Tim Grieve in Salon, who always writes with superb accuracy about the Plame matter:
Karl Rove seems to be done testifying before the grand jury -- at least for today -- and his lawyer is throwing some cold water on the indictment watch. In a statement distributed to the press, Robert Luskin says that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has advised Rove that he is "not a target" of his investigation.
"Target" is a term of legal significance here. The U.S. Attorneys' Manual defines a "target" as someone "to whom the prosecutor or the grand jury has substantial evidence linking him or her to the commission of a crime and who, in the judgment of the prosecutor, is a putative defendant." If Rove isn't a "target," what is he? Scooter Libby's lawyers have said that Rove is a "subject," and Luskin has all but confirmed as much in the past. A "subject," the U.S. Attorneys' Manual says, is a person "whose conduct is within the scope of the grand jury's investigation."
So what was this subject doing before the grand jury today? Luskin says his client returned to the grand jury to "explore a matter raised since Mr. Rove's last appearance in October 2005." That would suggest that Rove testified today about news that broke at the end of last year: the revelation that a Bush administration official leaked Valerie Plame's identity to Bob Woodward in June 2003 or the word that Time's Viveca Novak tipped off Luskin in early 2004 to the fact that Rove had leaked Plame's identity to Matthew Cooper.
But before reading too much into Luskin's statement, let us say this about that. We know a little bit about federal grand juries, and we've never heard of anyone -- particularly anyone in legal jeopardy -- going before a grand jury to "explore" anything. People testify before grand juries because they have to or because they think doing so will get them out of whatever jam they're in. Which description describes Rove? Luskin's statement was pretty circumspect; he said that his client testified "voluntarily" and "unconditionally" today, but he also said that he did so at Fitzgerald's request. Our translation: Rove and Luskin, eager to show Fitzgerald and the world that they're "cooperating," didn't insist that the prosecutor serve them with a subpoena in order to compel Rove's appearance.
AP:
Fitzgerald has told Rove's legal team recently that he has not made any decision on whether to charge the presidential aide and Rove hasn't received a target notification that would indicate he is likely to be indicted, said people familiar with the case, who spoke only on condition of anonymity because of grand jury secrecy.
His grand jury appearance comes a week after Rove, the architect of Bush's election victories, gave up his policy duties at the White House as part of an administration remake to return to a full-time focus on politics.
Wednesday's session is believed to be only the second time Fitzgerald has met with the grand jury examining questions left unanswered in the Plame affair. The only other day Fitzgerald was seen going before the new panel was Dec. 7.
I see no reason to revise my earlier estimation of the situation -- David Schuster had reported that defense attorneys said there was activity on the Grand Jury front now that Fitzgerald has the Ryan case behind him. Rove resigned the position he would have lost if his security clearance was revoked as a preventive measure -- he's got no idea what Fitzgerald is going to do, either. Fitzgerald will proceed as he sees fit. Which will ultimately factor in many things that neither we nor Karl Rove nor all his merry spinners know anything about.
Login Here
Spotlight



Support this site!
Keep
up with news
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search


RSS/XML Feed
fitz!
Fitz
(and epu’d from last thread)
Tom Maguire — sorry but the production of the Viveca Novak bs was all an attempt to provide cover for Rover’s memory failures, an excuse for why he lied forgot to the FBI in the first place.
sorry Jane, but I think that Karl may have a few questions to answer with regard to the whole Vivak-Luskin thing…..
And lest we forget, Woodward supposedly had a big story to report — which is why he told downie on Oct 24 that he had been leaked to early on. But on Oct 27, Woodward was denying publicly that he had a “bombshell†to report….
My guess is that Woodward’s “bombshell†was the Vivak-Luskin conversation, and that Karl Rove was Woodward’s source on that story….
and Fitz and his new grand jury might want to hear how Karl describes the events surrounding that disclosure….
ROVE HAS BEEN FLIPPED. THERE IS AN IMMUNITY AGREEMENT IN PLACE, AND HE IS TESTIFYING IN REGARD TO CHENEY’S INVOLVEMENT.
fitz?
Kazuza
A deal brewing?
Is Rove testifying against someone in return for a misdemenanor charge or some reduction?
Fitx! Dam it!
as for Rove “flipping”….no flippin’ way.
At years of obstruction, even if Rove makes a deal with Fitz, Fitz is going to demand some jail time in a plea deal. The only people that are important enough for Fitz to make a deal with Rove are Bush and Cheney — and what are the odds of Rove getting a pardon keeping him out of jail if he flips or either Bush or Cheney?
Which will ultimately factor in many things that neither we nor Karl Rove nor all his merry spinners know anything about.
Excellent point that can’t be made enough times.
Although if your Rove, or Roves attorneys, you have to presume that Fitz knows everything and has the evidence to prove it. Which really is why Rover’s “clarifications” are so bizaare. It is just digging a deeper hole. And I would think by the 4th time that would have sunk in, let alone the 5th time.
I still go with a deal.
It’s the lede on NPR right now.
I’d give him about twenty beers if I could get some information out of him about what the Hell is up with Karl Rove.
p.lukasiak — Are you saying you don’t think Luskin went to Fitzgerald with the Viveca story as a hail mary pass to explain the late production of the Hadley email, but because Woodward had outed them?
I certainly had not heard that theory before.
that lede is a song I like to hear !
EPU at #5 “Kazuza”
Gesundheit.
What took 3 hrs testifying?
I’m a rookie here, but ‘email’ is my bet.
Oregon Dave - The proper response to kazuza, is kazuza. :)
p.lukasiak — Are you saying you don’t think Luskin went to Fitzgerald with the Viveca story as a hail mary pass to explain the late production of the Hadley email, but because Woodward had outed them?
I think that Rove/Luskin went to Woodward with the story, not Fitzgerald. Rove/Luskin wanted the story made public in the week before indictments were handed down, throwing a monkey wrench into Fitz’s planned indictments.
Remember, Woodward ONLY went to Downie with his “I got the Plame leak first” admission because he had a big story he wanted to publish — but Woodward never published that story, and on October 27 publicly denied having a “bombshell”
The story didn’t see the light of day because the Post had negotiated Pincus’s testimony — and Woodward had said things that seemed to discredit Pincus’s testimony — so the Post had to go to Fitzgerald and tell them the whole story….
