If you haven’t already seen it, Murray Waas’ piece in the Village Voice is chock full of interesting Plame Game tidbits. Most notably, federal investigators have been under the impression Karl Rove lied about what he knew from the beginning of the probe.
Justice Department officials made the crucial decision in late 2003 to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the leak of the identity of undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame in large part because investigators had begun to specifically question the veracity of accounts provided to them by White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove, according to senior law enforcement officials. […]
During his initial interview with the FBI, in the fall of 2003, Rove did not disclose that he had ever discussed Plame with Time magazine correspondent Matthew Cooper, according to two legal sources with firsthand knowledge of the matter. Federal investigators were also skeptical of claims by Rove that he had only first learned of Plame’s employment with the CIA from a journalist, even though he also claimed he could not specifically recall the name of the journalist.
Waas added that the information shows that “from the very earliest days of the criminal probe, federal investigators had a strong belief and body of evidence that Rove and perhaps other officials might be misleading them.”
In fact, by way of follow up, Waas added online today:
What has not been previously reported until now … is that not only could Rove not remember the name of the journalist who purportedly might have told him of Plame’s CIA employment, but he also claimed to remember virtually nothing about the circumstances of the purported conversation. He could not even recall whether the conversation took place on the phone or in person.
That discussion between Rove and federal investigators must have been quite a hoot. Where’d Rove learn about Plame? He said from a reporter. Which reporter? He doesn’t know. When he did he talk to this reporter? He doesn’t know. How did Rove communicate with this reporter? He doesn’t know. For a guy who can remember voter information by the precinct in swing states, Karl Rove couldn’t remember the slightest details when a reporter gave him classified information?
Waas’ piece is also loaded with fascinating details about John Ashcroft’s role in the early days of the scandal and his behavior before being forced to recuse himself.
Several of the federal investigators were also deeply concerned that then attorney general John Ashcroft was personally briefed regarding the details of at least one FBI interview with Rove, despite Ashcroft’s own longstanding personal and political ties to Rove, the Voice has also learned. The same sources said Ashcroft was also told that investigators firmly believed that Rove had withheld important information from them during that FBI interview.
Those concerns by senior career law enforcement officials regarding the propriety of such briefings continuing, as Rove became more central to the investigation, also was instrumental in the naming of special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald. […]
Also of concern to investigators when they sought Ashcroft’s recusal, according to law enforcement sources, was that a number among Ashcroft’s inner circle had partisan backgrounds that included working closely with Rove. Foremost among them was David Isrealite, who served as Ashcroft’s deputy chief of staff. Another, Barbara Comstock, who was the Justice Department’s director of public affairs during much of Ashcroft’s tenure, had previously worked for the Republican National Committee, where she was in charge of the party’s “opposition research” operations.
“It would have been a nightmare scenario if Ashcroft let something slip to an aide or someone else they had in common with Rove . . . and then word got back to Rove or the White House what investigators were saying about him,” says a former senior Justice Department official, familiar with the matter.
But getting back to Rove, his decision to play fast and loose with prosecutors was a drastically bad idea. Apparently, Fitzgerald has a special affinity for perjury charges
Fitzgerald, 44, has a history of invoking perjury laws and related statutes to buttress his investigations.
So it may not be surprising that he is considering perjury charges in his current assignment — as a special prosecutor investigating whether anyone in the Bush administration illegally leaked the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame to journalists. […]
Many prosecutors go before a grand jury only after they have a case pretty well wrapped up. But Fitzgerald’s approach is to use the grand jury as a tool for compelling witnesses to disclose information. And if he thinks a witness has fiddled with the truth, associates say, he becomes indignant.
“He is an aggressive prosecutor,” said Joshua Dratel, a New York lawyer who represented El-Hage. “If he feels someone is lying to him, he takes it personally.”
Drip, drip, drip…