http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/042606I.shtml
Target Letter Drives Rove Back to Grand Jury
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Report
Wednesday 26 April 2006
Karl Rove's appearance before a grand jury in the CIA leak case Wednesday comes on the heels of a "target letter" sent to his attorney recently by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, signaling that the Deputy White House Chief of Staff may face imminent indictment, sources that are knowledgeable about the probe said Wednesday.
It's unclear when Fitzgerald sent the target letter to Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin. Sources close to the two-year-old leak investigation said when Rove's attorney received the letter Rove volunteered to appear before the grand jury for an unprecedented fifth time to explain why he did not previously disclose conversations he had with the media about covert CIA operative Valerie Plame and her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who criticized the Bush administration's use of pre-war Iraq intelligence.
A federal grand jury target letter is sent to a person in a criminal investigation who is likely to be indicted. In a prepared statement Wednesday, Luskin said Fitzgerald indicated that Rove is not a "target" of the investigation. A "target" of a grand jury investigation is a person who a prosecutor has substantial evidence to link to a crime.
Last week, Rove was stripped of some of his policy duties in a White House shakeup orchestrated by incoming Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten. The White House insisted that Rove was not demoted, but insiders said the executive branch is bracing for a possible indictment against Rove.
Luskin was accompanying Rove to US District Court in Washington, DC, Wednesday morning and unavailable for comment. Rove was told by Fitzgerald's staff that his testimony could last for as long as three hours.
In an interview last week, Luskin confirmed that Rove was a "subject" of Fitzgerald's probe. In a previous interview, Luskin asserted that Rove would not be indicted by Fitzgerald, but he was unwilling to make that same prediction again during an interview last week.
"Mr. Fitzgerald hasn't made any decision on the charges and I can't speculate what the outcome will be," Luskin said in an interview last week. "Mr. Rove has cooperated completely with the investigation."
Luskin said Rove has not been offered any plea deal by Fitzgerald and Rove has cooperated with the probe voluntarily. He said Rove's cooperation is not contingent upon any plea agreement.
People close to the case said that Fitzgerald has presented additional evidence to the grand jury in the past week that shows Rove lied to federal investigators and a grand jury eight out of the nine times he was asked about his knowledge of the leak since October 2003.
Should Wednesday's court appearance by Rove provide the grand jury with answers to lingering questions, Rove may not be charged with obstruction of justice, but will likely be indicted for perjury and lying to investigators, sources close to the case said.
For one, according to the sources close to the investigation, the likelihood that Rove will be charged with perjury centers on the fact that Rove has testified at least three times that he first discovered that Plame worked for the CIA after her name was printed in a July 2003 newspaper report by conservative columnist Robert Novak. Evidence has since surfaced that shows Rove spoke to Novak about Plame prior to Novak's published report in which Novak outed the undercover CIA officer.
Moreover, Rove did not disclose that he had also been a source for a story about Plame written by Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper, and Rove testified that he was not involved in a campaign to discredit or attack the credibility of Plame's husband, Ambassador Wilson, when at least two dozen witnesses have testified before the grand jury that Rove was in fact instrumental in the smear campaign on Wilson.
Rove's grand jury appearance Wednesday is crucial in determining whether he will face a charge of obstruction of justice for not turning over an explosive email that was written moments after his July 2003 conversation with Time's Cooper. Rove volunteered to testify before the grand jury Wednesday to explain why he did not disclose and locate the email for more than a year, sources close to the case said.
Luskin said that Rove simply forgot about his conversation with Cooper when he testified before the grand jury because Rove had been dealing with other pressing matters, such as Bush's reelection campaign.
Rove's story began to unravel when Fitzgerald discovered the existence of an email Rove sent to then-Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley after he spoke with Cooper on July 11, 2003, which Hadley and Rove did not disclose to the special prosecutor or hand over to his probe, sources close to the case said.
"I didn't take the bait," Rove wrote in the email to Hadley immediately following his conversation with Cooper. "Matt Cooper called to give me a heads-up that he's got a welfare reform story coming. When he finished his brief heads-up he immediately launched into Niger. Isn't this damaging? Hasn't the president been hurt? I didn't take the bait, but I said if I were him I wouldn't get Time far out in front on this."
