Rove Indicted?

Jason Leopold at Truthout is reporting that Karl Rove has been indicted for perjury and making false statements:

Fitzgerald served attorneys for former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove with an indictment charging the embattled White House official with perjury and lying to investigators related to his role in the CIA leak case, and instructed one of the attorneys to tell Rove that he has 24 hours to get his affairs in order, high level sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said Saturday morning. . . . It was still unknown Saturday whether Fitzgerald charged Rove with a more serious obstruction of justice charge. Sources close to the case said Friday that it appeared very likely that an obstruction charge against Rove would be included with charges of perjury and lying to investigators.

I got the e-mail about this several hours ago, and I’ve been waiting since then to link to a more “official” story on CNN or MSNBC. It looks like none of the mainstream news sources are reporting the story, though — it’s not even on Drudge! I’m not sure what to make of that absence — if the story is true, then other news sources must be trying to confirm it, and they apparently can’t. This makes me wary. Perhaps Truthout found an exclusive source and could verify a story that other sources couldn’t verify; but perhaps they got taken, or jumped the gun. If there’s a story, then the next few days will undoubtedly bring confirmation and more detail.

In the meantime, the story is very interesting. Assuming it’s true, the charges in the indictment — perjury, false statements — are serious. (Everyone knew that; still, it’s eye-opening to read a news report that says “Rove indicted for perjury.”) The story also says that Rove has committed to resign if indicted, which makes sense from a matter of politics.

I’m not a crim law person, and I’m not quite sure what to make of the report that some charges could be confirmed (perjury, false statements), but not others (obstruction). Dan F. or other crim law folks, does this have some cosmic (or at least substantive) meaning? Does this mean some charges were decided on earlier, and prosecutors are still doing something with the obstruction charge? Does it mean that the grand jury is still deciding on those? Is there a possible crim-procedure story here that means something, or is it just a gap in the reporter’s facts?

In any case, it’s an interesting story, and I’ll be keeping an eye on the news. If our readers have any thoughts on the story (or for that matter, any deeply-confidential, on-the-QT, hot news tips), please feel free to weigh in.

You may also like...

10 Responses

  1. Nominay says:

    The TO reporter Leopald was the first to break another development in this case long before the rest of the mainstream media, in February – the existence of the 250 pages of emails from Vice President Dick Cheney’s office and the Office of the President that were written in mid-2003.

  2. Nominay says:

    Another TO veteran comments on the story:

    Oh Fa Chrissake…


    Posted by WilliamPitt in General Discussion

    Sat May 13th 2006, 04:58 PM

    For those who have been waiting for this, here it is. For those who still doubt, well, I guess this is the big throwdown. We are reporting this has happened, we have checked and re-checked our sources. Truthout is breaking this first.

  3. Nominay says:

    Pitt also claimed yesterday that Leopold has an exclusive on this. Larry Johnson reports that Joe Wilson believes Leopold, stating that he has multiple sources. Jeralyn Merritt reports that she has emailed with Leopold all night and has posted “I believe him”. This was after she called Luskin last night, who told her “It’s completely not true and you shouldn’t be calling me at 10:00 on a Saturday night. You should be calling Mark Corallo.” This last source coming from

  4. Nominay says:

    Rivers Pitt continues to post in the blogosphere with supreme confidence regarding Leopold’s reporting. As Leopold’s senior editor he vigourously defends him, the story and Truthout. He cites unnamed sources who are privy to sealed indictments. He claims these sources are substantiated without validation from corporate media whom he criticized as lazy. He also suggests that the story will not break open further at least throught Sunday (today).

  5. Nominay says:

    Based on a recent conversation Pitt had with Leopold (today), a formal announcement of the indictment would come no earlier than Tuesday of this week.

  6. Dave Hoffman says:

    I do not credit the story. The details (“he has 24 hours to get his affairs in order”) are too telling to be true.

  7. Paul Gowder says:

    Bah, tradesports doesn’t have a line on it. It did at the end of last year, and I lost a little money betting — uh, I mean “investing” — that Rove would go down by March. Scandal. Scandal.

  8. Seth R. says:

    According to WSJ Law Blog, it was all just a hoax.

    Apparently Robert Luskin spent his whole evening telling reporters that he never had the conversation in question.

  9. Jim S. says:

    Jason Leopold has already responded to ruskin’s

    denial by saying, “Rove lies, Ruskin lies”.