Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

@@ Very dark days for the White House: Andrew Card, WH Chief of Staff @@

0 views

Skip to first unread message

Arash

unread,

Oct 28, 2005, 8:22:56 AM10/28/05

Washington Post
October 28, 2005

Rove, Libby Prepare for Possible Indictments

By Jim VandeHei & Carol D. Leonnig

The White House, District Court officials and two potential targets of the CIA leak
investigation were making preparations yesterday for the possible announcement of
indictments by Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Fitzgerald) today, according to several sources
familiar with the investigation.

Two sources said Irv Lewis "Scooter" Libby
(http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/libby/libby.php), Vice President Cheney's chief
of staff, was shopping for a white-collar criminal lawyer amid expectations of those
close to the case that he might be indicted for providing false statements or other
charges.

At the same time, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove
(http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/usa/karl-rove) began assembling a public relations
team in the event that he is indicted. The New York Times reported last night that
Rove would not be charged today but would remain under investigation.

At the White House, aides scrambled to put the finishing touches on a political
strategy to respond to the fallout from any criminal charges, including the
likelihood of staff changes. A Republican consultant with close White House ties said
Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card (http://www.nndb.com/people/646/000024574) had canceled
at least two trips in the past week and had met with Bush over the weekend to focus
on how to react to the grand jury's decisions.

"These will be very, very dark days for the White House," the consultant quoted
Andrew Card as saying.

At the U.S. courthouse here, where Patrick Fitzgerald will meet with the grand jury
for what is expected to be the final time, there was a rush of activity. Andrew Court
staff made preparations to quickly produce scores of copies of documents for waiting
reporters.

Still, the penultimate day of the 22-month probe ended with the same mystery that has
kept much of Washington, including some of the possible targets and lawyers in the
case, on edge about Fitzgerald's plans.

The special counsel set out in late 2003 to investigate whether anyone in the Bush
administration illegally disclosed the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair) as part of an effort to discredit her
husband, outspoken Iraq war critic and former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_C._Wilson).

But officials close to Karl Rove and Lewis Libby said the two high-level aides seem
more concerned about being charged with making false statements to the grand jury, an
area in which Fitzgerald has shown great interest as the case comes to a close.
People close to Karl Rove said the senior Bush strategist and his legal team have
worked assiduously in the past week to convince Fitzgerald that Rove did not mislead
the grand jury.

Fitzgerald has a number of legal options. They range from concluding that no one
broke the law, to charging a number of government officials with a conspiracy to
unmask Valerie Plame Wilson or obstruct justice during the investigation. But it was
hard to find anyone involved in the case yesterday who believed Fitzgerald will not
indict someone today.

It was unclear yesterday whether Fitzgerald had issued formal letters notifying
anyone that he or she was a target of the investigation. However, that step might not
be necessary for Lewis Libby or Karl Rove, who previously have been warned verbally
that they face possible legal jeopardy.

Though there was speculation among lawyers for witnesses in the case that Fitzgerald
could choose to empanel a new grand jury and extend his investigation, two legal
sources said he is eager to not take that route and would prefer to wrap up the case
today.

Anticipating the worst, White House aides juggled two of the most damaging events of
the Bush presidency yesterday: the withdrawal of Harriet Miers's nomination to the
Supreme Court and the conclusion of the leak probe. Two top aides said they were
given no indication by Bush, Cheney, Rove or Libby about charges, complicating
efforts to firm up a political plan. The White House, one aide said, is "ready for
anything".

The consultant who spoke with Andrew Card
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/card-bio.html) said Bush should bring in
several people of stature to replace weary veteran staffers who work there now --
even if Karl Rove survives. Rove himself was making contingency plans, which included
having allies begin to assemble a legal and political team in case he is indicted.

Mark Corallo, a former spokesman for the Justice Department, would be part of the
public relations defense team, according to a person familiar with the plan. Corallo
is no stranger to high-profile defenses. He was spokesman for former representative
Bob Livingston (R-La.), who was forced to step aside as the incoming speaker of the
House in 1998 after admitting an extramarital affair.

Two sources said Lewis Libby was searching for a criminal defense attorney, an effort
that could be nothing more than a precaution or preparations for what might lie
ahead, according to one person close to him. His current lawyer, Joseph A. Tate,
specializes in intellectual property, criminal and antitrust law, according to a
national legal directory.

Both Lewis Libby and Karl Rove attended regular White House strategy sessions
yesterday, betraying no sense of whether they anticipate charges.

Even if the outcome is not as bad as some expect, two administration aides said they
are prepared for months of attacks over the leak of Valerie Plame Wilson's name and
the broader justification for the Iraq war.

Karl Rove has told friends he is most concerned about being charged with providing
false statements because he did not initially tell the grand jury about a
conversation he had with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Cooper) about Plame and her CIA employment
before her identity was publicly disclosed.

Lewis Libby, who has emerged as a main focus of the investigation, also faces
possible legal exposure for providing false statements, according to lawyers in the
case.

Lewis Libby could face charges if the grand jury agrees there is probable cause he
intentionally gave shifting accounts of how he learned about Plame or the details of
his conversations with reporters about Valerie Plame Wilson. Lewis Libby, a major
administration supporter of the war with Iraq, has testified that he believed he
learned about Plame from reporters, and named Tim Russert
(http://www.nndb.com/people/070/000024995) of NBC as a person who mentioned Valerie
Plame Wilson to him, according to a source familiar with his account.

Tim Russert has said in a public statement that he did not name Valerie Plame Wilson
to anyone. Also, as the New York Times reported this week, Lewis Libby's notes of a
June 12 meeting with Cheney indicate that he learned of Valerie Plame Wilson's name
and role in the CIA from Cheney.

Lewis Libby has testified that he did not identify Plame by name to reporters or
discuss her covert status with them. But New York Times reporter Judith Miller
(http://www.nndb.com/people/190/000050040) has testified that she believed she first
learned of Valerie Plame Wilson's CIA job from Lewis Libby, when the two spoke on
June 23, 2003. Judith Miller said she and Lewis Libby discussed Valerie Plame Wilson
again in a meeting on July 8, 2003, and in a phone conversation a few days later, on
July 12.

* Staff writer Jeffrey H. Birnbaum contributed to this report.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/27/AR2005102702242_pf.html

peace2005

unread,

Oct 28, 2005, 9:36:12 AM10/28/05

US is a DEMOCRACY and the courts and law will get ANYONE that breaks the
law, but What about the DARKDAYS that your Ahmadinejad is trying to
bring on IRAN, by his repeated stupid remarks, any reason that you don't
even mention it in your hourly news ?!! Are you supporting a war brought
on Iran by MUllahs and this Bache Mullah?

0 new messages