If Rove is pardoned, will he have to testify?

[skip fox]

What can assure the truth of his testimony if he is pardoned? He will no longer be able to plead the 5th, of course, but could the pardon be drafted in such a way (or be deferred to such a time) that Rove will not have to talk to the grand jury???


(Is he working on a draft of his pardon for the president to sign in the future RIGHT NOW??)

[warrens]

1. NO

But it would probably end in impeachment and charges of obstruction of justice.

[Imagevision]

6. Rove first must have a need to be pardoned for - after October

when Fitzgerald I think hands down some indictments to a select group of people - who knows? Bush-Cheney could be included.

Ken Lay right now must be at the top of the list for Bush's list of Pardon's.

[mandomom]

14. Any pardon won't come until after the 2006 elections,

and Rove and Libby will easily run the clock until then on any further investigation or potential trials.

Question: If for the sake of argument Rove should enter into a plea bargain, say for Oval Office detention, can he still be pardoned?

[skip fox]

2. And WHO might Rove implicate if he had to honestly testify?

Cheney?


W.?

[Imagevision]

7. Rove already testified 5 times - A defense will be his major concern.

[leveymg]

3. Rove was already interviewed, a couple times.

Remember what happened to Ford after he pardoned Nixon? He lost 22 points - that would put Bush down to an approval rating of about 20 percent - impeachment territory.

A pre-indictment or pre-trial pardon might be worse for Bush's second term agenda than letting the slow wheels of justice grind up a few WH subordinates.

[skip fox]

4. To follow up: would it be impeachable for a president to pardon someone

in order that that person would not have to testify when that testimony would implicate the president in illegal activities?

That is, is the law-breaking accelerating as we speak?

[Geoff R. Casavant]

5. Nope.

Presidential pardons are an absolute right, not subject to review. There will always be some political fallout though, which is why the most controversial pardons are usually made just before a president leaves office.

Recall Bush 41 pardoned 6 Iran-Contra defendants before leaving office, and testimony in their trial would probably have led to Bush himself.

[rasputin1952]

9. if bush pardoned Rove/Libby...he would lose any credibility he has

left w/the RW. 20%?... I'd be willing to wager he'd be down to 10%. There are some thresholds that cannot be crossed, pardoning Rove would be tantamount to self-destruction. (I don't put this past the idiot prince, btw). It would also be PROOF, for the average American, that Rove was guilty of some transgression.

The outcry from the Left and the Centrists and even Conservatives, would be so intense, Congress would be forced to act in some way to remove bush. Then we get Cheney...:scared:

The implications for the GOP are obvious, they would not win an election for 50+ years, and they Conservatives know this. Right now they are in some serious situations w/re-elections and open seats; a direct result of bush being so screwed up. They will have to steal elections....another reason for printers on electronic machines.

The neo-con 'revolution' is over....and the fields are filled w/blood.

[Ready2Snap]

8. If/when Bush pardons him

he'll be on a private jet to Riyadh, and have dinner with Bandar.

[1932]

10. Not only would he still have to testify, he wouldn't have 5th Amend priv.

Since he couldn't incriminate himself (thanks to the pardon, there's no jeopardy), he would HAVE to answer all the questions.

That doesn't mean it would be a good thing to pardon him, but it would be the silver lining for a very big and dark cloud.

[skip fox]

11. How to assure his honesty if the pardon releases him of call culpibility

in the Plame case? Then he could just do a barnyard medly in hoots and cackles nd brute blorts in response to each question.


(That's what I mean by writing the pardon right (from his and W.'s point of view.)

[1932]

13. Of course bush could then pardon him for perjury if he lied in the

next proceeding, but is Bush going to keep pardoning him ad infinitum?

[leveymg]

16. Yes, but Bush could then pardon him for the contempt charges

And, around and around it goes . . .

[1932]

17. Then prosecutors would wait until a Dem were president to get his

evidence.

[mandomom]

12. The Rove Conspiracy

I don't think he can be excused from answering a subpoena to appear before the Grand Jury, a court or the Congress. But with a pardon in place, or even with the private promise of one, there will be no incentive other than personal honor versus hubris to disclose truthfully all that he knows.

The Rove-Wilson Plot

[skip fox]

15. The reaosn I ask is that each week it appears more likely 2 indictments

are coming his way for leaking and conspiraing to leak (and probably cover up including the planning of perjured testimony and perjury itself.)

At least now we can look at the facts as they come out and and realize that he orchestrated the KNOWING and DELIBERATE leak of a covert CIA official, one whose identity the agency was actively concealing, as we found out in the past two days.

