It was announced yesterday that Karl Rove is reappearing before the grand jury for the fourth time today to answer questions on the Valerie Plame leak. Rove's lawyer was informed by Fitzgerald that he could not guarantee that Rove would not be prosecuted.
Two interesting points before I turn the floor over to y'all. Number one is that Joe Conason mentioned this afternoon that it is quite possible that Rove lied in initial testimony or in an affadavit during the first three months of the investigation, when Attorney General John Ashcroft had control over the investigation.
If this is true, Fitzgerald would have a virtual slam dunk. He could take any initial statements by Rove and use them against him. Also, any discrepancies between the first three appearances and this one can also be used in a perjury indictment on Rove. While not as bad as breaking the disclosure law, it would require a resignation and bring a lot of heat on President Bush.
More after the jump...
Secondly, Rove apparently said in previous testimony that he never said the name "Valerie Plame," but instead simply kept saying "Joe Wilson's wife". From today's
Washington Post:
Rove has testified that he talked with two reporters about Plame in that time period, but only referred to her as Wilson's wife and never supplied information about her status as an undercover CIA operative. Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, also testified that he discussed Plame with at least two reporters but said that he, too, never mentioned her name or her covert status, according to lawyers in the case.
Now, I'm not a lawyer, but I have worked for them and taken a few law classes. I am willing to speculate that those words, which technically did not reveal her identity, actually could jeopardize Rove, because all a reporter has to do is look up the name of Joe Wilson's wife. That requires virtually no work whatsoever on the reporter's part, and by saying who she was without naming her, Rove in effect did name her.
Is it enough for a prosecution under the statute that forbids such identifications? U.S. Code Title 50, Section 421, subsection A, states: Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
Under the wording of that statement, what Rove says he said appears to be enough to substantiate prosecution, and as such, his appearance appears to be a Hail Mary attempt to stave off an indictment for violating this law, or at the very least, an additional perjury indictment. Fitzgerald may be giving Rove a chance to set the entire record straight based on other testimony he has taken.
In any case, Karl has some major problems, it appears, and an indictment for him and possibly Libby may be forthcoming within a week, and almost certainly by the end of the grand jury's term (my birthday!) October 28.
I'd like to hear from you guys and what you think of this.