any time. How about remembering that we are supposed to be human beings.

    Reply

  9. Carl Rove says:

    Dear Mr. Jason Leopold,
    Enough cat and mouse! You got me!
    Your article was (as usual) 100% accurate — I #DID# get a target letter from that bastard Fitzgerald. Even though, historically, Fitzgerald only gives out target letters a day or two before he seeks an indictment, and it would be ridiculous for me to deny something that was coming out in a few days, I #DID# get a target letter and I denied it. I can’t really say why I did this, as there is no logical reason… at the very least, I should have had my legal team continue not to publicly comment on aspects of this case.
    I apologize for denying your pulitzer caliber story.
    I also noticed that you said elsewhere that you found out from your sources on Monday that I would be testifying on Wednesday. I #REALLY# appreciate you sitting on this information and not breaking the biggest story of the week! Those extra two days of not being in the news were nice! Especially since if you would have actually reported something specific before it happened you would have a shred of credability for future stories!
    Thanks Bro,
    -The Rovester

    Reply

  10. vachon says:

    Hiya Jason,
    Keep dong what you’re doing. You’re part of my “rounds” concerning Plame-Wilson, along with firedoglake, emptywheel and Talk Left. The more you write on this, the happier I’ll be. I am so addicted to the massive tea-leaf reading, legal speculation and great education/analysis that I’ve had to refill my printer cartridges twice just from downloading all the pdf’s and filings.
    I think you’re terrific. And Truthout rocks.
    Sincerely,
    vachon

    Reply

  11. Marky says:

    Good post, Jason L.
    I look forward to seeing how the facts match your reporting, after a few of these crooks get put away.

    Reply

  12. dahreese says:

    Was that a smile of confidence or a snicker on Rove’s face yesterday?

    Reply

  13. jason leopold says:

    As far as I’m concerned if I am pissing people off then I am doing my job. That’s a sign in this business. And the fact that “Randy” is the same person that has posted personal attacks on me under the name “jiggyflunknut” at other sites means that I have hit a nerve that it is causing this person to spend hours on various sites wasting his or her energy on me.
    That just makes me more confident that my story and my sources have been dead-on accurate.
    On a side note, if you’re going to dish dirt on me you’ll need to be original. I have already written a book about my felonious past. I outed myself, so to speak so there is nothing revelatory about these so-called factoids. The book is called News Junkie. It was published last week.
    But if you really want to prove me wrong I suggest that some gumshoe reporting is in order. Otherwise, what’s the point.

    Reply

  14. steambomb says:

    Ok so let me try to understand this and please have a little bit of sympathy for the layman that I am. Is this Tony Snow guy trying to say that its ok for him not to drink the kool aid as long as he serves it up for everyone else to drink? I am still confused about this.

    Reply

  15. Pissed Off American says:

    Snow might not want to drink the kool-aid, but he still expects us to. The slithering propagandist has had his comments removed from Free Republic….
    http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_steven_l_060426_tony_snow___cover_up.htm

    Reply

  16. Pissed Off American says:

    There is no way in hell that this administration is going to relinguish power. These bastards are going to launch a stage play that will make 9/11 look like a parking lot fender bender.

    Reply

  17. Pissed Off American says:

    “Let’s not get our panties in a jumble over this.”
    Posted by Jackie O
    I never let my panties jumble. Ever.

    Reply

  18. mlaw230 says:

    “In connection with this appearance, the special counsel has advised Mr. Rove that he is not a target of the investigation.”
    You would be better off with tea leaves, but the above language means something. My guess is that since Rove has been cooperating he was asked to correct the record (the statement also says he testified at Fitzgeralds request) he probably received assurances that he was not a target in regard to the specific insular matters he was going to testify about (“in connection with…”) . That does not mean that he couldn’t be a target regarding other matters or that he hasn’t even received a target letter or reached a plea deal, of some kind.
    As I mentioned earlier, if he was going to reverse earlier testimony he would want some assurance that his new and old testimony wouldn’t just be cut and pasted into an indictment, and Fitz would want (actually need) him to have come clean at the Grand Jury so in some future trial against a third party his testimony for the Government wouldn’t be easily impeached i.e. “Mr. Rove, you said X under oath at the Grand jury in 2005, and now you are saying Y, the complete opposite, were you lieing then or are you lieing now?
    Without a deal he would have no reason to “correct” prior testimony in this second grand jury and Fits wouldn’t have requested him to testify.

