One would hope that Fitz et al would cover those bases (know the trail of evidence etc) early on.

Seeing as how computers, electronics & software are in my area of expertise I`ll just note in passing that all this behavior (Rove et al) took place in an environment where the NSA (and probably other similar agencies) had been tasked by the NCA (National Command Authority) to do their intelligence behavior w/o any legal restraints to speak of and it is VERY LIKELY that much of this (ReThug) back & forth electron based behavior was “captured” in the the very wide (super duper double wide ??) electronic net being used to watch for those “terrorists” post 9/11 & stored for future “investigation” – remember the (John Bolton) NSA intercepts the White House refused to turn over to Congress ?

Pause a moment and think about that; it IS possible that somewhere in all that data stored in the intelligence community (”poison fruit” to be sure) there are very detailed records of the details of behavior of these folks, ALL OF THEM while they went about their “business”

Now getting to those records might be next to impossible but not impossible

Imagine the potential

“Lack of awareness of the basic unity of organism and environment is a serious and dangerous hallucination.” – Alan Watts

I don’t know of any evidence to suggest that Card encouraged Rove to do a little pre-emptive sweeping of his hard disk before “officially” notifying WH staff of the investigation, but with this administration, it’s almost impossible to believe he didn’t.

Didn’t Card step down right around the time Patrick got back to town?

But regardless of when Fitz came into possession of the email, I cling to the hope that he retains a paper trail of the search terms initially used to comb through Rove’s email archives. I have always found it singularly implausible that a search for the name “Wilson” would fail to turn up a message that contained the name “Wilson”.

Just sayin…

“This [Luskin’s late 2003, or early 2004 meeting with Viveca Novak] enables Luskin to argue that Rove would have been crazy to try to hide his knowledge of his July 11 2003 conversation with Cooper when he testified in February 2004, thus showing that Rove testified in good faith to no recollection of contact with journalists regarding Plame other than with Bob Novak.”
**************

Experienced federal prosecutors like Fitzgerald are masters at using the grand jury to lock witnesses into their versions of what transpired. I find it difficult to believe that Fitzgerald didn’t ask Rove to identify each reporter with whom he discussed Wilson and Plame. In fact, I believe that he would have specifically asked Rove if he had a conversation with Cooper and it appears that Rove denied it until the last possible moment when he realized that Cooper was going to testify. Only then did he produce his 7/11/2003 email to Hadley regarding his conversation with Cooper.

I can’t imagine a good reason for Rove and Luskin to believe that a trial jury will believe Rove, if he testifies that he had forgotten about his conversation with Cooper when he was interviewed by the FBI in September 2003, and when he testified at the grand jury in February, 2004. Luskin would have told Rove about Viveca Novak’s comment regarding Cooper naming Rove as one of his sources for his article in the WAPO on July 17,2003. That would have jogged Rove’s memory that he did speak to Cooper, assuming that he had forgotten about it, which I don’t believe for a moment.

It’s certainly possible that Rove lied to Luskin about whether he recalled speaking to Cooper. It wouldn’t be the first, or last time that a client withheld information from his lawyer. Perhaps Luskin accepted him at his word, which never is a good idea with Rove, and Rove decided to risk not correcting his FBI interview and grand jury testimony because he believed that Cooper would keep his lips sealed. That would have been reckless wishful thinking. Yet, it might explain the long period of time that passed between Luskin’s meeting with Viveca Novak and Rove’s. “Oops, I’m awful sorry, but I just remembered something important and here’s this email that I found. Pretty cool, Fitz, huh?”

Rove was continuing to be his ever so manipulative self and have his cake and eat it too by waiting out Cooper to see what he would do. That he decided to take such a long-shot chance with so much at stake, provides a reliable indication of how desperate Rove was to prevent his email to Hadley from falling into Fitzgerald’s hands.

I think Fitz is aiming for the very top and treason, ultimately. That’s where the facts seem to be taking us.

I don’t think Rove would think twice about back dating a phony email. If anyone in IT is colluding with Rove, it could be a serious problem for the prosecution, especially since most of the Justic Department and FBI agents are used to living within an antiquated computer environment.

It worries me when so many of the prevailing theories as to what Rove is up to seem to accept the authenticity of the email as a given. I see no reason to accept that premise, given the types of critters we are talking about.

2) *IF* Rove changed his Cooper testimony, did he also change his R Novak testimony? Did he have to say, “oh yeah, now I remember I said something to Bob.”?

3) Is the essence of Rove’s testimony “I am of the state of mind that my recollection at the time of testimony to the G/J, to the FBI, and even to Ashcroft (and Scottie McClellan!) is that I learned about Plame in a context whereby it seemed her identity was widely known to reporters”? I agree with e.c. #30 that the flashpoint for remembering is the day of the Novak article (or maybe the day Rove told Russert–or Matthews–that Plame was “fair game”).

If this is the essence of his testimony, but no evidence (emails, reporter testimony that no one knew of Plame until after Novak’s article, testimony from cooperating officials, etc) supports his “state of mind,” then Rove’s defense has to be flawed memory.

Rove: “I have no recollection of talking to reporters until AFTER the Novak article, and my sense that Plame’s identity was widely known must be from that “after novak” period…I seem to have forgotten who my real sources were, and substituted my memories from a few days later. Gee, to this very day, my best recollection is just a blur. And to think I’m Bush’s brain, and the whole Republican party is counting on me to keep control of the House and Senate in November.”

Or something like that. I’d love to know what Fitz’s evidence is.

Said it best; I’ve read the post twice but frankly find it impenetrable (tired, it’s late here).
I don’t see the motivations/recalling of earlier warnings, etc. holding up over time. Sounds too theoretical. Rove just pulled out all that stuff each time he was faced with the noose. He’s obviously walking a thin line on perjury and obstruction.

Guess I’m a lousy Plameologist/legal strategist but these would be tactical indictments; where are the indictments for the original crime/leaks? If bringing them out now will jeopardize the Libby prosecution, then didn’t Fitz then make a big strategic error in indicting Libby when he did? Or did he have to, simply to get this far with Rove, and assumedly others?