On Friday night, MSNBC’s David Shuster suggested that [tag]Karl Rove[/tag] remains very much in legal jeopardy and may yet be [tag]indicted[/tag].
“Well, the tea leaves seem to suggest that Karl Rove is going to get indicted. And again, these are just tea leaves. But first of all, the judge talked about a resolution of Karl Rove coming soon, and again, remember, Karl Rove testified for the fifth time, and he still has not been cleared.
Secondly, the language, the body language from prosecutor [tag]Patrick Fitzgerald[/tag] was astounding. He went to such great lengths today to try to avoid mentioning Karl Rove or talking about his status. Now, that, in and of itself, seemed to signal something unique.”
Shuster added that prosecutors have alluded to certain evidence that suggests they “have an even stronger case to suggest that, look, Karl Rove didn’t have memory problems, he was willfully trying to avoid remembering certain things at the grand jury.”
On that note, the WaPo’s Jim VandeHei had an interesting front-page report today that helped summarize why Rove has reason to be concerned.
Fitzgerald, according to sources close to the case, is reviewing testimony from Rove’s five appearances before the grand jury. Bush’s top political strategist has argued that he never intentionally misled the grand jury about his role in leaking information about undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame to Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper in July 2003. Rove testified that he simply forgot about the conversation when he failed to disclose it to Fitzgerald in his earlier testimony.
Fitzgerald is weighing Rove’s foggy-memory defense against evidence he has acquired over nearly 2 1/2 years that shows Rove was very involved in White House efforts to beat back allegations that Bush twisted U.S. intelligence to justify the Iraq war, according to sources involved in the case.
That evidence includes details of a one-week period in July 2003 when Rove talked to two reporters about [tag]Plame[/tag] and her CIA role, then reported the conversations back to high-level White House aides, according to sources in the case and information released by Fitzgerald as part of the ongoing leak investigation.
Additionally, one former government official said he testified that Rove talked with White House colleagues about the political importance of defending the prewar intelligence and countering Plame’s husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV.
The resulting picture isn’t particularly reassuring for Rove.
As Greg Sargent put it:
If, as the Post tells us, Rove was very focused on dealing with pre-war intel criticism, it seems that much less likely that he’d be causal about a conversation involving one of the most damaging proponents of that criticism. Also let’s not forget that in Cooper’s account of their conversation, he says Rove closed with a telling comment: “I’ve already said too much.” Though that comment was cryptic and we can’t be sure why Rove said it, this nonetheless suggests that even at that moment, Rove already understood that the conversation had been a remarkable one. Add that to the Post’s suggestion that Rove was very involved in beating back [tag]Wilson[/tag] and other critics, and the notion that he’d forget such a conversation just becomes harder and harder to believe.
VandeHei reported that Patrick Fitzgerald is “wrapping up his investigation into White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove’s role” and Rove expects to learn as soon as this month if he will be indicted. Stay tuned.