In December, desperate to keep his client out of Fitzgerald's crosshairs, Luskin became a witness in the case when he made an explosive revelation to Fitzgerald.
Luskin revealed to Fitzgerald that Viveca Novak - a reporter working for Time magazine who wrote several stories about the Plame Wilson case - inadvertently tipped him off in early 2004 that her colleague at the magazine, Matt Cooper, would be forced to testify that Rove was his source who told him about Plame Wilson's CIA status.
Novak - who bears no relation to syndicated columnist Robert Novak, the journalist who first published Plame Wilson's name and CIA status in a July 14, 2003, column - met Luskin in Washington, DC, in the summer of 2004, and over drinks, the two discussed Fitzgerald's investigation into the Plame Wilson leak.
Luskin assured Novak that Rove learned Plame Wilson's name and CIA status after it was published in news accounts and that only then did he phone other journalists to draw their attention to it. But Novak told Luskin that everyone in the Time newsroom knew Rove was Cooper's source and that he would testify to that in an upcoming grand jury appearance, these sources said.
According to Luskin's account, after he met with Viveca Novak he contacted Rove and told him about his conversation with her. The two of them then began an exhaustive search through White House phone logs and emails for any evidence that proved that Rove had spoken with Cooper. Luskin said that during this search an email was found that Rove sent to Hadley immediately and it was subsequently turned over to Fitzgerald.
Still, Rove's account of his conversation with Cooper went nothing like he described in his email to Hadley, according to an email Cooper sent to his editor at Time magazine following his conversation with Rove in July 2003.
"It was, KR said, [former Ambassador Joseph] Wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized [Wilson's] trip," Cooper's July 11, 2003, email to his editor said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Leopold spent two years covering California's electricity crisis as Los Angeles bureau chief of Dow Jones Newswires. Jason has spent the last year cultivating sources close to the CIA leak investigation, and is a regular contributor to t r u t h o u t. He is the author of the new book NEWS JUNKIE. Visit www.newsjunkiebook.com for a preview.
-------
Full Version: Target Letter Drives Rove Back to Grand Jury
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...2600849_pf.html
Rove Testifies for 5th Time in CIA Leak Case
By William Branigin and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, April 26, 2006; 5:09 PM
Top presidential adviser Karl Rove testified today before a federal grand jury investigating the 2003 leak of a CIA operative's identity, appearing "voluntarily and unconditionally" at the request of the chief federal prosecutor, Rove's attorney said.
In a statement issued upon the conclusion of Rove's testimony at the federal courthouse in Washington, attorney Robert D. Luskin said the special counsel in the case, U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald, had advised Rove that he was "not a target of the investigation." However, Luskin said Fitzgerald has not made any decision about charges.
Rove, President Bush's chief political strategist, went before the grand jury to answer questions about discussions his attorney had with Time magazine reporter Viveca Novak, a source close to Rove said earlier. Novak testified last year that she alerted Luskin in early 2004 that Rove had leaked information to her colleague, Matthew Cooper, about CIA operative Valerie Plame.
Luskin said his client testified "to explore matters raised since Mr. Rove's last appearance in October 2005." The attorney added, "In connection with this appearance, the special counsel has advised Mr. Rove that he is not a target of the investigation. Mr. Fitzgerald has affirmed that he has made no decision concerning charges. At the request of the special counsel, Mr. Rove will not discuss the substance of this testimony."
Rove's appearance this afternoon marked the fifth time he has testified before a grand jury in connection with the leak.
A little more than three hours after he arrived, Rove left the courthouse without making any comment.
Earlier today, Fitzgerald met with the grand jury for the second time since it was empaneled following the expiration of an original grand jury investigating the leak.
The first grand jury returned an indictment last year against I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, on charges of perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to federal agents in the case. But Fitzgerald wanted to continue the investigation after the grand jury finished its term on Oct. 28, leaving open the prospect of additional indictments.