3L says:
April 26th, 2006 at 2:59 pm
Do you have a link, please?
I’ll be interested to see how a chimperific declassification goal post maneuver weaves with evidence about the timing of any early leak to Woodward that might have occurred.
Just to push the parsing of Luskin’s press statement–with the supposition that Rove has flipped:
quote:
“In connection with this appearance, the Special Counsel has advised Mr. Rove that he is not a target of the investigation.”
“in connection with” could mean “as a result of”, and “not” could be “no longer–because of extra special cooperation.”
and quote:
“Mr. Fitzgerald has affirmed that he has made no decision concerning charges.”
That could be read as “Fitz has not decided on WHAT charges Karl will plea to,” instead of “Fitz hasn’t decided WHETHER charges will be filed.”
I personally think too much analysis makes one crazy. Trying to…wait…patiently…must…wait…patiently…
Kazuza and Shazam, EPU.
Five Times
by emptywheel
“…..I don’t know better than anyone else (including, from the pained sound of Rove’s statement, Rove himself) what it means that Rove has visited the Grand Jury a fifth time today. But here are some thoughts……”
“In connection with this appearance, the Special Counsel has advised Mr. Rove that he is not a target of the investigation. Mr. Fitzgerald has affirmed that he has made no decision concerning charges”
I am so intrigued with this “in connection with this appearance” language. What the Hell does that mean exactly? He’s not a target in connection with THIS appearance, but maybe with one of the other FOUR GJ appearances he’s made?!
“Oregon Dave - The proper response to kazuza, is kazuza. :) “
Kazuza it is, then. I understand from your explanation of the word’s origin that it has kind of a “one size Fitz all” useage. No? (;>)
All you lawyer-types here — doesn’t the prosecutor change the designation from subject to target the afternoon before the press conference announcing the indictments?
p. Lukasiak - Back seemingly so very long ago when the Vivak stuff firts came out, I opined at the time (and we can check the threads for accuracy) that the better assumption to make was that Fitz already knew about the Vivak/Luskin conversation, that it was no surprise or a spanner in the works. I still believe that - plus, I have the added benefit of that thought being in keeping with Jane’s last sentence of this thread too.
I think it is best to disregard anything that comes out of the mouths of anyone associated the administration (whether player or lawyer) with regard to the investigation, and better not to read much into it, its all truthiness rather than truth.
Evil Parallel Universe says:
April 26th, 2006 at 3:11 pm
Are you saying that kazuza is nothing to sneeze at? *g*
The prodigal emails came from someone very eager to cooperate, and the emails would have to lead to the original smear maestro. To the Republican Party and the Bush-Walker Crime Family, Cheney is now expendable. Expendable like a bomb with a lit fuse is expendable. It’s a deal, and I don’t see why Rove has to be charged or do time. We don’t know that he obstructed or committed perjury, only that he engaged in obfuscation and sophistry.
Magnum - The parsing of that is discussed in the last thread.
Dare we hope that an indictment might interfere with Rove’s attentions to the fall elections???
Luskin can say Rove testified voluntarily even if he did receive a target letter—because if he did receive one he cannot be compelled to testify before the grand jury—one reason the target letterâ€invites†the target totestify rather than issuing a subpoena which would compel his testimony. That said, I’m with imm—I REALLY discourage my target/clients from ever testifying before a grand jury—nothing good ever comes from that
Maybe Rove flipped on Hadley or Libby, or someone else who is not W or Cheney.
Subject/Target - A distinction w/o a difference? Pretty much the case.
1. Truthout is reporting that Rove has received a target letter. http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/042606I.shtml
2. Luskin’s statement is a little more nuanced than a flat denial that Rove is not a target:
“In connection with this appearance, the special counsel has advised Mr. Rove that he is not a target of the investigation.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....49_pf.html
3. If Rove had indeed received a target letter in the past couple of weeks or so, then it would explain the desire to move him out of his policy office when he was so moved (it’s better to have him leave of his own volition, as opposed to leaving because he has a more pressing engagement at a federal prison). Not to mention the need to distract from the removal with the simultaneous removal of McClellan.
4. Similarly, Rove’s knowledge that he was going to appear before the grand jury today could be seen as triggering the simultaneous announcement of Snow, for distraction purposes.
5. It is quite possible that Rove received a target letter between (a) the filing by Libby identifying Rove as a subject, and (b) Rove’s removal from the policy position.
6. I’m just not convinced that we know that Rove is not a target.
7. Nor do I see a plea bargain having been struck as an impossibility. I don’t necessarily see it as likely, though.
8. Sorry I can’t stick around for a dialogue, but I can’t. I’ll check back in early in the morning and respond on an EPU basis to anyone who responds to this post. It’s the best I can do.
I think we got a while to go on this one. Ryan is out of the way, so Fitz can concentrate on this one. Fitz met only once before with the GJ, now he is assembling the case with the new emails and new testimony from the frightened and now cooperative Rove. Gonna be awhile, I think. This is very much in line with how Fitz builds his cases. Charge Libby with obstruction and lying … wait …. people get frightened start offering up a bit of new info …. start working with a new grand jury … take the next step … All of Fitz cases take a long time - (look how long it took to get to Ryan) - he is very much a believer in the slow, inexorable wheel of justice. He won’t indict Rove or anybody else until this GJ term is about to expire. You want to see what’s going to happen? Look at what he is doing in Chicago.
and respond on an EPU basis
Good, we can expect more omniscience *G*
Interesting point about Fitz not indicting anyone until just before the GJ expires. The GJ goes for 18mos?? yes? anyone??
I thought Kazuza was some sort of file-sharing program…that could end up with Fitz coming after you for copyright violation.
EPU- *GGGG*
In Rove’s case the “subject”/”target” designation may not matter. As I understand it a prosecutor should tell a potential GJ witness that he/she is a target (probable indictment) in order to allow the witness to consider using the 5th amendment protection against appearing. Rove cannot afford to take the 5th amendment; thus he is a “cooperating” witness. It would not surprise me that Luskin would have told Fitzgerald that a “target” letter is not necessary since Rove will always appear before the GJ to answer all questions. So charges against Rove are still possible, as Luskin says, even though Rove is not a “target”.
