The speculation — informed and otherwise — continues to swirl with the news that White House bigwig Karl Rove will not only testify again in the “Plamegate” leak case but that prosecutors aren’t ruling out that he could be indicted:
Federal prosecutors have accepted an offer from presidential adviser Karl Rove to give 11th hour testimony in the case of a CIA officer’s leaked identity but have warned they cannot guarantee he won’t be indicted, according to people directly familiar with the investigation.
The persons, who spoke only on condition of anonymity because of grand jury secrecy, said Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has not made any decision yet on whether to file criminal charges against the longtime confidant of President Bush or others.
The U.S. attorney’s manual requires prosecutors not to bring witnesses before a grand jury if there is a possibility of future criminal charges unless they are notified in advance that their grand jury testimony can be used against them in a later indictment.
Rove has already made at least three grand jury appearances and his return at this late stage in the investigation is unusual.
The prosecutor did not give Rove similar warnings before his earlier grand jury appearances.
Rove offered in July to return to the grand jury for additional testimony and Fitzgerald accepted that offer Friday after taking grand jury testimony from the formerly jailed New York Times reporter Judith Miller.
Before accepting the offer, Fitzgerald sent correspondence to Rove’s legal team making clear that there was no guarantee he wouldn’t be indicted at a later point as required by the rules.
If that AP story isn’t bad enough news for a White House that has been battered by bad news, natural disasters and political controversies for several weeks, it doesn’t get any better for them when they read this info from the New York Times:
Mr. Fitzgerald’s conversations with lawyers since late last week have left an ominous cloud hanging over the inquiry, sweeping away assurances from a number of officials and their lawyers that Mr. Fitzgerald was unlikely to find criminal wrongdoing.
In coming days, Mr. Fitzgerald is likely to request that several White House officials return to the grand jury to testify about their actions in the case – appearances that are believed to be decisive as the prosecutor proceeds toward a decision on whether to file charges.
Mr. Fitzgerald is also re-examining grand jury testimony by I. Lewis Libby, the vice president’s chief of staff, the lawyers said, but it is unknown whether he too has been asked to appear again before the grand jury. His lawyer, Joseph Tate, did not respond to telephone messages left at his office today.
Meanwhile, the Reuters report has this boilerplate recap paragraph that needs to be kept in mind as this unfolds:
After initially promising to fire anyone found to have leaked information in the case, Bush in July offered a more qualified pledge: “If someone committed a crime they will no longer work in my administration.”
All kinds or rumors and predictions are swirling around the talk shows, the blogosophere and elsewhere due to not just the Rove testimony but a sense that this case is about to hit a dramatic high very soon.
For instance, Americablog points to an analysis by Lawrence O’Donnell and writes, in part:
O’Donnell explains the role of the “target letter” in a prosecutor’s strategy. Basically, it’s a pre-indictment strategy to turn someone. Then, he makes a prediction:
[A]t least three high level Bush Administration personnel indicted and possibly one or more very high level unindicted co-conspirators.
Think about that. How high is “very high level,” especially when it’s contrasted with “high level?” High level would seem to be Rove or Libby, since they’ve been the subject of debate all along. But “very high level”? That sounds like it’s getting to a cabinet level or even a Cheney.
Or Bush himself.
For more blog reaction go to Memeorandum.
In reality no one knows and it’s all guess work right now. But Rove being called back, coupled with Bush’s nomination of his lawyer Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court despite a firestorm of opposition from traditional conservatives who had expected a leading conservative jurist who overtly embraced their positions has spawned all kinds of theories.
This much we DO know: (a) Rove will testify again, (b) the prosecutor hasn’t ruled out an indictment (which doesn’t mean he’ll indict him).
If indictments of administration officials do come down, the questions then become how much bad news can an administration take and what does more bad news do to its clout within its own party. After all: indictments won’t be the best pre-advertising for the GOP 2006 Congressional campaigns, no matter what happens on appeal at any level. Not to mention: if there are indictments will there be quick resignations or leaves of absenses? And what impact and consequences would that have upon the White House and the GOP’s political operations?