Novak wrote in Time in December that she mentioned to Luskin in early 2004 that the magazine's reporters were buzzing that his client was a source for a story by Cooper about Plame in July 2003. The tip prompted Luskin to set in motion a chain of events that led Rove and his lawyers to search phone logs and other material to determine whether Rove had talked to Cooper. It also eventually prompted Rove to revise statements he made to federal investigators.
Before Rove testified before the grand jury in October 2004, he maintained he did not recall talking to Cooper. Shortly before testifying, Luskin found an e-mail written by Rove to then-deputy national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley in July 2003 in which Rove mentioned the conversation with Cooper. Rove testified that the e-mail jarred his memory.
Luskin has sought to convince Fitzgerald that Rove was guilty of nothing more than a bad memory and was not trying to cover up his role in the Plame case.
Novak initially did not tell her editors at Time that she may have tipped off Rove's lawyer or that Fitzgerald was interested in her conversation with Luskin. She took a leave of absence from Time while editors contemplated her future and ultimately left the magazine at the end of March, voluntarily taking a buyout as part of a round of staff reductions, a Time spokeswoman said.
Rove, 55, who serves as deputy White House chief of staff, has been under a cloud in the CIA leak case for more than two years. The case was initiated to discover who leaked Plame's CIA employment to the news media in July 2003 in an apparent effort to retaliate against her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, who had emerged as a prominent critic of Bush's rationale for invading Iraq. The CIA employment of Plame was first reported by conservative columnist Robert D. Novak on July 14, 2003, shortly after Wilson went public with his criticism in an op-ed piece in which he accused the Bush administration of twisting pre-war intelligence about Iraq. Robert Novak is not related to Viveca Novak.
In a White House shake-up, Rove was relieved of his responsibilities for domestic policy last week by new Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten. But Rove has retained his title, White House office and security clearances as he turns his attention to Republican political strategies ahead of the November midterm elections.
In addition to the grand jury's unfinished business involving Rove, another possible area of interest for prosecutors is the source who gave information about Plame to Bob Woodward of The Washington Post. In sworn testimony before Fitzgerald in November, Woodward said he had been told in mid-June 2003 that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA as an analyst on weapons of mass destruction.
Woodward wrote in a first-person account in the Post that he testified about portions of interviews he conducted with three current or former Bush administration officials. The interviews took place before Plame's identity was publicly revealed. Woodward has not identified the official he interviewed in mid-June 2003.
He wrote that he "interviewed a second administration official" on June 20, 2003, for a book he was working on, but that he did not recall discussing Plame. Woodward said he talked to Libby on the phone three days later and met with him in his office next to the White House on June 27, 2003. At that meeting, Woodward said, Libby discussed an October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq and told him that the Iraqi regime of former president Saddam Hussein had tried to obtain uranium "yellowcake" from Africa -- an allegation that Wilson's trip to Niger in February 2002 had already debunked. Woodward told Fitzgerald he did not recall discussing Plame at the June 27 meeting.
According to a court filing by Fitzgerald earlier this month, Libby told the grand jury in 2004 that Bush had authorized him, through Cheney, to disclose details from the classified National Intelligence Estimate as part of what the prosecutor said was an effort to rebut Wilson's criticism. But Libby did not assert in his testimony that Bush or Cheney had instructed him to disclose Plame's identity, Libby's lawyers said in another court filing.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
Rove Testifies for 5th Time in CIA Leak Case
By William Branigin and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, April 26, 2006; 5:09 PM
Top presidential adviser Karl Rove testified today before a federal grand jury investigating the 2003 leak of a CIA operative's identity, appearing "voluntarily and unconditionally" at the request of the chief federal prosecutor, Rove's attorney said.
In a statement issued upon the conclusion of Rove's testimony at the federal courthouse in Washington, attorney Robert D. Luskin said the special counsel in the case, U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald, had advised Rove that he was "not a target of the investigation." However, Luskin said Fitzgerald has not made any decision about charges.
Rove, President Bush's chief political strategist, went before the grand jury to answer questions about discussions his attorney had with Time magazine reporter Viveca Novak, a source close to Rove said earlier. Novak testified last year that she alerted Luskin in early 2004 that Rove had leaked information to her colleague, Matthew Cooper, about CIA operative Valerie Plame.