    Reply

  19. Owen says:

    Declassifying for national security reasons is legal, but as part of a re-election campaign it isn’t.
    This leak was practically dropped until today by the media after it was realized that a president can make the call about what is a secret and what isn’t.
    But can a president declassify his opponent’s medical records? No.

    Reply

  20. Liesbeth says:

    While this story unfolds, I believe you’re all wrong. The Valery Plame leak goes all the way to the top. It’s not your daily political scribble, this goes back to the hart of Bush presidency: were there weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Was the Iraqi government purchasing yellow cake?
    The US congress has not taken these questions seriously, which has lead to a power grab by the White House not yet seen to date. Hopefully, Mr Fitzgerald will unfold the mechanism which led the US to another disaster.

    Reply

  21. RazorSharp says:

    The discrepency between Leopold reporting that Rove receiving a “target letter” and Luskin (and other denying that) is due to the fact Leopold makes shit up. STOP READING HIS DRIBBLE! He has been called a “poor man’s Jayson Blair” by Murray Waas!

    Reply

  22. ckrantz says:

    Just curious but if Rove is indicted are there any other candidates to run the white house political operation or will Rove be running it from behind the scenes?

    Reply

  23. Shaneekwa says:

    Agree with Jackie O. I bet you polls prior to Iraq indicated public disapproval of military force. Things always change once the dogs of war are let loose. The CIC will be deferred to at least for a few months by the “Amurrrkan people” he’s “sworn to protect”. Brace yourselves. Brace the public for more games and manipulation. We need to preempt that manipulation. (1) There’s bipartisan domestic agreement that Iran has for a long time been a more serious security threat than Saddam’s post 1991 Iraq. (2) Europe (including France and Germany) and other allies are moving towards agreement that Iran is a serious security threat, in stark contrast to Saddam’s Iraq in 2003. (3) Ahmadinejad’s Iran is a credible, belligerent threat to peace and security in the region. (4) Iranian exiles are actively working for military intervention with the assistance of some of the same operatives who sold the Iraq “freedom is on the march” effort last time around.

    Reply

  24. charles says:

    Leopold is reporting that Rove “volunteered” to speak before the GJ because he received a “target letter,” which supposedly indicates that Rove is imminent danger of being indicted. Yet, CNN just quote Rove’s lawyer who said in a statement that Fitzgerald said Rove is not a “target.”
    Any ideas from lawyers what the discrepancy here might be. Is this Luskin whistling in the dark? Assuming Luskin is right, does it simply mean that right now, at this very moment Rove’s not a target, but he’s still a potential target?

    Reply

  25. parrot says:

    There are several types of folks that seek to undermine Out Constitution. Both do not seem to be getting a fair hearing in our courts at the moment. I look forward to see and hear their testimony in open court before a jury of our citizens. I also look forward to the day when there will be actual convictions against those that seek to subvert our laws and endanger the national body politic. If there is justice there will be justice…and not just petty and vicious, pointless revenge and killing, promulgated by mendacious criminals inside and outside our government.

    Reply

  26. John B. says:

    I agree with Charles.
    Bush has officially “jumped the shark” on scaring us with the terror alerts and if he initates a nuclear or even a conventional war against a country that hasn’t attacked us, again, well, he may actually be tarred and feathered and ran out of town on a rail, as they used to do to n’er do wells in the old days…
    now, if his CIA gins up an attack on us…well, all bets are off…

    Reply

  27. TLittle says:

    An indictment against Rove would be counter-productive, the President has all but admitted fault, and his approval ratings are irrelevant. The midterms will give a better pulse of how this country is reacting to the Republican President and it will be interesting to see how often he will give his support to candidates via personal appearances in districts or photo-ops. His coat-tails are not what they use to be.
    Bush stopped by VA a few days before the Governor elections took place. In that very close race his appearance did nothing to sway a Democrat from being elected in a dominantly Republican State. There were other factors, but it still can be considered an idicator.
    I think we are starting to see a rise of apathy among the American people, and I worry that come 2008, voter turnout will have decreased.

