Lawrence O'Donnell today says there is a good reason Karl Rove might be indicted over the Valerie Plame leak.

I’ll be surprised if all four of those elements of the crime line up perfectly for a Rove indictment. Surprised, not shocked. There is one very good reason to think they might. It is buried in one of the handful of federal court opinions that have come down in the last year ordering Matt Cooper and Judy Miller to testify or go to jail.

I think O'Donnell is relying on this judicial decision, as I did here. The quotes from the Judge that I found revealing are these:

Editor and Publisher reports that while the New York Times is reporting that it was Karl Rove that called Matthew Cooper and gave him an unconditional waiver to speak to the Grand Jury while the New York Times is reporting it was not.

According to The New York Times today, "Cooper's decision to drop his refusal to testify followed discussions on Wednesday morning among lawyers representing Mr. Cooper and Karl Rove, the senior White House political adviser, according to a person who has been officially briefed on the case."

But according to the Washington Post, Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, told the newspaper Rove was not the source who called Cooper yesterday morning and personally waived the confidentiality agreement. "Karl has not asked anybody to treat him as a confidential source with regard to this story," Luskin said.

The Wapo quote, as I noted here last night, is contained here.

Think Progress reports that on Air Force One today, no one asked Scott McClellan about whether Karl Rove was the source of the Valerie Plame Leak.

Arianna reports buzz along the same line at the Aspen Institute.

The Washington Post reports:

In an interview yesterday, [Rove attorney Robert Luskin] said Rove was not the source who called Cooper yesterday morning and personally waived the confidentiality agreement. "Karl has not asked anybody to treat him as a confidential source with regard to this story," Luskin said.

Raw Story has an audio clip from CNN's coverage of the Republican National Convention during which Karl Rove adamantly denies having outed CIA operative Valerie Plame. He says, "I didn't know her name and didn't leak her name."

So, did Rove tell Matthew Cooper that "Joseph Wilson's wife" worked for the CIA or that "Joseph Wilson's wife" was an undercover operative for the CIA? I'd bet Rove is saying the former and that he simply referred to her as "Joseph Wilson's wife" not as "Valerie Plame." Since the conversation allegedly took place before Novak's column was published, it's plausible. But...I still think Fitzgerald is moving on from disclosure of Plame's identity to trying to prove a conspiracy among top White House officials to obstruct justice and this doesn't let Rove off the hook on that one.

The key may be the alleged meeting by Cheney's top staff members described in this USA Today article from April, 2004, which Cheneys' office told Vanity Fair never occurred.

Editor and Publisher reports that Judith Miller has been delivered to the Alexandria, VA detention center.

When the judge sentenced New York Times' reporter Judith Miller to jail Wednesday afternoon, he did not say where it would be, but E&P soon learned that it would be just outside Washington, D.C. Later, she was seen entering the Alexandria (Va.) Detention Center, according to the Associated Press. The Virginia facility's best-known resident is convicted terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui.

The jail was built in 1987. Here's the jail's website. And here are some notes from a female prisoner held there in 1988 who didn't like it too much.

If you'd like to write Ms. Miller, here is the address:

Alexandria Detention Center
2001 Mill Road
Alexandria, Virginia 22314

Could Judith Miller be protecting Dick Cheney? His chief of staff, Lewis Libby, authorized reporters eons ago (link, scroll down to Entertainment Reporter quote)to disclose that they spoke to him. I don't know the answer, but consider:

Joe Wilson has said he suspected (but was not alleging it was) Vice President Cheney. From USA Today:

Wilson connects Cheney to the events involving his wife through a meeting he said occurred in March 2003. He charged that Cheney's staff — with at least the "implicit" involvement of the vice president — met and decided to investigate his background. The investigation, he said, uncovered his wife's role at the CIA.

"The office of the vice president, either the vice president himself or more likely his chief of staff, chaired a meeting at which a decision was made to do a 'work-up' on me," Wilson wrote in The Politics of Truth. Vanity Fair magazine reported in January that Cheney's office denied that any such meeting occurred.

Judith Miller's lawyer, Floyd Abrams, said today:

Asked why prosecutors sought Miller's testimony when she never wrote a story about Plame, Times attorney Floyd Abrams said, "We don't know, but most likely somebody testified to the grand jury that he or she had spoken to Judy."

Dick Cheney was questioned by investigators for the grand jury. One other possibility from Dick Cheney's office: Dick Hannah.

