Patrick Fitzgerald says there will be no leaks announcement today.

Rove's legal team made contingency plans, consulting with former Justice Department official Mark Corallo about what defenses could be mounted in court and in public.

It sounds like today will be the final day for those under the gun to make a deal.

On February 11, 2004, Newsday (quoted at length here) reported that former White House Press Aide Adam Levine testified before the Plame grand jury for 45 minutes on Friday, February 6. The paper also reported:

In the grand jury sessions, press aides were confronted with internal White House documents, mainly e-mails and telephone logs, between White House aides and reporters and questioned about conversations with reporters, according to sources and reports.

Levine's lawyer, Dan French, has confirmed for the Washington Post that Levine was interviewed again Tuesday by a member of Fitzgerald's legal team regarding a July 11 conversation Levine had with Rove. This is the same date that Rove and Time Magazine reporter Matt Cooper spoke - in a conversation that Rove apparently didn't recall during his initial questioning by FBI investigators or before the grand jury. The Rove-Cooper conversation is the one Fitzgerald reportedly is examining in deciding whether to charge Rove with perjury.

by Last Night in Little Rock

For the last two days, I haven't been able to get this line from the movie The Ref (1994) out of my mind:

Connie Chasseur: Who would catch a criminal, and then let him go free?

Mary Chasseur: Republicans.

Political Wire recommends this Atlantic Monthly profile (free link) of Karl Rove. I'm struck by this statement:

In the rare instances when he has failed to set the terms of debate, Rove hasn't fared nearly so well.

But the fact that he can't control Fitzgerald's playing field may make him more ruthless:

It is frequently said of him, in hushed tones when political folks are doing the talking, that he leaves a trail of damage in his wake—a reference to the substantial number of people who have been hurt, politically and personally, through their encounters with him. Rove's reputation for winning is eclipsed only by his reputation for ruthlessness, and examples abound of his apparent willingness to cross moral and ethical lines.

We have another day at least to wait. As Murray Waas says today, quoting former Nixon Aide Leonard Garment:

"We do not know what is happening, and that is what happening."

While you're waiting, here's my list of fellow Rove and PlameGate obsessives I read at least once a day:

• Jane and Reddhed of FireDogLake, who got this well-deserved and outstanding review today from Ron Rosenbaum at the New York Observer.
• Tom Maguire of Just One Minute
• Huffington Post, particularly the Patrick Fitzgerald page
• Digby

Other excellent analysis:

Update: Dan Froomkin of the Washington Post wrote today:

Broadcast journalists are reporting that there will be no public announcement today. But one popular rumor is that Fitzgerald will indeed present indictments to his grand jury today, the jury will vote on them -- and then he will put everything under seal, pending a public announcement tomorrow.

Even if he seals everything, Fitzgerald would have to take any indictments returned by the grand jury to a judge today. And he would be accompanied by his grand jury foreperson. So keep an eye out for that. Also keep an eye out for senior administration officials showing up at the courthouse very, very late at night.

Update: John at Crooks and Liars called Fitzgerald's office (I'll admit to giving him the number) and learned:

I just got off the phone with Fitzgerald's office and the person I talked to was very cordial even after a long, hard day. I was told it would be highly doubtful if anything happened tonight. I asked for permission to print that and was told I could.

Thanks to TChris for providing updated Indictment news while I was in court this morning.

Here's an update: UPI reporter Richard Sale (who has been right on the money in this case and had this news-breaking article back in February, 2004) writes on Col. Patrick Lang's weblog that Indictments will be announced today and Fitzgerald will hold a press conference tomorrow.

In this entry, also today, Sale reports that Stephen Hadley, formerly the Deputy National Security Adviser, is a strong possibility for an Indictment. (Question: Was he Novak's source?)

And, Fitzgerald is looking at a Section 1983 civil rights charge for violating Joseph Wilson's civil rights. (Question: What about the rights of his wife Valerie?)

by TChris

From WaPo:

A source close to the investigation said this morning that an announcement of any grand jury actions was not likely today. Members of the grand jury left the courthouse around noon and did not appear likely to return today.

CNN has a similar report.

Update: From Raw Story:

Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has asked the grand jury investigating the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson to indict Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby and Bush’s Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, lawyers close to the investigation tell RAW STORY.

Raw Story's sources say Rove was offered a deal yesterday that he rejected. The sources also say that Fitzgerald asked the grand jury to indict Libby on the additional charge of outing a covert operative. Whether the grand jury did so before it adjourned today is unknown, although the article says it "had not yet decided" at the time the article was published.

by TChris

Kay Bailey Hutchison’s spokesman, Chris Paulitz, is blaming “liberal groups” for misconstruing her remarks on “Meet the Press.” As TalkLeft reported here, Hutchison demonstrated remarkable hypocrisy by saying she hoped any indictment obtained by Patrick Fitzgerald would be “an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality.” How, exactly, did “liberal groups” misconstrue Hutchison’s newfound belief that perjury is merely a technicality?

“Senator Hutchison was not commenting on any specific investigation. She was expressing her general concern that perjury traps have become too common when investigators are unable to indict on any underlying crime,” Paulitz said.

It's good to see conservatives criticizing prosecutors, but it's difficult to understand Paulitz' point. The “trap” is apparently this: a prosecutor asks a question, and the witness, under oath, lies. Not much of a trap, and one that is easily avoided by telling the truth or by exercising the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. In any event, it’s obvious that (notwithstanding Paulitz’ spin) Hutchison was commenting on a specific investigation.

I'm beginning to think it possible that Karl Rove either is not going to be charged in the Valerie Plame Leak investigation, or if he is charged, it will be with a false statement rather than perjury offense. If it's the second scenario, Rove could make a plea deal with Fitzgerald under which he agrees to plead guilty if Fitzgerald agrees to request a sentencing reduction to probation, because of his cooperation against others.

Here's the reasoning:

1. Fitzgerald may decide to give Rove a complete pass if he has cooperated to significant extent, turning on Libby and others in Cheney's office, the White House Iraq Group and perhaps the State or Defense Departments. Under this scenario, Fitzgerald simply would not submit a proposed charge for Rove to the grand jury so there would be no vote on him at all.

The two topics tonight around the blogosphere seem to be Dick Cheney and Karl Rove. As to Cheney:

There have been questions raised about whether Dick Cheney was under oath when he was interviewed by Fitzgerald. The New York Times reported on June 5, 2004 (as TChris noted here) that he was not:

It is not clear when or where Mr. Cheney was interviewed, but he was not questioned under oath and he has not been asked to appear before the grand jury, people officially informed about the case said.

That is unlikely to make a difference. As I noted in the comments over at Firedoglake yesterday:

Raw Story posts that tomorrow's Roll Call will report that Patrick Fitzgerald paid a visit to Robert Luskin, Karl Rove's lawyer, at his Patton Boggs D.C. office today.

Why? Since when do Special Prosecutors make house calls?

Update: I should have figured this our earlier. My speculation: Fitz was probably interviewing the cooperative Rove one more time - and didn't want to have Rove seen at his office or where the grand jury meets.