Add to My Yahoo!

MSNBC reporter: 'I am convinced that Karl Rove will, in fact, be indicted'

Published: Monday May 8, 2006

Print This | Email This

Rush transcript from Countdown with Keith Olbermann / MSNBC.

MSNBC's Keith Olbermann: There are stories -- possibly apocryphal -- from the medieval courts of chancery in England, of lawsuits that took so long to resolve that they were passed down from generation to generation like property or some really good axes. Our fourth story on the Countdown: if Karl Rove hasn't thought of that analogy yet, somebody else probably has mentioned it to him. Or they still have time to get around to it. Though maybe not a lot of time. An end, of one kind or another, may be in sight.

The Washington Post reports Plame-gate special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is reviewing just one aspect of Mr. Rove's five appearance before the grand jury. Namely, whether Mr. Rove testified falsely in February 2004 when he failed to disclose that he told Time magazine's Matt Cooper about Valerie Plame's position at the CIA. That particular testimony came only seven months after Mr. Rove talked with Mr. Cooper. But Rove has said he forgot. And that the discovery of an e-mail about that conversation jogged his memory. Rove reportedly expects to know as early as this month whether Mr. Fitzgerald will indict him. We've heard something like that before. To check this one out, let's call in MSNBC's David Shuster. Thanks for your time, David.

MSNBC's David Shuster: Good to be with you, Keith.

Olbermann: What are you gathering on these two main points. Is the decision by Mr. Fitzgerald coming soon, would it be an indictment?

Shuster: Well, Karl Rove's legal team has told me that they expect that a decision will come sometime in the next two weeks. And I am convinced that Karl Rove will, in fact, be indicted. And there are a couple of reasons why. First of all, you don't put somebody in front of a grand jury at the end of an investigation or for the fifth time, as Karl Rove testified a couple, a week and a half ago, unless you feel that's your only chance of avoiding indictment. So in other words, the burden starts with Karl Rove to stop the charges. Secondly, it's now been 13 days since Rove testified. After testifying for three and a half hours, prosecutors refused to give him any indication that he was clear. He has not gotten any indication since then. And the lawyers that I've spoken with outside of this case say that if Rove had gotten himself out of the jam, he would have heard something by now. And then the third issue is something we've talked about before. And that is, in the Scooter Libby indictment, Karl Rove was identified as 'Official A.' It's the term that prosecutors use when they try to get around restrictions on naming somebody in an indictment. We've looked through the records of Patrick Fitzgerald from when he was prosecuting cases in New York and from when he's been US attorney in Chicago. And in every single investigation, whenever Fitzgerald has identified somebody as Official A, that person eventually gets indicted themselves, in every single investigation. Will Karl Rove defy history in this particular case? I suppose anything is possible when you are dealing with a White House official. But the lawyers that I've been speaking with who know this stuff say, don't bet on Karl Rove getting out of this.