Update: New York Times Reporter Judith Miller was jailed today. So her source and Cooper's source are not the same - since Cooper's relented and agreed to let Cooper testify about him. How many of these Senior White House officials are there?

Update: Cooper's waiver is for the grand jury. He won't tell the public who it is. Miller is going to jail in the DC area - Fitzgerald may charge Miller with criminal contempt - even obstruction of justice is not off the table. (from press conferences)

***************
Matthew Cooper has agreed to testify in the grand jury investigation. He told the judge that today. So it looks like no jail for Matthew.

In an about-face, Cooper told Hogan that he would now cooperate with a federal prosecutor's investigation into the leak of the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame because his source gave him specific authority to discuss their conversation. "I am prepared to testify. I will comply" with the court's order, Cooper said.

Lawrence O'Donnell would like to ask Robert Luskin, Karl Rove's lawyer,

You told Newsweek that your client “never knowingly disclosed classified information.” Did Rove ever unknowingly disclose classified information?

Joseph Wilson, Valerie Plame's husband, says in his book, when discussing McClellan's defense of Rove at an October, 2003 press conference:

.... the administration's defense is extremely narrow: the leakers and pushers of the story did not know the undercover status of Valerie Plame, and therefore, though they may have disclosed her name, they did not commit a crime.

In May, 2004, Salon published an excerpt from Joe Wilson's book, in which he presents his thoughts about who leaked his wife's name.

In recent months I have tried to piece together the truth about the attacks on myself and the disclosure of Valerie's employment by carefully studying all the coverage and by speaking confidentially with members of the press who have been following the story.

DC Jail

As I wrote earlier today, Fitzgerald is playing hardball with Matthew Cooper and Judith Miller in terms opposing home detention. I have just finished reading Fitzgerald's 14 page motion (pdf), and see that he also opposes a federal prison camp for Miller. He either wants her to go to the D.C. jail or a federal detention facility.

That forms of confinement other than jail in the district where the grand jury sits may be possible does not mean that this is an exceptional case warranting a special form of confinement. Like any other contemnor, Miller should be confined in a federal detention facility so as to produce the coercive effect contemplated by 28 U.S.C. § 1826.

Federal detention centers are not much different than maximum security facilities. They house people who cannot make bond or who are denied bond - including those accused of violent persons.

Lawrence O'Donnell has three questions for Robert Luskin, Karl Rove's attorney. The first is whether Luskin was notified that Rove is a subject (as opposed to target) of the grand jury - Lawrence explains the difference. (So do I, here.)

On 10/16/04, (available on lexis.com)the New York Times reported:

"....Mr. Luskin said Mr. Rove was not discussing his testimony because prosecutors had asked him not to do so. In addition, Mr. Luskin said, Mr. Rove has been notified in writing that he is not a target of the inquiry."

"... In the inquiry into the unauthorized disclosure of Ms. Plame's name, the prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, has told most of the people who have testified that they are subjects of the investigation."

''He has been cooperating fully from the beginning,'' Mr. Luskin said after the grand jury appearance. Mr. Rove has previously testified to the grand jury, although multiple appearances do not necessarily signify that a witness is suspected of wrongdoing. He was also interviewed at least once by F.B.I. investigators, who last fall conducted a preliminary inquiry in the case."

I'm beginning to think there may be clues we've overlooked in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision upholding the district court's denial of Cooper and Miller's motion to quash the subpoenas. Let's start with the subpoenas themselves:

The first subpoena to Cooper related to two specific Time articles dated July 17, 2003, and July 21, 2003, to which Cooper had contributed. After losing a motion to quash, Fitzgerald and Cooper made an agreement that Cooper would identify a specific person in whom the grand jury was interested. Cooper complied. (This was Libby who agreed to be identified.)

After Cooper complied, he got another subpoena dated September 13, 2004, seeking:

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is wielding every ounce of power he has over Time Reporter Matthew Cooper and New York Times Reporter Judith Miller:

A federal prosecutor on Tuesday demanded that Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper testify before a grand jury investigating the leak of a CIA officer's identity, even though Time Inc. has surrendered e-mails and other documents in the probe.

Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald also opposed the request of Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller to be granted home detention -- instead of jail -- for refusing to reveal their sources.

What is Fitzgerald looking for with Cooper? Is it perjury or conspiracy to commit obstruction of justice or making a false statement to a federal official? I can think of a few questions Fitzgerald might want to ask Cooper to circumstantially establish Rove's possible criminal intent - but while they might amount to probable cause and be enough to indict, I'm not sure any of them would be enough for proof beyond a reasonable doubt.