While this process is driving us crazy (please! Indictment now! PLEASE! [takes another drink]), remember, every drip of this water torture reinforces the story that the White House has done us all wrong. Another set of stories in the press, with speculation and denials and pictures with circles and arrows on the back explaining each one. And that, my friends, is marketing you just can’t buy…it’s like the slowest negative political ad series ever run, with the GOP footing the bill. Cool.
Kazuza - It’s part of the Anaheim Kazuza & Cucamonga sewing circle book review and timing association.
“Bip, bop, bam, alakazam.”
Some cryptic message about the “Double-dutch Bus” I think.
http://www.lyricsdownload.com/.....yrics.html
-GSD
Jane (and Difficult Lawyer)
Are you suggesting that when Rove gets indicted, they’ll keep him at the White House in his still current title, Deputy Chief of Staff? That’s what I don’t get, in any of the “Rove’s demotion = anticipating an indictment.” Because no matter what happens, Rove will step down entirely, if for no other reason than he can’t get Barbara Comstock to raise $5 million for his defense fund if he is still employed at WH. (I also think keeping Rove on would be even too ballsy for this 33% approval rating Administration, but I’ve been proven wrong on that account before.)
If you’re going to pre-empt having to resign in response to a subpoena, you get all the way out now, and into a position above question while you can still do so.
“In connection with this appearance, the Special Counsel has advised Mr. Rove that he is not a target of the investigation.â€
“In connection with†could mean “as a result of†and “not†could be “no longer – because of extra special cooperation.†- clbrune #20
This is how I’m starting to read today’s developments. Especially if this afternoon’s grand jury testimony by Rove occurred because of, and only after, this morning’s planned meeting between Rove/Luskin and Fitzgerald.
The earliest reports today were leaks from the Rove side mentioning only a planned meeting between Rove/Luskin and Fitzgerald this morning, weren’t they? With no hint of a follow-up grand jury appearance by Rove to come later in the afternoon? Sounds like wheeling and dealing from the Rove side this morning led to the afternoon testimony, which Fitzgerald at least was armed and ready for ASAP (from anticipation of just such a potential development as a result of the face to face scheduled meeting with Rove and Luskin regarding a certain subject or subjects).
Fitz has got EVERYONE squirming; he’s gotta get just a little perverse pleasure out of this.
Is ‘frog march’ a term of legal significance?
If I remember the Target letter discussion from the Scooter case- A person should expect a target letter about 24 seconds before an indictment. There would be no reason for Fitz to issue a target letter along with an invitation to testify. He would issue it AFTER the testimony- right before the indictment.
As to who prompted the testimony, Who the hell knows.
It’s quite possible that Fitz was talking to Rove’s attorneys and mentioned the new evidence- perhaps as a preliminary to plea negotiations. Luskin might have said. “We aren’t worried about your new evidence- would you like Karl to address it before the GJ- and Fitz said “sure”.
I think Rover has a high degree of confidence in his ability to flim flam anyone- and probably worked to appear- but we won’t know for sure- perhaps not ever.
Bottom line is that Fitz has even more evidence that concerns Rover- and he had a lot before- it sounds as if the charges and the evidence are building.
I’ll stick to- “Rove gets indicted- soon”
Carnac the Magnificent: “Sis, boom, bah!”
Hermetically-sealed envelope: “What is the sound of exploding sheep?”
Here’s an appropriate Emile Zola quote from a Sheila Samples article from last year…
“If you shut up the truth and bury it under the ground,
it will but grow, and gather to itself such explosive power
that the day it bursts through it will blow up everything in its way.”
The more this legalistic, lawyerly mumbo-jumbo type of crapola goes on the more Bush and Rove and Cheney look like every criminal and perp we have all seen throughout the years.
Double talking, mendacious, dishonest, whiny, chiseling crooks and liars.
Even when Libby showed up with the crutch, it smacked of every mobster about to be charged. Suddenly under threat of indictment the old bastards who could wield guns and bats knives with ease were so decrepit they needed a nasal cannula and an oxygen tank and a wheelchair pushed by a buxom nurse or a sympathetic looking family member.
If we see any video of Deadeye Dick Cheney in a bathrobe mumbling to himself it is curtains for Chimpy and the Shooter.
-GSD
NBC/WSJ poll:
JAR 36%
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12499741/
“(I also think keeping Rove on would be even too ballsy for this 33% approval rating Administration, but I’ve been proven wrong on that account before.)”
LMAO.
Splash at 32, isn’t it usually the case that a fish flips on a bigger fish? Which leaves only Big Dick or W?
“If I remember the Target letter discussion from the Scooter case- A person should expect a target letter about 24 seconds before an indictment.”
LMAO.
Here’s the bad news in the NBC poll. While Clustefuck’s JAR declined a point in the last month- the margin for dems in the generic ballot question fell pretty dramatically:
What is your preference for this year’s election a Republican or Democratic controlled congress?
4/06 3/06
Republicans 39% 37%
Democrats 45% 50%
Last mont dems had a 13 point advantage now it’s down to six.
Random comment:
Was driving round in Ann Arbor, Michigan today. and there was a van with DC plates….and a bunch of lefty type of bumperstickers on it.
The licenseplate holder the van had “www.fitzmall.com”….
GUess it was an omen that there was some grand jury goodness going down today.
CNN–The Wolfman will be covering Rove at the top of the hour.
Is a target letter required? Couldn’t Fitz bring the indictment without it?
in other words, this does not preclude Rove having received a “target” letter — its just that Rove may be testifying about “other” matters?
Like what, you say?
Well gee….. like the fact that Andy Card organized the purging of a bunch of white house email accounts in the 12 hours between the time the White House was notified that everything had to be presevered, and the time that the White House staff was told about it.
Rove’s “I forgot about Cooper” works ONLY if he can convince the grand jury that nobody knew about the Rove-Hadley email….. and my guess is that his explanation is that someone deleted that email before the keyword search was done…..
and that someone would be Andy Card. Which is why he’s gone. And while McClellan didn’t participate in it, he probably got wind about it and/or lied publicly about Rove and Libby’s involvement, making him an “unindicted co-conspirator”—-so he’s suddenly gone as well….
