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.