Hannah gave Fitzgerald the names of some White House officials who knew about Plame Wilson and disseminated her CIA status to reporters and other White House officials, the lawyers said. One of the officials Hannah appears to have implicated was Rove, they added. Cheney promoted Hannah to be his assistant national security adviser following Libby's indictment.
Rove failed to tell investigators at the time that he had spoken about Plame to Time Magazine reporter Matthew Cooper and conservative columnist Robert Novak, both of whom later cooperated in the case. Novak outed Plame in a July 14, 2003 column.
The Chicago prosecutor briefed the second grand jury investigating the outing last week for more than three hours. During that time, he brought them up to speed on the latest developments involving Rove and at least one other White House official, the sources said. The attorneys refused to identify the second person.
Rove's alleged failure to disclose his conversations with Cooper and Novak, and the fact that he did not produce the email he sent to Hadley on two separate occasions, are the reasons he's been in Fitzgerald's crosshairs, lawyers close to the investigation said.
It may also explain why Luskin has insisted that the conversation he had with Novak took place in February, as opposed to March or May, the timeframe Novak claims is more likely. It's much more difficult to make the case that the Hadley email surfaced after Luskin and Rove did a search in March or May if Luskin happened to agree with Novak's timeframe of the meeting but Rove failed to produce the same email under the grand jury subpoena three months earlier.
Luskin has said that he found the email at the same time the White House was complying with the subpoena, but held onto it rather than turning it over to the grand jury with the batch of other similar emails, phone logs and other documents as required by the subpoena, lawyers close to the case said.
"What Luskin is doing is trying to say that he found the email after his conversation with Ms. Novak but before the White House turned over evidence of administration contacts with journalists," by the February 6, 2004 deadline, one attorney close to the case said. "He understands that it would be quite difficult to explain to the prosecutor how this email miraculously turned up in either March or May, but not in February. That's why it appears he is stating that he spoke with Ms. Novak in February."
Before Luskin brought Novak into the picture, Rove had faced the prospect of being indicted on numerous counts, including obstruction of justice, perjury and making false statements for failing to disclose his conversations with reporters about Plame Wilson, sources close to the case said. Several reporters close to Novak said they believe Luskin's decision to draw her into the case was made to keep Rove's indictment from being handed up the day Libby was charged.
Rove could be indicted on those counts if Fitzgerald determines that Novak's testimony did not go far enough in clearing up questions about why Rove did not tell investigators about his conversations with other reporters.
Her testimony could still end up shielding Rove from more serious charges, attorneys close to the case said, if Fitzgerald believes it clears up the murky questions about the reasons as to why Rove could not produce the Hadley email under the October 2003 Gonzales order or by the February 6, 2004 deadline, as stated in the grand jury subpoena delivered to the White House two weeks earlier.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