The Sour Presidency:
“You have never seen such a sour mood in the country,†says Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart, who conducted this survey with Republican Bill McInturff. “It is sour, sour, sour.â€
-GSD
That’s what you get when you forget to sweeten the Kool-Aid.
Regarding “Rove’s demotion = anticipating an indictment,†perhaps it’s more a way to let someone else take the saddle with training wheels. In the event Rove implodes, the spotlight might not be so bright since the position prior to demotion will not be empty.
this whole 6 yrs has smelled like really stinky, sour gym socks, but good news is nigh! we have a fitzomatic washing machine powered by the greatest disinfectant and energy available– bright and truthy sunshine!
I’m thinking different for a moment (throwing assumptins out).
Does Rove testifying today lead to ANY indictments? From what folks here think, Fitz isn’t going to make any false steps and hollow moves. So, I’ll go out on a limb and say he was gathering additional evidence which is meant to support an indictment.
SUSPECTS:
Bush
Cheney
Rove
Ms. Rice
Hadley
Libby
McClellan
Woodward
——–
Anybody else?
——-
Input is welcome.
Card? Addington?
I like the theory that Rove will stay on after indicted. “it would be cruel to kick him out after this blow, and he doesn’t really have a job here anymore, anyway.”
just want to pop this in re: net neutrality voted down 24-35, still need to work the House.
http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/29242
Powell, Tenet… just sayin’.
I’ll bet Karl has an extra big laundry bill this month. Will Karl soon release his hara? I would think not. To me he seems the antithesis of a Samurai. More like a cross between an insurance salesman and a televangelist’s promo agent. I’m thinking he’s looking for a body to use getting over the barbed wire.
Fitz can come after me, if he wants. I wouldn’t mind it.
yah, I know this is completely shallow of me, but damn! the boy’s a hottie. (must be intelligence combined with honor that gets me…)
Good question zennurse @59.
p luk
Now, I’d buy the Andy Card firing story, quite a bit. Not least because Turdblossom wouldn’t hestitate to finger Card if Bush gave him the goahead.
But I don’t buy Scottie-gone-because-of-Plame. Remember Libby’s sonnet, asking for Scottie to say he was just as innocent as Turdblossom? It suggests that Scottie was really clueless.
Gonzales!
(my favorite; I hold a grudge against using crayon to scribble over the 4th Amendment and the rest of the Constitution)
Anybody else?
Card
Gonzales
Washington Post 7/25/05
12 hours is more than enough time to get rid of a whole shitload of emails from the White House servers so that they don’t show up in keyword searches…..
Emptywheel - I respond at the end of the last thread.
Clusterfuck’s 36% JAR from NBC is the lowest ever in that survey which has given higher than average ratings in the past to his Clusterfuckedness.
re p. lukasiak’s theory about Andy Card deleting Email: whose Email did Andy have access to? I bet he had ‘access authority’ to the Preznit’s Email accounts. Big deal - he erases the Preznit’s copy but usually organizations CC like mad. Multiple copies would remain on other folks accounts including the fact that the Preznit was CCed. The Preznit his own bad self doesn’t use Email but his support staff sure does - that means Andy Card.
After Ollie North and Poindexters famous mistake of not realizing the permanence in Email in servers, would Andy Card be so stupid as to make the same mistake 20 years later?
“In connection with this appearance”, ….
Those infamous 5 words speak volumes
Would it still be possible that Rove is a target in connection with one or more of his previous appearances regarding a different investigative issue? Could one part of the investigation be say outing Plame and different investigation be fake Niger documents/fake prewar intelligence?
MSNBC and CNN both headlining Fitz/Rove–which to watch?
Blank Kludge says: “Anybody else?”
April 26th, 2006 at 3:54 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W.....Iraq_Group
Possibly some of the other members of the White House Iraq Group (WHIG) who aren’t on your list of suspects: Andrew Card, Karen Hughes, Mary Matalin, James R. Wilkinson, and Nicholas E. Calio.
What other individuals have we omitted?
I still think that Scottie’s desire to see more of his family was classic misdirection. It took all the steam out of the reduction in Rover’s responsibilities. The White House could see the writing on the wall and wanted to ease Karl out gradually. The next step will be out of the White House and into the RNC- who will be able to keep Karl around after the indictment comes.
But I don’t buy Scottie-gone-because-of-Plame. Remember Libby’s sonnet, asking for Scottie to say he was just as innocent as Turdblossom? It suggests that Scottie was really clueless.
yes, but there are distinct differences in the phrasing between what Libby wanted Scotty to say, and what Scotty actually said, that “involved” him in the cover-up. Not consciously perhaps, but enough to be named as a “participant” albeit an “unindictable” one….
Don’t watch them simultaneously, your head will explode.
Sen. George Allen spinning Rove as not a political liability
OT.
Covered by Snow?
A DKOS diary suggests that there was a purge of Snow posts at Free Republic.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyo.....181429/465
-GSD
Maybe he spoke in depth about how racism “isn’t an issue” anymore.
Blank Kludge
Also the State people:
Bolton
Fred Fleitz (who, it should be said, just moved out of State to the House Intelligence Committee)
David Wurmser
Head…do..not..explode…do…not…explode…
Seems like a good time to ask this question:
What Republican, running for president, will Diebold be crunching the numbers for in the 2008 election? Who will Bush put in the catbird seat?
Arrghhh!!!! leakgate overload…..
I’ve come around and now believe that I’m with Lukasiak (comment #60)… the grand jury today was just about the emails.
This is consistent with Luskin’s comment that in connection with today’s appearance, Turdboy was not the target of the inquiry….Not lying, but still smarmy.
In addition….Isn’t Luskin (by law) precluded from discussing exactly what Turdboy was asked about (grand jury secrecy, etc)?!?!?!?
re p. lukasiak’s theory about Andy Card deleting Email: whose Email did Andy have access to?
As Chief of Staff, Card would have had authority over/access to all White House email servers. Hell, he probably had “administrator” privileges on those machines.
BTW *ilson, Lent is over. You can go back to enjoying your “W” again! :)
Any attorney anywhere:
Is a target letter required? Couldn’t Fitz bring the indictment without it?
knuckledragger # 69– Rover has no notion of honor, therefore, no samurai would even deign look at him.