Luskin said his client testified "to explore matters raised since Mr. Rove's last appearance in October 2005." The attorney added, "In connection with this appearance, the special counsel has advised Mr. Rove that he is not a target of the investigation. Mr. Fitzgerald has affirmed that he has made no decision concerning charges. At the request of the special counsel, Mr. Rove will not discuss the substance of this testimony."
Rove's appearance this afternoon marked the fifth time he has testified before a grand jury in connection with the leak.
A little more than three hours after he arrived, Rove left the courthouse without making any comment.
Earlier today, Fitzgerald met with the grand jury for the second time since it was empaneled following the expiration of an original grand jury investigating the leak.
The first grand jury returned an indictment last year against I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, on charges of perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to federal agents in the case. But Fitzgerald wanted to continue the investigation after the grand jury finished its term on Oct. 28, leaving open the prospect of additional indictments.
Novak wrote in Time in December that she mentioned to Luskin in early 2004 that the magazine's reporters were buzzing that his client was a source for a story by Cooper about Plame in July 2003. The tip prompted Luskin to set in motion a chain of events that led Rove and his lawyers to search phone logs and other material to determine whether Rove had talked to Cooper. It also eventually prompted Rove to revise statements he made to federal investigators.
Before Rove testified before the grand jury in October 2004, he maintained he did not recall talking to Cooper. Shortly before testifying, Luskin found an e-mail written by Rove to then-deputy national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley in July 2003 in which Rove mentioned the conversation with Cooper. Rove testified that the e-mail jarred his memory.
Luskin has sought to convince Fitzgerald that Rove was guilty of nothing more than a bad memory and was not trying to cover up his role in the Plame case.
Novak initially did not tell her editors at Time that she may have tipped off Rove's lawyer or that Fitzgerald was interested in her conversation with Luskin. She took a leave of absence from Time while editors contemplated her future and ultimately left the magazine at the end of March, voluntarily taking a buyout as part of a round of staff reductions, a Time spokeswoman said.
Rove, 55, who serves as deputy White House chief of staff, has been under a cloud in the CIA leak case for more than two years. The case was initiated to discover who leaked Plame's CIA employment to the news media in July 2003 in an apparent effort to retaliate against her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, who had emerged as a prominent critic of Bush's rationale for invading Iraq. The CIA employment of Plame was first reported by conservative columnist Robert D. Novak on July 14, 2003, shortly after Wilson went public with his criticism in an op-ed piece in which he accused the Bush administration of twisting pre-war intelligence about Iraq. Robert Novak is not related to Viveca Novak.
In a White House shake-up, Rove was relieved of his responsibilities for domestic policy last week by new Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten. But Rove has retained his title, White House office and security clearances as he turns his attention to Republican political strategies ahead of the November midterm elections.
In addition to the grand jury's unfinished business involving Rove, another possible area of interest for prosecutors is the source who gave information about Plame to Bob Woodward of The Washington Post. In sworn testimony before Fitzgerald in November, Woodward said he had been told in mid-June 2003 that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA as an analyst on weapons of mass destruction.
Woodward wrote in a first-person account in the Post that he testified about portions of interviews he conducted with three current or former Bush administration officials. The interviews took place before Plame's identity was publicly revealed. Woodward has not identified the official he interviewed in mid-June 2003.
He wrote that he "interviewed a second administration official" on June 20, 2003, for a book he was working on, but that he did not recall discussing Plame. Woodward said he talked to Libby on the phone three days later and met with him in his office next to the White House on June 27, 2003. At that meeting, Woodward said, Libby discussed an October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq and told him that the Iraqi regime of former president Saddam Hussein had tried to obtain uranium "yellowcake" from Africa -- an allegation that Wilson's trip to Niger in February 2002 had already debunked. Woodward told Fitzgerald he did not recall discussing Plame at the June 27 meeting.