In fact we learn more daily and each new piece of evidence suggests that a number of administrative officials will face multiple indictments in the leak of Plame's identity. Rove will receive probably more than one.

1. The inanity and hysteria of the RNC's (and others') spinning has been noted by reporters across the nation as indicative a party which "off its game." Expecting a terrible outcome, they had been stalling for time, hoping the Supreme Court Nominee would bump the story off the front pages. (For a day it did . . . until Walter Pincus's story yesterday about classifications on the State Department memo sent to Air Force One.) Now they're just stalling. Al Franken told us yesterday (7/21) that after some difficulty he was able to demonstrate to the RNC staff that the story on their web-site which states Wilson claimed the Vice President sent him to Niger was simply false, a lie (showing the context for Wilson's quote yet again). What was the RNC's reaction? "We're standing by it." Simple as that. My point is, when they are willing to be so consciously and blatantly dishonestin public (which can be used against them) they are very distressed about the future.

2. We know there were at least 6 initial reporters contacted (including Novak, Miller, Cooper, and Pincus) and that 3 of those contacted called at least one secondary source the confirm the story (Cooper implies he had more than single confirming source named as Scooter Libby). We know that Cooper's initial source (Rove) specifically released him, but that Miller's would not do so for her. Since we already know Novak's initial source is Libby, there would be no reason for him not to release Miller if he were her source (unless the crime was more obvious). Therefore we know that there were two (Libby and Rove) initial sources and probably at least another. Already we are deeply into the terrain of collaboration. But when we realize that to have 3 confirming sources available, since the "conspiracy" (it becomes the unavoidable word) could not insure who the reporters would call to confirm their stories, they had to have several primed (ready and willing to confirm). (Of course a confirming source for one reporter could be a primary course for another.)

Impossible to accomplish these 9 (or 9+) calls by at least 2, probably 3 or more initial callers, with others ready to confirm, without coordination. Designing a plan for leaks wouldn't be rocket science for Rove's Machiavellian machine he calls a mind, but it certainly would be mastery of Rove of all people in the administration (probably composed of the White House Iraq Group) that would assign him a leadership role. Rove, then, would direct (mastermind) the entire, making sure no two officials attempted to act as an initial source for a single reporter (that would appear too eager), that the story be believable (pitched nonchalantly, briefly), that the story is given in slightly different forms, and that the confirming sources were in place and with the story somewhat different in non-substantive matters (so it doesn't sound like story leaked by rote.) Therefore it was deliberately leaked.

3. We know Rove has had multiple visits by the FBI and to the grand jury. The implication is as loud as it gets.


4. The State Department memo, said to be at least one origin of the information concerning the Plame-Wilson-Niger connection and reputedly of high interest to the grand jury, was reported by Wlater Pincus yesterday to me clearly marked "S" for "Secret." Today's reports in fact indicate it was marked "TS," "Top Secret." Therefore the official who disseminated the identity from this source was highly aware that the CIA was actively trying to conceal Plame's identity. Therefore it was knowingly leaked.

Therefore, RNC's spin, the numbers of callers, the deliberate and repetitive acts, Rove's visits with FBI and grand jury, and the knowing intent behind the leak = Rove will go down in Plames. Likely he is guilty of leaking (with knowledge), leading a conspiracy to leak, and perjury.

There's no way out of this for Rove. The best he can hope for is the softest landing t5hat does the least damage for other officials and the Republican Party. (On a hot summer afternoon?)

[JWT]

18. No indictments

Because of certain points in the law I believe there will be no indictments at all. Everybody walks.

[blondeatlast]

19. Do tell. John Dean, who knows a few things about conspiracies,

thinks Rove is toast.

It's an interesting article from a brilliant legal mind of the RW persuasion.

While there are other potential violations of the law that may be involved with the Valerie Plame Wilson case, it would be speculation to consider them. But Karl Rove's leak to Matt Cooper is now an established fact. First, there is Matt Cooper's email record. And Cooper has now confirmed that he has told the grand jury he spoke with Rove. If Rove's leak fails to fall under the statute that was used to prosecute Randel, I do not understand why.

There are stories circulating that Rove may have been told of Valerie Plame's CIA activity by a journalist, such as Judith Miller, as recently suggested in Editor & Publisher. If so, that doesn't exonerate Rove. Rather, it could make for some interesting pairing under the federal conspiracy statute (which was the statute most commonly employed during Watergate).

In case you are too young to remember, John Dean was White House Counsel during Watergate.

By the way, enjoy your DU stay.