He would be the coward who could not/should not be allowed the honor of committing seppuku; rather he can just slink away into the shadows like a worm.
No bushido there, only bushit.
MSNBC vs CNN?
Whichever is highest number on your cable ‘dial’.
(used to be the lower numbers O-T-A held a ratings advantage due to that fact alone. I prefer the ‘alternative’ myself.) You gotta work just alittle harder.
CNN Candy Crowley covering Snowjob criticisms of Bush..”impotent”…bush looks guilty..an embarrassment…
differant take;
if roves attorney is able to say that the man is not a target, I think we can safely say rove is giving someone up
probably darth cheney
emptywheel — no if Rover gets indicted he’s probably white house history, you’re right. But any number of ugly things could come out that could raise a clamour for him to lose his security clearance, and if he doesn’t need one in his new job I can easily see Bush making the argument that there’s no reason to get rid of Rove until the investigation is complete.
After alll, he’d just as soon fire himself.
Fitz has that sexy Irish integity thingy going. Integrity=Sexy=Hot.
Maybe Scottie, Rover & Scootie all lost their clearance…….leaving Condi, Dickie and Dubya. Great names for leaders, by the way.
the denials are parsings by Rove sympathizers. Somebody in the Rove camp, however, has leaked the target story.
It is impossible to ignore the change in Rove’s position.
This all fits together as the prelude to indictment.
Zennurse,
That whole target letter is a bit of a smokescreen. Libby’s supporters pushed the exact same angle and we know old Scooter got his now, don’t we. We will know soon enough. The wordsmithing of Luskin is meant to cover and confuse. We will never get any semblence of truth from him or Rover.
Don’t worry about it.
-GSD
“Jane Hamsher says:
April 26th, 2006 at 4:10 pm “
Remember Bush has already moved that goalpost.
Did he not say anyone “guilty” of a crime?
An indictment is merely a charge.
Bush needs Rover like vampires need blood.
-GSD
“In connection with this appearance”…
See, I think this thing is being parsed entirely too hard. Yes, it -could- mean all the various things that folks are suggesting it might mean, but since there’s also that additional bit about Fitzgerald not having made any decision about charging Rove, I think it’s probably safe to say that “in connection with this appearance” just means “Rove testifying today does not indicate that he is a target.”
Also, is “in connection with” Luskin’s wording, or simply the wording of whoever wrote the article?
I like the idea of Card being in hot water. It makes me smile. *g*
Those emails could implicate a few people, couldn’t it? *snort*
Patience, patience, patience. Waiting for this to finish is driving me crazy, but it has to play out as it needs to.
the White House computer system, including Email, is administered by professionals. No user would be given broad access authority, not even Andy. He would have had to work with a computer tech to even try to begin to scrub Emails. Those techs are eminently Fitzable…
Zennurse: Maybe Fitz is still holding on to the target letter. Maybe that’s why he went in today..maybe Fitz leaked that he was getting ready to bring the letter and a little birdie told Rove so Rove gave up Cheney….
The only thing to save Rove is if Cheney suffers a heart attack.
From the prior thread, but on topic:
“Mary says:
April 26th, 2006 at 3:08 pm
I think the “in connection with this appearance†has to be parsing - otherwise you just say: is not and never has been a target. Especially with so much hanging over this whitehouse.
Truthout alludes to the fact that there have been other GJ meetings during this last week
and I find that very hard to believe - that Fitzgerald could duck in an out like that with only Leopold and Blumenthal knowing, so that makes me pick grains of salt.
I think something significant vis a vis a plea is or has been in the works, but I think we won’t find out much for some time. Bc anything we find out, Libby finds out (although with this “Aspens are turning†crew, he may already know). I think the Prosecutor will play it quiet until he HAS to make the plea or indictments known, bc he wants Libby and lawyers in the dark and worrying over their need to make a deal - esp if Rove gave enough to add conspiracy chargs. SO IMO, we are on hold for now.”
but since there’s also that additional bit about Fitzgerald not having made any decision about charging Rove,
which is probably only slightly more true than when Bush was telling us he didn’t decide to invade Iraq a year in advance….
GSD
But Bush doesn’t necessarily need Rove IN the White House.
For that matter, there have been rumors that Libby hangs out in the WH staff mess. So all Bush will need to do when Rove goes down is legally get rid of him.
I mean, if you can rationalize keeping a $200/hour gay male hooker in the White House with no legal justification, then why not your old friend Turdblossom?
special off topic request (sorry)
could you ask your webmaster to also have a mobile version of the blog for those of us that use our pocket pc’s or pda’s when we are not near a computer?
this page has tons of links before the actual text and it’s almost impossible to get to your blog when I’m sufing with my pda
thanx in advance
Uh Clem:
Fitz never, ever makes statements. Never. Anything you read comes from Libby’s side.
I still dont’ get that.
If the US indicts someone, the US believes they are guilty of a crime. The justice department doesn’t think the indicted may be guilty, they think they are guilty and they can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
The preznit hates his justice department. Would the US ever engage in a frivolous prosecution? Not under a law and order guy like Chimpy.
Wilson
Those technies may be eminently Fitzable. Or, they may be buddies of Miguel Miranda (they guy who hacked the Dem Judiciary memos), who is as sleasy-GOPeasy as they come.
Is it possible that they let Scotty go because once Rove is indicted, he’d have to answer to questions that he previously lied about? With a new press secretary, Snow can say “I can’t answer to that. You’ll have to ask Scott McClellan”.
Luskin’s statement is worth the paper it’s written on, nothing more. Truthiness is a smokescreen meant to obfuscate, or ‘beg the questionn’, so to speak.
Further parsing is fruitless w/o facts.
Lawyers and subject met.
Subsequently subject testified (for 3 hrs; that, to me, is few questions and anwers.)
Subject left and atty. released a statement.
———
*ilson 105
yep.
MSNBC still covering Rove and Snowjob. David Gregory covering for Tweety. Nice not to have any shouting for a change. usually, I can’t stand it.
*ilson 78 - would Andy Card be so stupid as to make the same mistake 20 years later?
Yes. Yes, he would.
