After Libby - will Karl Rove be next?
October 28th, 2005
-
It’s 3/1 against him being indicted before December 31st
Following tonight’s sensational news that Lewis Libby, chief-of-staff to Dick Cheney, has resigned after being charged with perjury the focus is now on Bush’s closest adviser and architect of last November’s victory, Karl Rove. He has not been charged but the case has not been closed.
The Dublin-based international betting exchange, Tradesports, has a market on whether Rove will be indicted before the end of the year.The price is about 3/1 against this happening.
The heart of the issue is Rove’s role in journalists being told that the wife of a prominent critic of the White House’s Iraq policy was a covert CIA agent.
The affair began in July 2003, two months after the “ending” of the war in Iraq, when the woman’s husband, Joseph Wilson, wrote an article in the New York Times in which he accused the White House of twisting intelligence.
-
This all happened at the same time as the David Kelly case exploded in the UK and has a number of similarities - the war, how intelligence was used and alleged secret briefings which revealed the identity of Government employees
This has come at the end of a very bad week for the President. A couple of days we were just about to publish a story about a betting market on whether Bush Supreme Court nominee, Harriet Miers, would get the job. Alas the White House announcement came just as we were completing the piece.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Much will depend on how much (or how little) Scooter Libby has to say, particularly re. plea bargaining (particularly when he’s facing a jail sentence of up to thirty years if found guilty).
A key point in Watergate was when John Sirica (known as ‘Maximum John’) threatened extremely heavy sentences unless those charged (with the break-in) talked.
It may, of course, be that Karl Rove has no connection with this case (or will have no charges to answer).
I think it is pretty unlikely that Rove will get charged. Apparently Fitzgerald had prepared an indictment against Rove, but withdrew it at the last moment, probably a bit earlier in the week, after the intervention of Rove’s lawyers with some new information.
Even if more information were to emerge against Rove, the problem is that the grand jury that was examining the issue has been dismissed after serving the legal maximum of two years. Although any serving grand jury in D.C. can be called to examine the issue if further information comes to light, it would involve Fitzgerald having to make the whole case again to a new grand jury; I think there really would have to be a very large smoking gun before he would go to that extreme.
The big unanswered question in all of this is who is this mystery official who was Bob Novak’s source, and why has he remained anonymous when practically everyone else involved has been named?
2. cont’d.
I forgot the link
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102800153.html
Rove won’t be charged before December 31. Beyond that, the chances are pretty good that he’ll be charged.
It’s interesting to note that Fitzgerald’s last “Official A”, Illinois Governor Ryan, wasn’t charged by the first grand jury, but Fitzgerald eventually obtained his indictment more than a year later. Fitzgerald has already indicated that he’ll be picking up another grand jury.
I wonder whether Michael Gove who yesterday described himself as a ‘Neo-Con’ is also a fan of Bush and his administration?
The danger for Karl Rove is that Scooter Libby ‘flips’ and turns Prosecution witness. Given that he clearly faces a not inconsiderable prison term given the apparent strength of the Special Prosecutor’s case, this cannot be ruled out. It also appears that he faces a judge known for handing down tough sentences. No one can know what Libby knows but potentially he could point fingers at both Rove and, conceivably, the ‘Vice’ as Cheney is sometimes known!
It’s now becoming clear that ‘Offical A’ is Karl Rove. If he is indicted, which I still think unlikely, it’s almost certainly going to be on perjury and obstruction charges. On a legal technicality, Plame appears not to have actually been a covert agent, which is defined in law as someone who has been overseas and undercover within the past five years; it appears Plame did not fill these criteria. That is why no direct charges are likely: if she was not covert then leaking her identity is not prosecutable under the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act; Fitzgerald also said yesterday that prosecution under some act of 1917 was also extremely unlikely as it would be a difficult and dangerous prosecution to secure. This distinction is important because you will hear conservatives complaining about prosecutions stemming from an investigation into something that wasn’t a criminal act under the terms of the investigation. Orrin Hatch was hinting at as much yesterday.
However, Plame’s CIA work was still classified information; the situation gets more complicated, however, by the fact that there is no American equivilant of the Official Secrets Act; leaking classified information is itself not prosecutable, unless it threatens national security. Fitzgerald however takes the view that playing fast and loose in the press with CIA agents’ names, at a time when they are trying to increase CIA recruitement, does in fact damage national security. However, what specifically Rove would be charged with I am not sure.
It’s because if this that I think it unlikely that Rove will be charged. If Fitzgerald were going to go for him, he would have done so yesterday. If Libby co-operates, then there does exist the possibility of a conspiracy charge, but I still think that’s unlikely.
Re. 6, clearly there are known unknowns and unknown unknowns….
As for Cheney’s unofficial soubriquet, there was I, thinking that ‘The Vice’ was an ITV1 series starring Ken Stott!
7 This distinction is important because you will hear conservatives complaining about prosecutions stemming from an investigation into something that wasn’t a criminal act under the terms of the investigation.
The hypocrisy! Anyone remember Kenneth Starr?
Starr’s investigation leaked like a sieve; Fitzgerald’s has been quiet. I wouldn’t have thought any bet on prosecutorial outcomes in this was safe, partly for that reason. It’s very difficult to say from what was announced on Friday whether this is a tactical first step or the end of the line; whether there were sealed indictments; what will happen to the “Official A” loose end etc. Remember that more indictments in the DeLay case followed fairly smartly after the first. Perhaps the most interesting Fitzgerald-related bet would be on Cheney being replaced as VP before the end of the Bush term (probably “health reasons” cited).