MSNBC reports Rove believes he is in legal jeopardy

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove leaves Federal District Court in Washington, April 26, 2006. This marks the fifth time Rove has appeared before a federal grand jury investigating the leak of a covert CIA operative's identity. REUTERS/Larry Downing

Now this is interesting. From Raw Story on an MSNBC News report:

Karl Rove has described his three and a half hour meeting with a grand jury as grueling, and is more worried about being prosecuted than ever, MSNBC is reporting.

RAW STORY has also learned that an MSNBC report tonight revealed that one of Rove's lawyers said the presidential adviser described his fifth grand jury appearance as "hell." MSNBC's David Shuster appeared live on Keith Olbermann's 8pm show this evening and stated that Rove was surprised by the tone of the questions as well as the length of time he was required to testify.

Shuster agreed with Olbermann that it was "easy to imagine" that Rove's legal situation was the cause of his recent reduction of responsibilities. However, he added, "I don't see there's any chance that Karl Rove's going to resign, barring an indictment."

The three and a half hour duration is considered highly unusual for a fifth appearance before a grand jury, Shuster reported. Also not boding well for Rove is the fact that the grand jury plans to meet tomorrow. Some are speculating that an indictment for Rove may be handed up tomorrow, though others have claimed such a fast turnaround time is unlikely.

I'm not sure what to make of this. Is Karl Rove really worried after that fifth grand jury testimony, or is this all more endless speculation by a rampant White House press corps? Did Karl Rove tell MSNBC that his grand jury ordeal was "hell?"

Raw Story has the transcript of the MSNBC Story:

FULL TRANSCRIPT FROM DAVID SHUSTER'S REPORT:

[TO SHUSTER PKG]

SOURCES CLOSE TO KARL ROVE SAY THE PRESIDENTIAL ADVISOR IS NOW MORE WORRIED, NOT LESS, THAT HE IS GOING TO GET INDICTED. THE SOURCES SAY ROVE WAS SURPRISED BY SOME OF THE QUESTIONS HE WAS ASKED AND BY THE FACT THE SESSION STRETCHED ON FOR THREE AND A HALF HOURS.

THE GRAND JURY, ACCORDING TO SOURCES, ALSO PRESSED ROVE ABOUT HIS TESTIMONY IN 2004 WHEN HE FAILED TO REVEAL HE SPOKE TO TIME MAGAZINE'S MATT COOPER ABOUT VALERIE PLAME....

[Scott Fredericksen, former independent counsel] "Grand jurors asking about why he didn't recall his conversation in the original grand jury means they are focusing on the charge itself: Did he perjure himself? And they are not yet convinced of his explanations, that's why they are asking those questions."

LAST OCTOBER, JUST BEFORE VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY'S CHIEF OF STAFF SCOOTER LIBBY WAS INDICTED... ROVE STAVED OFF CHARGES WHEN HIS LAWYER TOLD INVESTIGATORS HE COULD PROVE ROVE'S EARLY MIS-STATEMENTS WERE NOT INTENTIONAL.

ROBERT LUSKIN SPOKE OF A CONVERSATION WITH TIME REPORTER VIVECA NOVAK AND A TIP ABOUT WHAT HER COLLEAGUE MATT COOPER MIGHT TESTIFY TO. LUSKIN AND ROVE THEN SEARCHED FOR WHITE HOUSE INFORMATION TO REFRESH ROVE'S MEMORY AND FOUND A WHITE HOUSE E-MAIL ABOUT THE ROVE-COOPER CONVERSATION. THEN, ACCORDING TO LUSKIN, ROVE CHANGED HIS TESTIMONY.

THE PROBLEM IS THAT THE TIME LAPSE FROM THE NOVAK TIP TO THE NEW ROVE TESTIMONY... WAS 7 MONTHS.

AND FROM THE DATE WHEN PROSECUTOR PATRICK FITZGERALD FIRST ORDERED MATT COOPER TO TESTIFY TO WHEN ROVE CHANGED HIS TESTIMONY WAS JUST DAYS.

Fredericksen: "Mr. Fitzgerald is a straight shooter, I have no doubt in my mind he has told them very clearly why he has Rove in there. It's because he wants to determine whether Mr. Rove was telling the truth when he first appeared before the grand jury."

So there is some interesting details here regarding Rove's testimony. MSNBC is focusing on this time gap between the Viveca Novak tip, and the Matt Cooper testimony. After Scooter Libby was indicted, there was a lot of speculation as to whether Karl Rove would also be indicted. Luskin was able to stave off indictments against Rove, by claiming Rove's misstatements in the 2004 testimony was not intentional. From what I can gather here in this MSNBC story, is that Rove first claimed he never talked to Matt Cooper about Valerie Plame. Then after Fitzgerald orders Cooper to testify before the grand jury, Rove changes his statement, claiming he forgot about the Cooper conversation. Matt Cooper testified before the grand jury in August, 2004. But now we get this story coming out from Viveca Novak regarding her conversation with Luskin, and how she got a tip that her colleague Matt Cooper talked to Karl Rove about Valerie Plame. Luskin and Rove go back through the White House correspondence, and discover and email that Rove wrote [to then-deputy national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley in July 2003] in which Rove talked to Cooper. It is after this email surfaces, that this investigation twists into a new direction. Novak tells Luskin what Cooper said in the grand jury testimony--that Cooper revealed Rove as the source of Valerie Plame. I would be curious to now when did Novak tell Luskin about Cooper's testimony? When did Rove and Luskin find this email to Hadley? What were the contents of that email to Hadley? Was there any follow-up emails? Why didn't Rove and Luskin go through these files before Rove's original grand jury testimony? Did Fitzgerald originally know of this email after Rove first changed his testimony, or was this particular email letter kept away from the special prosecutor? If this email letter was not originally provided to the special prosecutor's office by the White House, and Fitzgerald had just recently discovered the contents of this email letter, then I do have to wonder if Rove was trying to hide this from Fitzgerald.

We might see indictments handed down against Rove. Could be more to come.