By all accounts, Andy is not the brightest bulb in the box. And then there’s the “we won’t get caught” mindset (that probably applied during those 12 hours to any number of felonious acts).
zennurse 37 - Good question. Is this GJ “new” only in the sense that it is new to the case, or did Fitz actually convene this GJ from scratch, as it were? I’ve heard reports of both and am not sure which is correct. If the former, then the really intriguing question would be–how much longer does this GJ have to go before its term expires?
oh, cc, I’m pretty sure Fitz not only has the target letter ready but the indictment as well. Luskin’s comment is just what it is, his comment. Fitz is the one who knows what will come next, I don’t think Luskin and Rove really do at this point. I have faith in Fitz and I can be patient. I just wondered if the target letter was a nicety or if it was legally required. I’m going with it’s a gentlemanly thing, but doesn’t have to happen.
“no if Rover gets indicted he’s probably white house history, you’re right. But any number of ugly things could come out that could raise a clamour for him to lose his security clearance, and if he doesn’t need one in his new job I can easily see Bush making the argument that there’s no reason to get rid of Rove until the investigation is complete. After alll, he’d just as soon fire himself.”
Good point. The only real question is, of course, why now? What would have the potential to arise in the immediate future, other than an indictment, which could get people howling for Rove’s security clearance?
I know we’re meant to believe that Josh Bolten basically came in and said, “If you want me to clean house here, get Rove completely out of my way,” and that this is the crux of the “demotion” biscuit, but then… Bolten’s vaunted “five point plan to rescue the presidency” ends up being nothing but a handful of cheap PR stunts that aren’t likely to do jack shit. So I really don’t think Bolten is the player that we’re led to believe he is.
So, that brings us back to Rove relinquishing his policy-making duties and stepping back a bit possibly being due to what the WH feels is coming down the pike from Fitzgerald. But what, other than an indictment, could really be lurking on the horizon that would affect Rove’s security clearance?
Personally, I’m starting to think that maybe Bush DOESN’T intend to dispense entirely with Rove if he’s indicted, and the “demotion” merely provides a buffer zone in case Rove is indicted and The Deciderer decides to keep Rove around anyway.
leslie, Christy has talked about that before, this is the GJ that was convened just after the Libby indictment, in November I think. The one that indicted Libby was extended just for that reason, then was disbanded.
Do we think that there are) -pick one- (any)(some)(a lot of) lower level squealers, and if so, is it likely that the upper eschelon miscreants know that there are, and if so who they are?
I still think rover is rolling over like the dog he is
Gotta go for a bit, fitz along without me, folks!
Correction: Federal Rule 6(e)(2) I believe allows any witness to discuss their grand jury testimony
*ilson 105
“Where did you go, Alexander Butterfield?? A nation turns its lonely eyes to you…”
Apologies to Simon & Garfinkel
“Fitz never, ever makes statements. Never. Anything you read comes from Libby’s side.”
Oh, I understand that, and I never thought that any of what’s come out today has been a statement of Fitzgerald’s. Even the assurance that Fitz hasn’t yet made a decision about charging Rove was obviously from Luskin, though it sounds like Luskin is trying to indicate that this is something that Fitzgerald told -him-.
My question basicacally was, is the wording being parsed Luskin’s own, or is some of it the wording of, for instance, an AP reporter writing up a story about what Luskin said?
Illiterate troll
Trying to fuhgeddaboutit, but can he be a target in another part of the investigation and “not a target” in the part of the investigation that he testified to today?
Distinction w/o a difference, maybe…but exceptionally parsed statement, n’est ce pas?
OT a tad: the Democratic server in the Senate that got ‘hacked’ was actually sysadmin ineptitude. Both the House and Senate networks contain hundreds of servers with separate, individual sysadmins. A bored Repub was poking around and discovered an unsecured Democrat machine and downloaded for a year or so interesting memos. Unethical and wrong. It was like leaving keys in your car and then wondering why it got stolen…
BLAST FROM THE PAST 2001
The Missing “W”s
President George W. Bush has lost his middle initial from many computer keyboards at the Old Executive Office Building in the White House complex. In an apparent prank carried out by departing Clinton administration staffers, Bush aides discovered that dozens of computer keyboards were missing the “W” key. Bush aides were working to repair or replace the keys.
–January 24, 2001 from Impressive.net–
On leaving office, Clinton White House staffers left a trail of vandalism, including the letter W – as in George W. Bush – removed from computer keyboards. The new president’s staff members had to get busy replacing the missing W’s before they could get down to work Monday.
–Jan. 24, 2001 from NewsMax.com–
Allen’s front-page story included even more damaging allegations, quoting one unnamed Bush official who accused Clinton staffers “of taking White House paintings and trying to have them shipped to themselves. Others are said to have steamed official seals off office doors and tried to have them shipped.” In fact, according to the story, “the incoming Bush administration ordered all packages X-rayed starting at noon” the day it moved in.
–May 23, 2001 from Salon.com–
Kos has his take on Drudge’s nonsense about CTG posted at DKos.
the White House computer system, including Email, is administered by professionals. No user would be given broad access authority, not even Andy. He would have had to work with a computer tech to even try to begin to scrub Emails. Those techs are eminently Fitzable…
as EW notes, not all techies are incorruptable.
Also, keep in mind the timeframe — this was when Ashcroft was still in charge of the investigation, and there is no reason to think that Ashcroft would have had Justice Department techies check to see if the White House servers had been tampered with in the 12 hour period between the time that Gonzales and Card were notified, and the rest of the staff was told. So, to answer another quetion, yes Andy Card could be that stupid, because even if his techie told him that there would be a trail, Card would have assumed that the trail would never be examined…
#127 is a Drudge troll, I guess. MArkos smacked that bogus crap down pretty well today at http://www.dailykos.com/storyo.....144354/599
BTW, welcome back Christy. Missed ya. (but glad you took some time for yourself and fam.)
I have been working hard last couple days. Did I miss anything. :)
About the emails and techs:
“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” - Arthur C.Clarke
——
Back in the day I could have bamboozled the guy who would be Card in my org. to believe I had ‘disappeared’ such evidence, while in fact they were copied to an obscure directory while disappearing from his. The CC: issue also would tend to complicate any ‘admin’ like Card seeing the whole.
——-
Aside: I would have loved doing such a thing. This guy threatened my job (and ‘this town’) for ‘impertinence’! Ha, I got your impertinence right here!
