TRUTHOUT: Get it from the original source. Rove gets target letter.

[Maddy McCall]

See Will Pitt's thread to get it from the TRUE source: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1031366&mesg_id=1031366

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 | Issue

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. 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.

More at: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/042606I.shtml

[GregD]

1. Frogmarch!

[maddezmom]

2. K&R

please let this be true.

[AX10]

3. Raw Story said that he did not get a target letter.

Do you have another source to confirm that Rove infact got a target letter?

[Maddy McCall]

5. Raw what?

:shrug:

[dubyaD40web]

6. When did RawStory say he did not get a letter?

[shraby]

7. THAT story is a 2005 story.

Don't confuse it with the one today.

[kpete]

9. Raw Story Links to the Jason Leopold Story

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/042606I.shtml

They NEVER took credit for the story. They mentioned Truthout from the very beginning...
Believe me, I was there...

[WilliamPitt]

12. May I ask

how Raw Story knew Jason was working on this? He was stunned to see a teaser for his story at the top of your site.

[kpete]

15. I am just a cut and paster Will

I have no idea...

I simply like posting GOOD NEWS

and this was good news...

I love Truthout, you and Jason Leopold...

[stop the bleeding]

4. 10 minutes too late :)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1031366

[Maddy McCall]

8. Good! I hope that people will go straight to the source....

instead of clicking through that other source.

:thumbsup:

[stop the bleeding]

11. I know how you feel about RS but

this is great news - :toast::woohoo:

[Maddy McCall]

24. And good news deserves to be credited to the person who wrote the...

article.

[stop the bleeding]

28. Yes Maddy McCall we know how you feel about this n/t

[Maddy McCall]

29. No, you're wrong. I don't "feel" about this. I don't "hate" Raw Story.

I do find some of their reporting practices unethical. This is but another example.

[stop the bleeding]

30. I did not mean to miss speak, I meant to say we know your views and

reasoning on this subject. I respect what you have to say, and I never meant to imply that you hate RS or any other site.



Peace

[Catherine Vincent]

10. I guess it depends on who was first.

Which one? Raw or Truthout? It doesn't matter to me, I like both. And as long as pasty butt gets indicted, that is all that matters. :)

[kpete]

13. Raw Story posted a TERRIFIC Truthout article by Jason Leopold

It doesn't matter who was first.

What matters is that ROVE - the guy who has radicalized me is about to be FROG-MARCHED!!!!!!!!

[stop the bleeding]

17. radicalized? we need more radicals just like you kpete n/t

[Maddy McCall]

21. YES it does matter. It'd be like Fox claiming credit for exposing Nixon.

It's unethical, and it's wrong. Truthout did the research, wrote the story, and published it. You should link straight to the source, instead of funneling people through the other website.

[Wrinkle_In_Time]

32. Hear, hear! Credit and page hits should go to the people...

... who do the actual work.

Remoras suck.

[napi21]

14. CNN now talking about a Rove indictment!

Report by John King. Rove went into the GJ at 1PM est and still hasn't come out.

No details, but saying Rove could be the next person to be indicted!

[dave29]

16. Four Hours of testimony.

Rove can't go without lying for more than 15 minutes. At this rate, he's lied at least 16 times

[senseandsensibility]

18. oh well, if John King is saying it

it must be true. :sarcasm: That's the corporate media for you. A day late and a dollar short when it comes to their chimpy.

[npincus]

20. F*ck yeah!

[AnnInLa]

19. CNN also reporting that Luskin said today that rove did NOT

receive a target letter. Would Luskin say that if it was not true, and the truth would come out sooner than later? Just wondering.

[AnnInLa]

22. Jerelyn at TalkLeft thinks rove is singing like a canary

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014674.html

"If I as have speculated all along, Karl Rove is singing his heart out to avoid indictment on multiple charges and limit his liability to either a single charge of making a false statement to FBI investigators before the grand jury was convened, or to false statement and perjury charges, I think Rove's appearance before the grand jury today means he's both still trying to avoid an obstruction of justice charge and putting a final nail in someone else's coffin.

Rove has to know he is not getting a complete pass from Fitz. He's trying to work his way down to a no-jail sentence, which will be much harder with an obstruction of justice charge as well as false statements and perjury."

Armitage? Cheney?

[gkhouston]

23. gotta be Cheney

and even at that, I'd expect Fitzgerald would insist on jail time.

[Catrina]

25. I noticed that Jerelyn missed where Fitz said he would not be using Rove

as a witness in the response to Libby's demand for documents a few weeks ago. She makes this observation, and unless things have changed, Rove is not on Fitz's witness list. Hadley is not on it either, he said as I recall.

A fifth appearance is unusual for a subject without a deal, but not for a subject who has agreed to become a key prosecution witness.

I did ask that question, why wouldn't Rove and Hadley be witnesses at Libby's trial? But Fitz definitely ruled that out, using it as a reason why he was not obligated to turn over certain documents to Libby's attorneys.

I thought at the time, that maybe it meant he intended to indict them ~ although I'm not sure if you can still be called as a witness by the prosecution, if you've been indicted by him!

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

26. Wolf Shitzer was kind of rough with Bill Bennett today

As rough as Leslie gets, I guess. He had Bill Bennett and Donna Brazile on his show. Bennett said Plame was not covert. Wolfie went on a brief tirade about the fact that she was and that so far there have been no assurances that her entire network wasn't compromised by the leak. He didn't let Bennett respond. I have never heard Wolfie put a Republican in his place that way. Maybe something is in the air about impending problems for the Chimp and his army of Fluffers.

[highnooner]

27. It is not Cheney....

He would invite Rove on a quail hunt -- TEXAS-STYLE!

[Independent_Liberal]

31. K&R!

Indict Doughboy!

:)