According to a court filing by Fitzgerald earlier this month, Libby told the grand jury in 2004 that Bush had authorized him, through Cheney, to disclose details from the classified National Intelligence Estimate as part of what the prosecutor said was an effort to rebut Wilson's criticism. But Libby did not assert in his testimony that Bush or Cheney had instructed him to disclose Plame's identity, Libby's lawyers said in another court filing.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Rove_spo...er_he_0426.html
Rove spokesman says he didn't receive target letter
RAW STORY
Published: Wednesday April 26, 2006
Asked about a Truthout report which asserted that Karl Rove had received a so-called "target letter," a spokesman for Rove told Salon's Michael Scherer that the report is "utterly false."
The section of the United States Attorney manual pertaining to target notification does not specify the form in which the notice is to be delivered. In other words, the spokesman's assertion that Rove did not receive a target letter does not resolve whether Rove received notice of any kind.
If Rove did not receive a letter, the lack of a target notice does not necessarily mean that Rove is not a target. The manual does not require that targets be notified before indictment; it simply states that the prosecutor is "encouraged" to notify targets before seeking an indictment against them.
Excerpts from Truthout:
Karl Rove's appearance before a grand jury in the CIA leak case Wednesday comes on the heels of a "target letter" sent to his attorney recently by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, signaling that the Deputy White House Chief of Staff may face imminent indictment, sources that are knowledgeable about the probe said Wednesday.
It's unclear when Fitzgerald sent the target letter to Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin. Sources close to the two-year-old leak investigation said when Rove's attorney received the letter Rove volunteered to appear before the grand jury for an unprecedented fifth time to explain why he did not previously disclose conversations he had with the media about covert CIA operative Valerie Plame and her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who criticized the Bush administration's use of pre-war Iraq intelligence.
A federal grand jury target letter is sent to a person in a criminal investigation who is likely to be indicted. In a prepared statement Wednesday, Luskin said Fitzgerald indicated that Rove is not a "target" of the investigation. A "target" of a grand jury investigation is a person who a prosecutor has substantial evidence to link to a crime.
Rove spokesman says he didn't receive target letter
RAW STORY
Published: Wednesday April 26, 2006
Asked about a Truthout report which asserted that Karl Rove had received a so-called "target letter," a spokesman for Rove told Salon's Michael Scherer that the report is "utterly false."
The section of the United States Attorney manual pertaining to target notification does not specify the form in which the notice is to be delivered. In other words, the spokesman's assertion that Rove did not receive a target letter does not resolve whether Rove received notice of any kind.
If Rove did not receive a letter, the lack of a target notice does not necessarily mean that Rove is not a target. The manual does not require that targets be notified before indictment; it simply states that the prosecutor is "encouraged" to notify targets before seeking an indictment against them.
Excerpts from Truthout:
Karl Rove's appearance before a grand jury in the CIA leak case Wednesday comes on the heels of a "target letter" sent to his attorney recently by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, signaling that the Deputy White House Chief of Staff may face imminent indictment, sources that are knowledgeable about the probe said Wednesday.
It's unclear when Fitzgerald sent the target letter to Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin. Sources close to the two-year-old leak investigation said when Rove's attorney received the letter Rove volunteered to appear before the grand jury for an unprecedented fifth time to explain why he did not previously disclose conversations he had with the media about covert CIA operative Valerie Plame and her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who criticized the Bush administration's use of pre-war Iraq intelligence.
A federal grand jury target letter is sent to a person in a criminal investigation who is likely to be indicted. In a prepared statement Wednesday, Luskin said Fitzgerald indicated that Rove is not a "target" of the investigation. A "target" of a grand jury investigation is a person who a prosecutor has substantial evidence to link to a crime.
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/
Rove lawyer: My client is not a target
Karl Rove seems to be done testifying before the grand jury -- at least for today -- and his lawyer is throwing some cold water on the indictment watch. In a statement distributed to the press, Robert Luskin says that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has advised Rove that he is "not a target" of his investigation.
"Target" is a term of legal significance here. The U.S. Attorneys' Manual defines a "target" as someone "to whom the prosecutor or the grand jury has substantial evidence linking him or her to the commission of a crime and who, in the judgment of the prosecutor, is a putative defendant." If Rove isn't a "target," what is he? Scooter Libby's lawyers have said that Rove is a "subject," and Luskin has all but confirmed as much in the past. A "subject," the U.S. Attorneys' Manual says, is a person "whose conduct is within the scope of the grand jury's investigation."
So what was this subject doing before the grand jury today? Luskin says his client returned to the grand jury to "explore a matter raised since Mr. Rove's last appearance in October 2005." That would suggest that Rove testified today about news that broke at the end of last year: the revelation that a Bush administration official leaked Valerie Plame's identity to Bob Woodward in June 2003 or the word that Time's Viveca Novak tipped off Luskin in early 2004 to the fact that Rove had leaked Plame's identity to Matthew Cooper.
But before reading too much into Luskin's statement, let us say this about that. We know a little bit about federal grand juries, and we've never heard of anyone -- particularly anyone in legal jeopardy -- going before a grand jury to "explore" anything. People testify before grand juries because they have to or because they think doing so will get them out of whatever jam they're in. Which description describes Rove? Luskin's statement was pretty circumspect; he said that his client testified "voluntarily" and "unconditionally" today, but he also said that he did so at Fitzgerald's request. Our translation: Rove and Luskin, eager to show Fitzgerald and the world that they're "cooperating," didn't insist that the prosecutor serve them with a subpoena in order to compel Rove's appearance.
Update: Truthout is reporting that sources "knowledgeable about the probe" are saying that Fitzgerald has notified Luskin in a letter that his client is, in fact, a target of the investigation. At the federal courthouse in Washington, a spokesman for Rove just told Salon's Michael Scherer that the report is "utterly false."
Rove lawyer: My client is not a target
Karl Rove seems to be done testifying before the grand jury -- at least for today -- and his lawyer is throwing some cold water on the indictment watch. In a statement distributed to the press, Robert Luskin says that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has advised Rove that he is "not a target" of his investigation.
"Target" is a term of legal significance here. The U.S. Attorneys' Manual defines a "target" as someone "to whom the prosecutor or the grand jury has substantial evidence linking him or her to the commission of a crime and who, in the judgment of the prosecutor, is a putative defendant." If Rove isn't a "target," what is he? Scooter Libby's lawyers have said that Rove is a "subject," and Luskin has all but confirmed as much in the past. A "subject," the U.S. Attorneys' Manual says, is a person "whose conduct is within the scope of the grand jury's investigation."
So what was this subject doing before the grand jury today? Luskin says his client returned to the grand jury to "explore a matter raised since Mr. Rove's last appearance in October 2005." That would suggest that Rove testified today about news that broke at the end of last year: the revelation that a Bush administration official leaked Valerie Plame's identity to Bob Woodward in June 2003 or the word that Time's Viveca Novak tipped off Luskin in early 2004 to the fact that Rove had leaked Plame's identity to Matthew Cooper.
But before reading too much into Luskin's statement, let us say this about that. We know a little bit about federal grand juries, and we've never heard of anyone -- particularly anyone in legal jeopardy -- going before a grand jury to "explore" anything. People testify before grand juries because they have to or because they think doing so will get them out of whatever jam they're in. Which description describes Rove? Luskin's statement was pretty circumspect; he said that his client testified "voluntarily" and "unconditionally" today, but he also said that he did so at Fitzgerald's request. Our translation: Rove and Luskin, eager to show Fitzgerald and the world that they're "cooperating," didn't insist that the prosecutor serve them with a subpoena in order to compel Rove's appearance.
Update: Truthout is reporting that sources "knowledgeable about the probe" are saying that Fitzgerald has notified Luskin in a letter that his client is, in fact, a target of the investigation. At the federal courthouse in Washington, a spokesman for Rove just told Salon's Michael Scherer that the report is "utterly false."
Jeff Tobin on CNN with Blitzer says Rove still classed as subject and not target of investigation. Explained the difference. Doesn't mean Rove is clean by any means.
So until the term target is issued publicly by Fitzgerald we are likely going to have continued speculation.
Has the architect laid his plans carefully enough to avoid being declared a "target", we'll see.
lenal
So until the term target is issued publicly by Fitzgerald we are likely going to have continued speculation.
Has the architect laid his plans carefully enough to avoid being declared a "target", we'll see.
lenal
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.