*ilson46201 @ 4:19 pm (#105) - In my experience, most people have no idea where copies of their e-mails might be. As long as the e-mails aren’t lost on their local computers, they might never know where backups are stored. It seems possible that Card and/or other members of the WH staff assumed that when they erased their own local copies of the e-mails, that there would be no more copies.
Things like this are usually only known by people who get to answer the question “What happened to my f*cking e-mail?” That usually includes some clerical people and the computer techs.
Pach, did you mean “128 is a Drudge troll,”?
yes, that’s what he meant
I see how the book figures were discredited, but please tell me air amercica is doing fine with links
I can’t live without randi
The new president’s staff members had to get busy replacing the missing W’s before they could get down to work Monday.–Jan. 24, 2001 from NewsMax.com–What obvious bullshit! Just where does one go to obtain bulk quantities of just “W” keys for a multiplicity of styles of keyboards? If the keyboards had been so vandalized, it would have been simpler and cheaper to just replace the entire damn keyboard.
That alleged trashing of the WhiteHouse by departing Clintonistas has been debunked elsewhere better…Such trashing better fits the mindset of disgruntled Goopers!
is 131 really ccmask?
Rule #1 about GOP crime conspiracies.
They always try to destroy the evidence.
Rule #2 about GOP crime conspiracies.
They always get interesting after the “destroyed” evidence gets discovered.
I have no idea of all the subtle nuances in this case. It seems to me that Libby and his NeoCon supporters are attempting to win this case in the media. It may not work.
Yowwza!!!!!!
Who’s that handsome man at the top of the thread?
My take is the GJ (who had the transcripts to go through from the previous GJ) had questions that needed answering and Rove was asked to come in for the grilling.
I am not smart enough to parse all of the Rove implications. I am smart enough however to suspect that Fitz is gaming Rove in order to hook bigger fish. This theory would go some ways in explaining why Rove would not be a target…yet.
yes, it’s me Marky. I think this is when the whole lying started with this administration….as soon as they walked in the door. And also, the fact that they had to work so hard replacing w’s.
ok, who’s messin’ with the blog?
Cc, just checking:) I didn’t get why you posted that, at first.
Why is everything in boxes? Since Wilson’s post.
I agree with others here - even if Rove’s indicted, dumbya just has to get rid of him in name only - physically out of the WH maybe, but doing all the same evil deeds behind the scenes, probably with the RNC.
So, I say we all pool together after the indictment and hire a private eye to document everywhere KKKKarl goes, everyone he’s seen with and everything he does. Just kidding, but it sure is more than the MSM will do - and it sure would be fun to know if he’s really lost his security clearance and what he’s really up to, as opposed to what he’s reportedly up to - with photos…
ok, who’s messin’ with the blog?
Wilson used some weird code in a quote, and forgot to close it out or something!
DAMN WILSON!!!!! :)
marky, wondering that myself.
If so, what’s his point?
That shit is urban myth status by now.
missing keys-bullshit:
They had a built in excuse for incompetence right away. I never believed such scuttlebutt (I woulda done something more devious, were it to be throughout WH, infect the local network, or encrypt/change PW, etc)
The nature of the accusation indicates the origins, as has been said. The minds of the already active smearing. They were into PR even then, not governing. I’d nominate this was Rove.
Excellent reporting. Thank you.
CNN kept referring to “sources sympathetic to Rove” which was really ticking me off.
Grilled Rove, The Other white meat.
According to the poll, Bush’s approval rating fell by one point from last month to 36 percent, his lowest mark in the survey. But the troubling news for Bush doesn’t stop there: Hart explains that Bush has now spent nine consecutive months at 40 percent or below in the poll, a feat exceeded only by Richard Nixon (13 months) and Harry Truman (26 months).
a confession: weeks ago I said I gave up my initial letter for Lent. I was lying. The current Preznit has brought such shame, rebuke, revilement and ignomy to the letter “W” that I felt it best to temporarily drop it.
I think Rove is nuclear to the Republicans right now–they’d be afraid to be set up by him now…
OK, let’s see what kind of fun Olbermann has for us tonight.
WILSON!!!!
You better still be around to fix this!
off code block Sorry!
better?
Is it my imagination, or has Rover lost weight?
(I think that video was filmed today…)
Yes. Much better. Thankyou.
We can’t let him continue to sully Truman’s memory. 17 months is too long to go.
Rove still looks like the pillsbury dough boy to me.
Karl
Deal or no deal?
MSNBC Reporting on Olberman that the testimony today is about Viveca Novak.
if you are not an administrator here and you can do that there is a security issue with this site
administrators please fix asap
Bush: “My job is to make decisions.” I Am The Decider…
Schuster on Countdown says that Luskin told him the 3 hours were to clear up the Viveca Novak story. Schuster pointed out that Viveca refreshed Roves story in March but Rove didnt come to Fitz until November. Timeline difficulties, it seems.
I look forward to comments about how V.Novak fits. She’s a wild card to me…
*ilson46201 @ 4:48 pm (#140) - The best debunking was done by the GAO. As Al Franken tells it, one Congressional Republican “didn’t get the joke” about all the missing W’s, and asked for the GAO. to investigate. They found nothing wrong, and said so rather explicitly
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02360.pdf
It’s a PDF file.
If Rove gets indicted, he’s too toxic to retain any official title in the Admin. Any action other than what Libby officially took would stand out in glaring contrast. It is ‘break the glass on the fire alarm’ time for the GOP going into these midterms. I would absolutely want to have publicized any involvement and contact an indicted and resigned Rove might subsequently have with GOP functions. Expose for all it represents.
Weird, I did not notice anything different.
MSNBC Reporting on Olberman that the testimony today is about Viveca Novak.
hey, I was telling you that in post #2! :)
neuro, 163:” Is it my imagination, or has Rover lost weight?”
cathy, 166:”Rove still looks like the pillsbury dough boy to me.”
Actually you are both corect. Rove had kidney stone surgery recently. If he had a 50-lb stone, that might explain his weight loss, but he still looks like uncooked dough.
Just kidding about the 50-lb stone. I had a stone that passed once the size of a pea, but it was excruciating.
sometimes unclosed html tags will persist across comments. sometimes not. Not good at all. My code block usage didnt mess up on Firefox but in theory the HTML used here should be so simple as to display reasonably correctly on a variety of browsers…
We’re about to enter the “six months until the election” warning period. So far so good. The goopers are fuckin up all over the place. A Rover indictment would just be icing on the cake. Still a long time to go though.
Dana Milbank is pretty snarky about Tony Snowjob–being, as he is, from Faux News– being on the White House payroll. He notes that Snowjob did not answer questions from the press corps today, but did answer questions from Brit Hume on Faux, which may become a pattern…
Dana Milbank is pretty snarky about Tony Snowjob–being, as he is, from Faux News– being on the White House payroll. He notes that Snowjob did not answer questions from the press corps today, but did answer questions from Brit Hume on Faux, which may become a pattern…
Hey Everyone -
fyi - Glenn’s Book is still # 1
good one *ilson !
Wouldn’t it be nice for the “October Surprise” to be indictments all around? I wouldn’t mind waiting for that. . .
new thread - a recap!
Two things have given me pause in the last 24 hours–John Warner contemplating a hearing for the retired generals on rumsfeld, and Grassley investing the big oil’s tax returns.
My question: could it be possible that the GOP in congress will turn on the admin in order to save itself?
Rove’s security clearance in jeopardy?
The law and custom may well require that Rove’s security clearance be removed if he’s indicted. But that matters not one bit in this case.
He will still remain Bush’s “brain, regardless (how else could Bush function?) – and therefore continue to have full access to whatever information is needed for him to exercise that role.
Furthermore, Bush has already positioned himself, under the “unitary executive†theory, as having the constitutional authority to act outside the law in other matters (e.g. domestic surveillance, torture, suspension of habeas corpus, etc.). So there is nothing to prevent him from granting full access to Rove on security matters.
I don’t know why my comment repeated itself. It used to do that a lot on HaloScan, but this is the first time it’s happened to me on the new software. ???
A little more than three hours after he arrived, Rove left the courthouse without making any comment.
Earlier today, Fitzgerald met with the grand jury for the second time since it was empaneled following the expiration of an original grand jury investigating the leak.
WP
Not much news that I can find- this note that Fitz met with the GJ earlier today before Rover showed up may be significant.
“If Rove isn’t a “target,” what is he?“
Uh, he would be what we call a “snitch.” (See also, rat, cooperating witness, canary, etc.)
TalkLeft in trying to make sense of the contradictions between Luskind saying Rove is not a target, and other reports saying that he is a target(a la Leopold) draws a distinction between being a target of the GJ and being a target of the investigation. If this distinction is for real it would explain the discrepancies in the reports.
What that means in realworld terms is less clear, but in neither case does it bode well for Rove, who appears between a rock and a hard place. As his story becomes more entangled, the more his chances of becoming a target of the GJ go up, and so does the pressure to rat on his colleagues…to go the Information route, as TalkLeft suggests.
He is a bit of a porker ain’t he? And we know pigs squeal don’t we?
http://talkleft.com
Hmmm:
“Luskin says his client returned to the grand jury to “explore a matter raised since Mr. Rove’s last appearance in October 2005.” That would suggest that Rove testified today about news that broke at the end of last year: the revelation that a Bush administration official leaked Valerie Plame’s identity to Bob Woodward in June 2003 or the word that Time’s Viveca Novak tipped off Luskin in early 2004 to the fact that Rove had leaked Plame’s identity to Matthew Cooper.”
If that Luskin quote is all he said, testimony re VN isn’t all that could be suggested as a topic for the GJ. All those e-mails were also recovered since Rove’s last appearance, weren’t they?
“#127 is a Drudge troll, I guess. MArkos smacked that bogus crap down pretty well today at http://www.dailykos.com/storyo.....599″
For the record, I most certainly am not. Furthermore, I’m not sure what I’ve written that would suggest that I am.
Uh Clem, not you. #128. Comments get renumbered sometimes.
emptywheel:
“Are you suggesting that when Rove gets indicted, they’ll keep him at the White House in his still current title, Deputy Chief of Staff? That’s what I don’t get, . . .
If you’re going to pre-empt having to resign in response to a [indictment ?], you get all the way out now, and into a position above question while you can still do so.”
***********************************************
I don’t get it either, emptywheel.
I think people like you and I - rational people - can go astray, though, attempting to discern why irrational people - and these people are profoundly irrational - do what they do by applying rational analysis to their actions. For instance, three years after starting a war which had “DISASTER” written all over it from Day One, can any of us say for certain why they REALLY started this war? Rational analysis of their starting the war leads to no reasonable explanation of why they did it.
For that matter, if Rove has no policy duties, only duties relating to the November election, then what logical justification for his being on the public payroll, rather than the RNC payroll, can there be?
The only things I can suggest regarding what comes next with Rove, given that he has one foot in and one foot out of the White House, will make no sense to reasonable people. But the true test is whether they make sense to the unreasonable people who are taking the actions.
With that test in mind, I offer the following suggestions, none of which make sense, and some of which can work in conjunction with some of the others:
1. When an indictment becomes inevitable, Karl resigns his remaining position, explaining that his political duties are overwhelming, given the weakness of the Republicans in the polls, and he just can’t remain at the White House.
2. Hope that the indictments come late enough in the year so that the Christmas pardons will clean everything up, permitting Karl to stay on and help America fight the war it has started in Iran.
3. Rove keeps his nominal post in hopes of pulling a Spiro Agnew - plea bargain down the felonies he’s committed to a couple of misdemeanors (and no jail time) by, among other things, agreeing to surrender his White House post and to never accept another such appointment.
4. Some people at the White House wanted Rove all the way out. He wanted to stay all the way in. The people at the White House were scared of him, of his knowledge of where the bodies are buried and all, and of his willingness to do ANYTHING to ANYONE. So the two sides compromised on the one foot in, one foot out result.
This list is clearly not comprehensive.
Again, I can explain to you things wrong with each of these scenarios as easily as you can explain the same to me. But that is NOT the test of their validity. Rather, the test is, could the delusional people who decided that Rove could stay on in a reduced capacity at the White House, in the rather desperate circumstances they find themselves in these days, be persuaded that one or more of these ideas, or ideas like them, justified keeping Rove on?