    Reply

  28. charles says:

    Jackie O: It could cut either way, at least according to a CNN poll (you’ll have to click the link “the poll”) that shows a majority do not think the US should attack Iran.

    Reply

  29. Jackie O says:

    Let’s not get our panties in a jumble over this. All of these unflattering approval ratings are worth nothing unless they hold true for the entire month of October. What happens when the “commander-in-chief” drops tactical nucular bombs on Iran in September or October to “uphold his solemn duty to protect the American people”? A rally of support.

    Reply

  30. charles says:

    Think Progress is reporting that Rove volunteered to testify to pre-empt, perhaps, an imminent indictment.

    Reply

  31. Marky says:

    About “Kool-aid”:
    Snow isn’t the first Republican to talk about it.
    His use of the term is implicit acknowledgement that the Bush era is over. He’s just embalming a corpse.

    Reply

  32. Steve Clemons says:

    mlaw230 and others — I think it’s really too early to tell. Rove has been cooperating with Fitzgerald — but at the same time, if Rove illegally obfuscated or lied previously — then Fitzgerald has some problems, I think, with disparate treatment with Libby. It’s just unclear whether Fitzgerald is zeroing in on someone else — or gathering more info on Libby — or setting up Rove w/his cooperation in exchange for no indictment or lesser counts.
    A prominent reporter who used to cover Fitzgerald in Chicago told me that it is very consistent for him to go after to actors — actor a and actor b…indict one, pump the other, and then possibly go after the first. But know that just tells us that Fitzgerald is crafty — not that it gives us any insight into one of the biggest cases of this kind in the nation.
    More later,
    Steve

    Reply

  33. obsessed says:

    Unless I misunderstand how it works (quite possible), Rove has no choice in the matter – he can be required to testify as many times as the GJ sees fit. He can, as he did last fall, request that they let him testify, and he could, if he chose, testify by invoking the 5th amendment, but to say “why would his lawyer LET him testify” doesn’t make sense – to me anyway. (I’m not a lawyer)

    Reply

  34. obsessed says:

    The fact that Rove is testifying is news – everything else is leaks and spin, and since it comes from AP & CNN rather than Waas & Leopold, it’s Rove’s spin.

    Reply

  35. mlaw230 says:

    I would guess that this means that Rove is actually off the hook. His attorney would be nuts to have him testify again if there is a chance of indictment, and there would be in the absense of a deal. Fitz may be having him sew some things up and having him come clean on the record so he can’t be impeached by his GJ testimony if he testifies against whoever the real target is. Sorry to disappoint, but on the bright side, the target looks more and more like Cheney.

    Reply

  36. Maxwell says:

    Randy, it is more likely to be Rove’s lawyers leaking to Byron York that their client is fully co-operating and is at no risk.

    Reply

  37. Memekiller says:

    Seeing as the Democrats want to tie the GOP Congress to Bush’s unpopularity, I love the fact that right when Rove’s about to be indicted, the WH announces he’s now in charge of the midterm elections.
    Move over Delay, we have our new albatross.

    Reply

  38. Randy says:

    Gee, isn’t it interesting that Jason Leopold and his sources at all levels of government that are actively involved in this investigation didn’t bother to mention into him that Rove was meeting again with Grand Jury?!? Prediction… in a few hours Leopold will have a story from his “sources” telling us what the Rove testimony was all about or some other seemingly groundbreaking story that he conjured up.

    Reply

  39. charles says:

    The question to ask about the appearance of Rove before the grand jury, of course, is whether he’s there as a witness or whether he’s invoking his right to address accusations, ie, a pre-emptive apperance to stave off indictment.

    Reply

  40. Greg Priddy says:

    Steve,
    On a bit of a tangent, but still related — what do you think of the idea Ivo Daalder expressed a couple of days ago over at TPMCafe that Bush’s current lack of political capital might cause some reticence on his part in terms of going after Iran?
    Greg

    Reply

  41. Steve Clemons says:

    tucker’s bow tie — I laughed when i typed it.
    Steve

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *