Is it just me, or is the ultimate cock-tease in the political arena at this point?

It will be interesting to see if Rove can continue telling the truth to Fitz and the GJ. I wouldn’t bet on it myself, because his history says he can’t. (Like a drug addict trying to stay clean, he has habits he’ll have to break, or go under.)

Charo!

Tester, one, two, three, four.

-GSD

Happy Flag Day! Rootz!

Thanks Christy…

I say we move on at this point. I’m absolutely burnt out on Karl. Fitzgerald sounds like he has this mess covered and I actually feel VERY confidant that he will snap the leash if/when Rove’s misbehavior erupts again.

Why the discrepancies in the medium for the connection between Luskin and Fitzgerald?

Was it a letter, a phone call, or a fax ?

It seems weird to me that three different methods of communication are cited by three different news outlets.

I mean WTF. I think I have to put this out of my mind for awhile, it’s disappointing but as I said yesterday, if Rover’s got some kind of deal for giving up Cheney, it may be worth it. But oh, did I want to see rovers jowls waggle during his frog march.

I LOVE that pic. That stupid movie is so stupidly hilarious. It was the fave at the bank where I was a cube rat for 5 years.

Christy,

Piling on more THANKS for your helpful insights (and to so many of you commentaters as well).

Here’s a though I had about GJ in general (and while I’ve known several Fed and State Pros in my life, I’ve never asked them this question):

So, assume I’m on the GJ. The Prosecutor has brought in a man who testifies for 3 hours in front of our little flock of jurors. Maybe it’s for the 2nd time in front of our group, maybe it’s the 1st time, but I know he’s testified several times in this case.

I’m sitting there listening to this man and I can’t get the vision of a big, old fat ham sandwich sweating and writhing and trying mightily to convince me that his reality is the truth. And there’s the Prosecutor with his apron and oven mit turning up the heat on this man-ham sandwich.

So now said Prosecutor clears the man “pending unexpected development”. Or maybe he clears the man-sandwich completely, utterly. Or maybe there are conditions. And this is now made public.

Here’s my question: What does the Prosecutor owe me, a U.S. citizen performing her civic duty (and giving up my normal life as you pointed out in the Plame panel) in the way of an explanation? Or does he/she owe me anything?

Anything? Nothing? Was my time wasted listening to the ham sandwich wiggle his way through the questioning?

Gotta run right now – work beckons as always – but will check back for any responses/answers to my questions a little later.

Shout out to all Lake Doggies too.

Unfortunately, as soon as Ambassador Wilson and Valerie Plame-Wilson file a civil suite the Bush administration will try to get it thrown out on national security concerns. Since they are well on their way to remaking the judiciary as a reflection of their own corrupt image, it is quite probable they will get away with this and never be held accountable.

Assimilated Press
http://assimilatedpress.blogspot.com/

Watch for the Libby camp to start discrediting Rove. That’s the best evidence that Fitz chose not to seek an indictment aganst Hot Karl in order to preserve his value as a government witness. Indicting Rove for anything, especially perjury or any offense involving a false statement, would devastate Rove’s credibility should he be called as a government witness against Libby or anyone else. If Libby starts asking whether Rove cut a deal, we’ll have a better idea what to expect, namely, a visit to the witness stand by the (so far) unindicted Mr. Rove.

Rootz back atcha.

Heard an MSNBC reporter refer to “Rove unshackled.” Expect the resurgence of the hardballs campaign strategist/schoolyard bully.

Except.

Finally, people are pushing back. The old games aren’t going to work anymore. In spinning Plame investigation status or campaigns.

Bush/Rove play Texas No-Holds-Barred, except right now they’re holding a weak two-of-a-kind and bluffing bigtime. [One could argue they always have been.]

Case in point: FEMA fraud, checks used for Dom Perignon champagne at Hooters, cruises, a sex change operation. [the welfare queen lives…wanna bet this refrain came right out of the WH spin machine?] Hmmmmmmmmmmmm, except what’s the bottom line? Report diagnoses FEMA fraud controls are weak or nonexistent.

Once more, the cherry’s dropped right in our laps for using. Incompetence, starving the vital functions of government. Allows fraud, waste, abuse. By little nonentities and bigtime friends o’Bush contractors like Halliburton.

John Nichols has a nice piece in the Nation today:

>>>>>>>>>>>

No top office within the administration was better positioned than Cheney’s to gather the information that was used to attack Wilson and his wife and to peddle that information to the press. In fact, as Joe Wilson told me in an interview about the leaking of his wife’s name that we did early in 2004, “With respect to who actually leaked the information, there are really only a few people — far fewer than the president let on when he said there are a lot of senior administration officials — who could have done it. At the end of the day, you have to have the means, the keys to the conversations at which somebody might drop my wife’s name — deliberately or not — a national security clearance, and a reason to be talking about this. When you look at all that, there are really very few people who exist at that nexis between national security and foreign policy and politics. You can count them, literally, on two hands.”

Wilson added that, without a doubt, “the vice president is one of those people.”

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=91300

I meant suit not suite but there are so many crimes that need uncovering it could fill a suite of suits.

Assimilated Press
http://assimilatedpress.blogspot.com/

Mr. Rove will not be indicted …. Neither will Cheney nor all the rest …. Let’s get over the interminable `Fitzwatch’ …. It’s over …..

EPUed from last thread, a reply to Badwater:

If Cheney’s been tossed under the proverbial bus by Rove, it isn’t merely about saving his own pasty posterior. It’d be tantamount to a coup by the Bushies against the neocons.

Remember, Condi – a Bushie to the core – is being positioned as the sane one in the administration’s foreign policy establishment. And then there were last week’s leaks about how Poppy was working behind the scenes to get Rummy to spend more time on the tennis court.

Stranger things have happened.

still can’t wrap my brain around why rove’s case is much different than libby’s? it always seemed to me they were equally nailed in this with each claiming faulty memories within the same implausible timeline. why doesn’t rove get invited to the dance?

(Sorry Hugh, leaped too soon…my bad…JH)

I read some heated exchanges here last night about this Rove thing. I trust Fitzgerald to have done the right thing, given the evidence he had.

But I do think it is reasonable to feel disappointed that Karl didn’t get in trouble. For me, this guy has made a career out of smearing people and rather than get called out for it–he made it to the highest office of the land. Finally, I thought, he has launched a smear, lied about it to the FBI and the Grand Jury, and will, for the first time in his life, face the music.

But there is no music and I wait in dread for the slime to start on our Democratic candidates. I was consoled by Christy’s advice yesterday to fight for these Democrats to win the midterms b/c that will devastate Karl. (And I will do my part–Webb just won in VA and he was our best shot to unseat George Allen.) But I think that I was most consoled by Christy saying that it is hard on a prosecutor to know someone lied but to know that you don’t have enough to bring charges. I guess what I’m saying is, misery loves company. It may be hurting Fitz even more than it hurts us.

“I’ve never seen, frankly, someone involved in an investigation of this kind given so many chances to continually correct and amend prior testimony. There are many prosecutors who would have indicted Rove on his first statement,” George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley told CBS Radio station WBZ. “He was given a great deal of deference and quite frankly, assistance, by the prosecutor.”

Link

What is going on here? Baffling.

don’t forget semaphores (not to be confused with metaphors!)

All I can say is that sending something that important via fax is purty dern risky… one incorrect number punch and things could get sticky very quickly, especially in a town like Washington.

something smells bad.

A letter via courier or designated trusty person sure sounds like the right way to deliver such news. Sounds like somebody does not want to show us the letter…

al-Scooter @ 16,

you have reminded me -

what if anything is happening in the AIPAC case where Condo was t/b subpoenaed ?

anyone ?

Well maybe they did use semaphores and Luskin didn’t know how to read them and Fitz actually said that he anticipated that Rove would be indicted.

Yeah, that’s it.

Jane S 19 -

“…reasonable to feel disappointed that Karl didn’t get in trouble.”
_____

Not clear, after parsing the spin, that he’s truly out of trouble yet.

Christy,

May I suggest that you cross-post this over at Daily Kos. There are many there who would be interested and may not stop here today, for whatever reason.

There has been no formal announcement of any type from Fitz, and I believe he’s lying back in the weeds, lurking, waiting to snare the big one.

Hey, take this to Jeralyn. She seeems to think she’s a Ponce de Leon to Luskin’s Fountain of Truth. I’d comment there, but you gotta be a member. ??

I really like TalkLeft, let me just say that. But her stuf in teh last couple days has been haywire. And inconsistent. Hey–she may be tired. But she should still fix errors, like “I’m ready to put this one to bed.”

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/015080.html

Sheesh.

Perhaps tomorrow we will hear that the fax was found in a flower pot in the parking garage of Patton Boggs…

OT: Billmon is on fire today! Read the update, it’s the best part.

EPU’d from last thread:

Evil Parrell Universe @ 148 (on last thread)

Dead on. this is what I was trying to get at yesterday but you put it much much better. This is all spin cycle. Something of actual legal substance may of happened yesterday and something may of not. We don’t know.
One thing that did happen is the issue is now framed as being “resolved” and “let’s move on”. I don’t f**king think so. Sure, all we can do is speculate but yesterday was not NEWS it was a PR release and the msm media (and even many here!?) bought it again, hook, line and sinker.
The NYT, WSJ, and WSP, etc. have so much to gain by putting this story to bed in mind of the public (b/c they are wrapped up in it), the have been complicit once again!!! First they started the story back w/ Novack and Miller and now they are trying to end it. It makes me ill.

Hmmm. With Karl off the hook for the moment, the only “loose end” we know of is Libby. I don’t think Fitz is going to go after anyone else until Libby is convicted. And that’s several months off. We’ll just have to content ourselves with other Republican scandals. How’s that Safavian trial going?

Let’s see… a FAX, a leter, and a phone call. I’m not buying it until I see an email.

Not to be too contrarian, but I still think that Otis’ take on all this is the best analasys so far, and that it is more likely that Rover is not being prosecuted “at this time” because he has been cooperating well.*

As for the letter – perhaps it was a bone to Rover as part of the deal – it certainly doesn’t give him a truly clean bill of legal health.

_________________________________
See, “Finally, We Get to the Bigger Question%u2026 “, EPU at 148.

Alternate theory, presented for Christy’s analysis. Crossposted from Corn’s site:

[T]he right has been claiming since July, 2005, that no crime has been committed because Plame’s name was mentioned in documents relating to the CIA in an inadvertent disclosure to the Cubans (Gertz, WTimes and McCarthy, NatRev, 7/05). Now, this is clearly false in that the CIA and the DoJ concluded that a crime had been committed. However, Baker Law presented this as a defense for the media defendants. The filing is– interestingly– gone from B-Law’s website.

Now, this presents interesting questions. As Needlenose pointed out, this disclosure appears to have occurred under Bush. It was also evidently known to media outlets, presumably because a Bush Administration official with classified entree told them. This raises the question of whether the inadvertent disclosure to Cuba was entirely “inadvertent.”

At any rate, one explanation that hasn’t been put forward as a hypothesis is that Rove threatened to demand disclosure of classified material in court, just as Libby has done. Whatever the case, Fitzgerald has always seemed very iffy about prosecuting the underlying crime, going after lying instead.

…

Posted by: Charles at June 14, 2006 12:52 PM

And yes, before anyone asks, I do think that the Republican strategy is to push this off until after the election (again).

To follow up on my Billmon recommendatio, I can’t resist posting a quote, about the supposed bubble-breaking “critics” Bush talked to about Iraq recently:

We’re talking, in other words, about the same neocon assclowns who got us into Iraq in the first place, who made a complete mess out of the initial occupation with their idiotic, Israel-centric views about what’s wrong with the Arabs, and who’ve been consistently clueless about every single policy issue they’ve opened their freaking pieholes about — and they open them so often they’ve got pie filling permanently dribbling down their chins. To call these guys war “critics” is like calling Typhoid Mary a “critic” of 19th century hygiene standards.

Thanks for the mention!

It could also be interpreted as a “Rove, you slimy bastard, you’d better stick to your end of our deal, or else.” It may suggest that Rove has flipped and will assist in the take-down of Cheney.

I just read through the exhibits at Fitz’s website, the ones that are the transcripts of Libby’s tesimony. If you didn’t know any of the players and were asked who the target was simply by reading those exhibits, it’s clear as day that Fitz is after Cheney.

Great work, Christy.

EDIT: Also, it was a pleasure to meet you this weekend. You’re just as spunky in person and on the panel as you are in your posts. During your panel, I was speaking to Teddy, saying how you probably do that thing where you run your fingers through your hair and around your ear when you’re being snarky at the computer. Mr. ReddHedd chimed in, “Yeah, she does.”

Haha!

‘Forget Fitz’ is my new motto. ROOTZ!

And some great news along those lines.

Lamont is closing hard on Liebermann!!

http://www.dailykos.com/

Letter, fax, phone call..what happened to the pony express?

I gotta post this idea I had this morning. I was wondering”what’s the difference between Libby and Rove?” from a prosecutorial perspective.

A lot of things occured to me, but the bottom line is that Rove has good reason to be open with Fitzgerald, and the conclusion I came to is this:

Vice President John McCain.

The Rovian calculus, as I see it, understands that a Rove indictment for whatever charges (and we all know there’s stuff) costs the Republican party votes in the midterm elections. Plus, Rove has no reason to suffer an indictment unless he is completely willing to shield Cheney (I think it’s reasonable that Bush is in the clear on Plame). So indictment for Rove is bad.

On the other hand, Cheney is an anvil dragging down Bush and other Republican poll numbers. Lose him (and maybe some other pro-war, intelligence-manipulating, CIA-agent-outing neocons) and Bush’s numbers–and the approval of Republicans–rises. Especially if the Republican congress suddenly “shows some independence” and embraces Cheney’s downfall.

And who would make a reasonably popular VP? McCain.

Then it’s McCain in ‘08.

(apologies if other folks have covered this, I needed to get this out before reading comments)

As my granny would say
“There’s something fishy in that stew”

All these facts don’t fit together,
I think there is another story that we’re missing somehow.

Rove is very good at diversion, getting everyone to talk around a subject rather than about the subject. A “Sand in the eyes” kind of thing.

Wish I were smarter!

Y’know, I was wondering to myself if the radical Republicans ever get tired of juggling the plates until just after the next election, piling up bigger and bigger disasters for our future to make sure that smaller ones don’t break now.

And then I remembered — they’re always sure they’re right. There may be some, like Rove, who are in it only for the politics and the game, but at the core, the fundamental radical Republican trait (I’d say neocon, but it’s broader than that) is that they know they are right, and history will eventually prove it. They know they are right, and no matter how long they have to keep up the Straussian lies to a public that would never support what they’re actually doing, no matter how disastrously their policies turn out, if they can keep it up long enough, everyone will see that they’re right.

So while keeping things going until the next election is the near-term part of it, they don’t believe in expertise and they don’t believe in evidence. The starting point for all their thinking is that their conservative theories cannot be wrong and everything else must be made to fit that conclusion.

And when we do take control and reveal how deeply they’ve screwed up the country, they will, in their own minds, be secure in the knowledge that the only problem is “you didn’t let us finish!“

You could receive a phone call saying that are sending you a letter via via fax as well as via mail/courier. Yeah, you (or me for that matter) would most likely not base statements o this issue based on a phone call, a faxed letter would be fine, the actual, original copy of the letter would be best, but, although inconsistent, it isn’t really isn’t much.

This part of parsing Luskin misses the point.

clbrune –

I agree with your analysis as to why Rove may be cooperating with the investigation — at least enough to dodge an indictment at this time.

Kicking the can down the road until after the election is Rove’s top priority. If he can do that and take down Cheney, it’s a twofer. VP McCain is the best the GOP and Team Bush can hope for, and throwing Cheney under the bus is the only way to get there.

BobbyG/25: I hope you are right but FDL’s own Jane had an excellent post last night where she said, even given Luskin’s history, she doesn’t think he would make this statement without it being pretty close to the truth.

I would be heartily consoled if Fitz goes for Cheney.

(Sorry Hugh, leaped too soon…my bad…JH)

Waiting for Fitz is like Waiting for Godot.

Whether Fitz ever delivers justice or Godot shows up, if fault is to be found it is in us — for waiting and hoping.

There is no super hero (or God) that will save us — we have to do it ourselves. And that, as we know, is Hard Work.

Jane S. 47 -

Obviously tons going on to which we will not be privy any time soon. The hedging language thus far (”…does not anticipate…” etc)and heavily spun chatter all make me dubious that Rove is truly in the clear.

Lotta hardball stuff going down.

last try: why is rove different than libby in a way that allows him to escape indictment? was he allowed to correct his testimony and if so what would it take to satisfy fitzgerald sufficiently?

Sure seemed to most that Fitzy had enough to indict Rove. Some are now saying that he threw the bout. I have no idea- but I have always been disinclined to make a hero out of Fitzy. He would have been a hero had he brought indictments BEFORE the 2004 election. His fuckin around now is postponing the Wilson’s civil suit. The net effect of his actions so far is to give Clusterfuck COVER- not create problems. There may be good reasons for all of this behavior- but there is zero evidence that he’s behaving as an heroic figure.

OT:

For myself, I am content with the progress made, as I have always approached the varied potential outcomes with vastly lowered expectations.

I suspect that the injection of information regarding Administration foibles into the public discourse continues to corrode the apathy and inflame the self-interest of the average citizen, who might have otherwise been content to graze on the media’s movable feast of missing vestal virgins, celebrity ‘royal births’, and UnwashedGodlessMexiHomoCommieArabiac hordes menacingly massing at the borders hell-bent on forcibly institutionalizing marriage, ’stealing’ crappy jobs that citizens wouldn’t deign to do, and drinking up all the cheap gasoline in doing so…Ultimately leaving only the Kool-Aid Achievers and their cynically committed corporate cronies, neither of whom can hope to run a country, let alone rule the world with anything less than a full plurality of support.

9/11 is so 9/10 now, as far as using that bogeymeme is concerned. It has been overtaken by events to the point that only cynical dullards (or their henchpersons) would feel unashamed using it as justification for unconnected deeds, and this fact has seeped to the groundwater of the body politic’s subjective perception.

Some (strawman alert…;>) ), due to the uncertain terrain created by the clash of lofty democratic ideals, sub rosa realpolitik applications, and various nefarious manipulations might not see this effect, perhaps being predisposed to their own subjective fears of inadequacies honed by decades of media marginalization, and the internal conflict of Stockholm syndrome-like identification with the negative message created from without.

Others may find disappointment in pinning all of their hopes on a highly narrowed application of the rule of law, when a recommittal of personal involvement to progressive goals on a local scale commeasurate with one’s time and abilities might be a more productive venture.

It is important to remember that in combat, there are victories and defeats…And in life, there is balance.

These people will get what they deserve, one way or another, if the public makes it so.
Bet on it.

FWIW, Thomas DeFrank of the New York Daily News reports that “[yesterday’s news that chief political guru Karl Rove won’t be indicted in the Scooter Libby CIA leak probe” is “something the White House has known about for several days.”

It’s interesting that Byron York was taking cellphone calls during the CIA leak panel at YearlyKos on Friday morning.

three things bush can’t control:

1) drinking

2) the shrinking economy

3) foreign countries: america’s no longer a superpower: (a) it’s indebted to china, japan et al & (b) bush has stretched our military to the breaking point

our glorified leaders only pay heed to the economy by printing more dollars, thus fomenting bubble after bubble — first it was the nasdaq, now it’s housing: the dollars need to go somewhere — but each bubble distorts the economy more than the last: in a few years it’ll all implode

our glorified leaders only pay heed to foreign policy by fucking it up: bush has ditched all our allies & alienated china & russia such that they’ve teamed up against america

we can’t let the hillary/schumer wing take power because they’ll follow the same foreign policy but will just make it look friendlier

travy — because Rove may have offered up an explanation immediately upon recognizing the error, whereas even when confronted with the error, Libby refused to acknowledge that he had wrongfully testified and made false statements to investigators? That’s just once explanation that I can think of, among many, but it is the one that makes the most sense. Plus, if Rove offered to come fully clean, then Fitzgerald got the whole of his testimony on the record under oath, to preserve it in case Rove tries to weasel during the Libby trial, which has value. There are a LOT of reasons that you make strategic decisions for the long-term that may not make sense in the short term to people on the outside of a case. You go where the evidence leads you, no more, no less.

I’m not convinced Fitz sent the fax/letter/call. The statements about how Luskin rec’d the info are all over the place and HE REFUSES to let anyone see it. I say “hogwash.” Until I see otherwise, I’m going to believe Truthout’s May article.

This is a spin move by Rove in advance of being indicted. By doing this, he bumps Bush’s numbers, gives teh Freepers fodder prior to tomorrow’s Iraq debate, and gets to unload on Fitz after the indictment by saying he’s a double-crosser. Let’s not forget the added bonus of throwing Cheney’s flat ass under a bus for his own gain as proven by the questioning of Cheney’s role in everything bad BushCo. has done to date in the previous thread.

See? It’s already working.

what darkblack said………9/11 is so 9/10 now………

I love this quote from the DeFrank article …

“A lot of leadership is the appearance of leadership, and that’s the way this trip is going to play,” said a prominent Republican strategist.

That pretty much sums up Bush.

Another way Rove may differ from Libby: THEORY ONLY Rove may have received his information and instructions from Libby. His full testimony may only implicate Libby, and he may have no direct knowledge of anyone else’s involvement.

If Rover came clean to the Grand Jury during his hours of testimony, and agreed to testify truthfully during Libby’s obstruction trial, then I can see Fitzgerald agreeing not to prosecute him. However, if Fitz discovers that Rove does indeed have direct knowledge of any actions by Cheney….

clbrune:

I think your analysis has merit. Unfortunately, even without a scandal-fueled takedown, Cheney’s hardened arteries (progressively failing to nourish a pre-hardened heart) already stand a good chance of clearing the path to the McCain scenario.

Maybe Bush pardoned Rove and is keeping it private for national security.

For some reason the phrase “unindicted co-conspirator” keeps popping into my head.

Bilmon/Whiskey Bar October 2005

…….and I smell a lets not talk about Rove anymore troll. Or is it a constant troll.

Couldn’t help but notice with wry amusement that nobody “Fitz’d” on this comments thread. How fickle are the devotions of the human mind.

Fitz!

CK & Clbrune – I don’t know why you think there is some kind of powerplay going on in TEAM LOSER. Based on what the CM reports?

First off, the general public does not make a distinction between Rover and Cheney, they don’t deal in the political minutia and/or intrigue that some find fascinating. The public views TEAM LOSER as a whole.

And, is there really any evidence, other than speculation, that there really are different camps in TEAM LOSER? No. They all seem quite content to march in lock step, knowing that their fates, political and otherwise, are inextricably intertwined – that if any of them go down, they all (most likely) will, whether that be politically or criminally. Look at the vigorous defense of not only Libby, but of Delay and others.

Second, what Rover needs to fight isn’t Cheney’s personafication of all things wrong and heinous with TEAM LOSER in particular and Neonuts in general, what Rover needs to fight is the belief by a good majority of the public that Chimpy and all those he has gathered around him, i.e. TEAM LOSER, are incompetent, out of touch, morons. That has nothing to do with Cheney’s personality, or whether Cheney is VP or not VP.

Of course, they would like you to believe that there is some magic proverbial bullet that cures their ills, makes their problems go away, but their ills and problems are systemic and endemic to the whole GOP at the moment, no matter the flavor of repug; and as such they have no choice but to continue with the same. Does Cheney being an asshole come up in polling as the reason why the majority of the country are fed up with TEAM LOSER? No. Their fed up with the whole group. Take comfort in that.

As Shakespeare put it “Our Repug’s faults lie not in our their starsCheney’s, but in ourselves themselves.”

Rove avoided this in NH but I hope something happens to get this phone-jamming more play either on-air or in print…
http://www.michaelmoore.com/wo…..hp?id=7240

ck states:
“Waiting for Fitz is like Waiting for Godot.
Whether Fitz ever delivers justice or Godot shows up, if fault is to be found it is in us %u2014 for waiting and hoping.
There is no super hero (or God) that will save us %u2014 we have to do it ourselves. And that, as we know, is Hard Work.”

I agree completely. However, how is it best to accomplish the goal of saving the country from fiscal ruin and dictatorship? Glenn Greenwald had a post a couple of weeks ago that questioned the wisdom of putting the Dems back into power in ‘06. He thought that outcome would make them dig deeper into their foxholes and say (and do) nothing in an attempt to maintain a majority in Congress. However, that behavior likely makes us more vulnerable to a Repub resurgance (at least for president) in ‘08. I think that Glenn has a point (and I apologize to Glenn if I have mis-characterized his thoughts). If the Dems are unwilling to promise investigations into this slime-bucket administration for any number of legitimate reasons, then why should we unabashedly support the Dems? They have done nothing (with few exceptions) to indicate that they won’t roll over upon his highness’s command. Even Specter, who we love to hate, has been more vocal in criticism of this administration than the vast majority of Dems. (OK, so Specter is a sheep in wolves’ clothing, but his inaction is not materially less than 3/4 of the Dems in congress.) I must now do some billable work, but I’d be curious what the FDL community thinks about the hypothesis.

From previous thread, on today’s Puke Presser:

BUSH: I appreciate the job that the prosecutor did. I thought he conducted himself well in this investigation. He took a very thorough, long look at allegations and rumors.

And I, obviously along with others in the White House, took a sigh of relief when he made the decision he made.

BUSH: And now we’re going to move forward.

And I trust Karl Rove. And he’s an integral part of my team.

Our lame MSM never asks the important follow-up, they need to know how to corner Bush and put him on the spot because in this case he completely avoided the actual question:

Follow-up: “So are you saying that Rove is COMPLETELY out of any potential legal problems wrt to this case?”

Excuse me for interrupting, and if I’m repeating something commented above:

What I heard was that a FAX was sent notifying Luskin that a letter would be received from Fitzgerald for them to expect the delivery.

It is appreciated that you have the words correct from the letter: … “do not ancticipate … of a crime …” Most do not pick up on the words “anticipate” or “crime”. Great work. Read you daily.

“Fitzgerald did not close the door entirely %u2014 no prosecutor ever does, since you never know what will turn up in the next document dump or investigative interview %u2014 so in order for Rove to be entirely in the clear for the long haul, he’d best have told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.”

Don’t get your hopes up too high. At the bottom of the SEC’s letter ‘exonerating’ Bush for selling $900,000 worth of Harken stock in 1980something, it said something to the effect of “the SEC reserves the right to reopen this investigation in light of any new evidence…”

It all fits together nicely.

1. Fitzpatrick called Luskin as a courtesy and then faxed over the letter. That is pretty commonplace.

2. Luskin will not show us the letter because it likely threatens Rove with an indictment in the event Rove lies while testifying at the Libby trial.

3. That Rove will testify is likely and Luskin is telling the literal truth when he says there is “no deal” because Fitzpatrick, having gotten Rove’s testimony on the record under oath when Rove testified for the fifth time before the Grand Jury in April, does not need a deal; he’s got Rove’s testimony.

4. The investigation is not over because Fitzpatrick hopes that with Rove now piling on Libby, Libby will flip on Cheney. If Libby does not flip, Libby gets a long sentence and the investigation and the whole story is over. If Libby does flip to save him self a decade or so off his sentence, then Fitzpatrick gets Cheney indicted and we have a whole new story.

This is Fitzpatrick’s modus operandi….slow and steady stalking of his prey. We just need to concentrate on electing Democrats in November and let Fitz do his job. Our fretting about it contributes nothing.

Is there the slightest chance this got pulled out from under Fritz?

I have to agree with Christy anylasis though. We just don’t know enough to know anything.
(horrible paraphrase, Sorry)

Is it just me or is this the first thread for which there is no Fitz! head…?

Free!! I’m Free!!! Hahaha

DICK

Ironranger (40):

“Letter, fax, phone call..what happened to the pony express?”

Not to mention carrier pigeon. *g*

just took a quick look at Truth?Out! – they seem to be not noticing the Rove’s-clear-for-now story. No mention at all.

I like ArthurKC’s analysis but am still inclined to believe the whole thing was quashed.
It fits what we know of Fitz’s diligence, and what we know of BushCo venality.

Personally, I think they can say whatever the hell gets them votes in November. Especially since they know that this very special prosecutor will not hog the limelight or appear in public (as Ken Starr did) just to dispel rumors. So until January they are all innocent.

I’m not in the “fan” category at all with the prosecutor, but I don’t think there is any way to fault his handling of the Plame case to date or imply partisan motivation. He may have them, they may show up other places, but here was my take on the Sheldon wazzis thing (and I read his huffpo piece too)

http://www.firedoglake.com/200…..ent-141651

No way would any secret handshake soc. have let the NIE info out. Between that and the Cheney notes, you guys are whiners to expect more. Those two puppies are facts that hang around, pardon or not. There are a few more too, but I say you are greedy to want more than those. I have plenty of gripes on things other than Plame, but I think the tenor of affront that Rove getting a bye is somehow bc the prosecutor sold out is too pathetic to be silly.

To be unhappy about Rove — well, I’m unhappy too and I am resigned to the fact that there may be not one more good thing to come.

OTOH, there might. Even if the “investigation” is officially closed, the Libby trial itself may give more. Or not. Trial may never happen, pardons may be had, deals may be cut, prosecutor may convert to Buddhism and move to an undisclosed mountain top somewhere. If nothing else comes out, I would like to see how anyone else would have been able to get that NIE info tied right back to the President out.

I think you can believe Turley made good points, which he did, and still not feel like you took a knife to the ribs. Something is going on with Rove, what it is we may never know, we probably already know more than we would have had a chance to know with a partisan hack running the show, though.

That said, I have not nice things that I would say about the prosecutions in that office or the Prosecutor, if they were relevant and if the topped my rant list today and if I had less respect for the fact that the site hosts let me get by with a lot of OT rants as it is. ;-)

angie below: the island of Dr. Moreau
When you nail it, you use the big hammer!

jess below – unless the State’s Senators, and in particular the senior Senator, start making noises, I think it is pretty pro forma that Fitzgerald is still there.

travy – there are lots of differences. First off, apparently Rove DID tell the FBI the truth about Novak (if not Cooper) AND Novak has blown him cover (whether they conspired or not). Also, it was Cheney and not Bush who had the annotated article; Rove wasn’t keeping a notebook on Wilson (maybe Libby wasn’t either, but there are reports); Rove didn’t have a CIA agent telling him when the Novak story came out how bad the revelation was and then still claim to forget about it; Rove apparently approached the Prosecutor to clean up his testimony as he “recalled” more; Rove could have been testifying to ANYTHING [hint] while he was in there; Rove did not have notes from a June meeting with the President or VP with Plame’s name in them; Rove wasn’t also leaking other classified info to Judy Miller over muffins, etc.

I’m at “who knows” re: what is going on. I care, but not like I care about GITMO, NSA & other secret law, secret testimony (defendants own) and secret legal arguments – so secret they can’t tell the court – crap going on. Add in a war that has young soldiers singing and chuckling over holding up a child to take a bullet; voting machine issues; a raft of Democratic candidates that are not worth saving a square of toilet tissue for, much less the Republicans there; and a completely subverted and perverted remnant of a system of justice in this country and — well, take one of those off the plate and I’d buy Rove coffee and give him a big wet kiss. Maybe even a donut with yellow sprinklies making a happy face.

OTOH, if I knew for a fact what the effects of the outing were, and if they are anything like what I think they might have been, and I take it back. He makes the list, if not the first priority. On that front, I think it probably is true that, with their backgrounds, Libby and CHeney were much more in the know about what the effects of their actions might be.

/rant

The other thing that comes to mind regarding the Fitz investigation is the “Brown vs Board of Education” decision.

The Supreme Court said discrimination should be ended with “deliberate speed” — in plain English, as slowly as needed.

We are still waiting, some 52 years after the decision.

Is there a troll infestation today? All this “concern” about Fitz having sold out the American people%u2026

Great post Christy!

I was very struck with the fact that the MSM seemed to completely leave out the “anticipate” part of the statement. With that additional tidbit today, it seems clear that Fitzgerald is leaving his options open, in case Rove tries to cross him.

I think that Rove revised his testimony at the last GJ appearance to Fitzgerald’s satisfaction, and, like you said, it is on the record and his testimony in the Libby case will have to match that. If that was the case, Fitzgerald has no reason to go after Rove anymore. (As much as we would relish the thought). Rove was not the initial leak, and is no longer obstructing the case.

I don’t think Fitzgerald is very political at all. Fitzgerald was simply using Rove as a step up the chain of command, like he has done in every other case he has tried.

OT – for those of you that watched the Decider-in-Chimp’s presser this AM, maybe you remember the reporter that stood up to ask a question and was cut-off by the Decider who said –

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Peter. Are you going to ask that question with shades on?

Q I can take them off.

THE PRESIDENT: I’m interested in the shade look, seriously.

Q All right, I’ll keep it, then.

THE PRESIDENT: For the viewers, there’s no sun. (Laughter.)

Q I guess it depends on your perspective. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: Touche. (Laughter.)

Q Following up on the other Peter’s question about Karl Rove%u2026

Well – turns out that the reporter in question in legally blind. Thinkprogress reports:
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/…..er-shades/

From ncccusa.org

Olbermann Rips MSNBC Colleague Rita Cosby: She’s “Dumber Than A Suitcase Of Rocks”…

ccmask 79 -

That was my thought as well. Buying time. A big part of their strategy. If they can prevail and retain congressional control in November, they can THEN work to scuttle any investigations without fear of voter reprisal.

thanks for the responses… it does seem rove must have changed his testimony during the five appearances in order to avoid indictment. i have a hard time believing it was anything less than substantial–no faulty memory crap–that put fitz off his ass for the moment. if he’s implicating people, libby or cheney seem like the likely suspects. if it’s cheney, things will get pretty interesting pretty quickly. libby, perhaps not so fast, but it would appear he’s still inching his way up the food chain.

what i refuse to believe is that he talked his way out of it while offering nothing in return. anything’s possible, but given what we know, it seems unlikely…

Bayareagirl 83 -

And it’s only a REPORTED “statement” thus far (and likely to stay that way, so it would seem).

OT– Sphinctorum is demonizing Iraq and blaming them for all things terraistic on the Senate floor. He offers an amendmnet that supports and codifies sanctions already in existence, imposing sanctions on those doing business with Iran (but only on prospective business deals), then there’s a little something that makes other countries choose between doing business with Iran or the USA. Sure sounds like he’s undercutting the preznit…

(yo, Dick, aren’t you doing bidness in Iran– didja see the bone that Ricky tossed you?)

Warner disputes his amendment by saying hello, remember that Rice et al are trying to negotiate with them??? Warner needs extra time to do some consultation today…

btw– Dorgan just offered an amendment for a Truman like commission again…

twolf1 @ 84– OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I watched that and was really impressed with how smoothly the reporter acted. OMG!

EPU at 64 wrote: “I don’t know why you think there is some kind of powerplay going on in TEAM LOSER. Based on what the CM reports?”

I’m not talking about powerplay. I’m talking about the politics of re-election, of maintaining Republican dominance, and the pragmatic calculation of what to sacrifice to that end.

My understanding is that Karl Rove has a pathological hatred of Democrats.

It seems clear that the Plame investigation leads to Cheney, but not necessarily to Bush. It seems clear that Rove *could* be charged with a multitude of crimes (even conspiracy, tampering with evidence…who knows, but perjury seems like a given). Therefore, it seems like Rove has the chance to decide whether or not to shield Cheney.

My thinking is that the electoral calculation on Rove’s part says “Rove is more valuable than Cheney.” It’s just political chess.

The reason I posted at all is because it dawned on me that Rove may actually see a political advantage to helping Fitzgerald. That is, Cheney–Mr 18% approval rating–can get traded in for McCain. It’s a Rovian political win. He may be making the most out of a bad bad situation.

New fiber upstairs….

sonate at 67: I’ve never had much sympathy for arguments that it would be better not to win now; they tend to rely on assumptions about future events and how they’re going to catch up with your opponent.

In this case, I think Democratic lack of discipline would actually work to our advantage. Even if the top leadership decides that holding off on investigations would be a better strategy, who thinks they’d actually be able to hold all their senior members to that?

Good commentary down this thread. Roxtar @ 11 makes a good pt. — if Rove was flipped, then watch Libby’s camp start sawing away at Rove’s credibility. I don’t expect this, as the wide appeals for Scooter’s defense fund weren’t blocked by Rove, but maybe I’m extrapolating too much.

I am trying to gauge an unmentioned, but absolutely Rovian, aspect of Luskin’s announcement: the spin it imparts on Leakgate. First, the “Rove cleared” message reinforces the “no big deal” frame. Second, there may be some attack value vs. Fitz if Rove is subsequently indicted — frame Fitz as a reneger. Third, there may be a message in this statement to Cheney & his folks. This has been speculated on by many here, but I’m not sure that the msg is clear. (And that’s without aspens…)

In trying to see if there is any positive aspect to this mess, I just had a thought, what if Fitz is trying to bait Cheney in that Fitz is making it look like Rove is off the hook because he possibly cut a deal with Fitz but maybe Fitz is leaving Cheney an opening to flip on Rove or even Bushie boy if Cheney believes Rove and Bush have sold Cheney out and Cheney’s ass is really on the line.

“Fitz” fans may be disappointed.

He doesn’t go after Rover.

Will he drop the ball on Dickless Cheney?

In the end, he could prove to be very timid with respect to those in power, and leave a lot of false hopes on the cutting room floor.

Let’s not hero-worship this guy before he has proven himself.

Speaking of Cheney. During 911 Cheney told the jet fighters to shoot down a passenger plane (which only the president had the authority to do). Then Cheney said he talked to Bush on AF1, and because they testified together I’m sure Bush agreed. The 911 report states that there is no record of the phone call.

Hmmmmm….they’ve let Cheney get away with crap so far, is now any time to turn the tables?

Maybe it’s just me, but I am thinking that even though Rove’s camp is trying to spin this as a vindication, there’s still a whiff of something pretty stinky that is lingering around his porcine self. In addition, while he’s been contemplating the possibility of the whole jail thing, he’s taken his eye off the bouncing ball and his strategizing seems a tad off. Run on Iraq? Run on the economy? With one in the tank, and the other starting that swirling motion, I don’t think there’re too many people buying it anymore.

I think this CIA leak case has been a shark-jumping event for quite a few people in the administration, something that has been helped by events in general. Karl thinks the bus is still on the road to victory, and he’s back in the driver’s seat, but what no one told him – and what he didn’t notice – is that the bus took a detour and is headed for a cliff. Unless there’s a “turning point” for Rove and the rest of his passengers, that bus is going over it.

Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of people.

sonate

Americans need to work their gooper fascination out of their systems. Goopers have been making false promises for decades- and many have believed em. (If we lower tax rates on the rich- we’ll get MORE tax revenue than we would otherwise–and so on and so on)

Having another 2 to 6 years of gooper policies would likely accomplish the cure.

Unfortunately- it would also accomplish a significant recession, a continuation of an expensive mess in Iraq, near mortal degredation of our status in the world community- and several more Scalias on the supreme court.

I’m not adverse to americans finally figuring the whole thing out- but the education would be far too expensive- and there is NO ALTERNATIVE but dems taking control- no matter HOW hapless they may be currently.

“I care, but not like I care about GITMO, NSA … voting machine issues; a raft of Democratic candidates that are not worth saving a square of toilet tissue for, much less the Republicans there; and a completely subverted and perverted remnant of a system of justice in this country…”

Mary, your comment is both elegant and eloquent, as usual, with an added dose of perspective. But what do we do about those Dems that are “not worth saving a square of toilet tissue for”?

My question is “why”?

Why would Fitz be notifying Luskin that his client was ‘off the hook’ “absent any unexpected developments” at this point in time?

Just a guess, but there may be some sort of periodic review of security clearances, and Luskin needed a statement from Fitz that could be used to ensure that Karl maintains his access.

*****************

As for Rove himself, its been obvious for quite some time that the smearing of Wilson was an OVP operation, not a White House operation. In other words, despite the fact that Rove leaked classified information to reporters, he’s really not a central part of the conspiracy. A Rove indictment would distract attention from the real narrative of what happened, and as long as Rove continues to co-operate fully, Fitz is not going to waste his time on someone who while guilty as hell, is only a marginal character in the larger story.

Christy, with regards to those exact words:

“Luskin had just received a fax from Patrick Fitzgerald, the special counsel in the case, saying that he was formally notifying Luskin that absent any unexpected developments, he does not anticipate seeking any criminal charges against Rove.”

I asked this question at several sites yesterday and never got an answer to this one specific. If you are not indicting someone who was a subject of an investigation, is that standard parlance or is that unusually phrased?

I realize that it left a door open to “no double-crosses” in testimony and Jeralyn responded to that aspect, but I just want to know how usual or not is something like that in a letter telling the defense that his client is off the hook.

TreasonGate is a political scandal — the destruction of the CIA’s anti-WMD covert operation. It was a political hit, that damaged American Security.

In that it was a political hit, allowing the perps to continue their nefarious influence on our political process three cycles after the crime is a scandal in itself.

In politics, justice delayed is justice denied.

rwcole:
Thanks for responding. Actually, our respective goals are similar. I guess the issue was one of whether a slap to the Dem’s in ‘06 would make them see the light and be a stronger force in ‘08 and beyond. (Whereas a Dem takeover of Congress by doing nothing might reinforce that behavior — doing nothing — and position the Repubs in ‘08 for another round of tax cuts for the rich, invasions of other mid-east countries, and neanderthal neocons on the bench.) I’m glad to get your perspective and you may be right — even two more years of the Repubs might be too much of a risk.

regarding libby camp turning on rove: i still think everyone is on the same page and all the defenses are being coordinated with the pardons trump card firmly in their pocket. they have contigency plans and a series of worst case scenario compromises that probably stretch all the way up to dubya and the martians… :^)

mc@75
Lassie. By land & air are covered.

i still think everyone is on the same page and all the defenses are being coordinated with the pardons trump card firmly in their pocket. they have contigency plans and a series of worst case scenario compromises that probably stretch all the way up to dubya and the martians%u2026 :^)

Bush doesn’t do contingency plans….

pardon my strutting, but it’s not very often that i scoop christy hardin smith on anything plame-related.

The Billmon link doesn’t have the Update

[oops sorry yes it does]

I’m going to EPU this, bc it is the “beat the dead horse” thing, but let’s play “what if” to see how hard it might be to spec right now. I do think that things may be on the wrap, but:

What if Rove was called in to testify again by agreement between the Prosecutor and Luskin, bc he had been cooperating and with the Feb/March? production of the 250 emails, the prosecutor needed some testimony to go with it. Maybe testimony on something like the involvement of then WHCounsel (Gonzales) and/or then WHCOS (Card) with respect to the emails and coverup? Especially if the testimony indicated that others knew of the cover up activities? What would you do with testimony that implicates the current AG? Maybe some kind of sealed v. sealed proceeding?

or

What if Rove testified re: Ashcroft and his activities (see the timing on the sources and info released to Waas) in connection with the initial stages of the investigation and/or the missing emails? Testimony implicating the then AG? Maybe even they got a bit of info from him re: some of the Abramoff issues??? I don’t know how all those issues are split among the team(s) working the cases, but Zeidenberg has been handling Safavian and so is involved in the Abramoff cases as well – I don’t know if it has its own GJ or not, or if there is some way to get GJ testimony in one case proferred in another without there being a trail that Rove appeared b4 an Abramoff GJ.

I don’t have any reason to think or believe either of the above – but prove they are NOT so. ;-) Or that they might not be pretty good reason to let Rove scamper.

There’s just so much we don’t know.

Mary @ 12:31 pm (#110) – Hadn’t considered the idea before, but I suppose Fitzgerald might have shopped Rove to other prosecuters in connection with the Abramoff or Cunningham/MZM/Foggo/whoever/whatever scandal, or maybe one of the others (Ohio? Please, let it be Ohio!)

If you’re looking at the standard “moving up the food chain” scenario of prosecutions, then there’s no one left whom Fitzgerald can indict, is there? It’s Bush and Cheney, as far as I can tell (well, Andy Card …). So if it’s one or both of the first two, is it worth his while?

Any thoughts on that, current or former prosecuters?

What’s the confusion with Letter/fax/phone call? A fax is all three. See?

cbl from several threads back- yes, it does stop them – cold ;D. It’s quite amazing.

mommybrain @ 1:15 pm (#112) – Was thinking the same thing. Of course, “phone call” generally has a different connotation – something we in the communications trade call “voice”. But that’s splitting hairs, isn’t it? ;-)

Has anybody thought about Rove maybe being an unindicted co-conspirator?

ArthurKC 71, sounds very reasonable to me.

Perhaps all the crowing and “Rove exonerated” talk without any official comment from Fitz is pure psyops — part of the pushback Josh Bolten announced weeks ago to get Bush’s swagger back? Bush’s surprise Iraq trip, the Bilbray “win” in CA 50…

Doesn’t matter how much of it is true, it’s how much of it LOOKS true with these guys, and even if Rove’s still in hot (or tepid) water, the Republicans are in dire need of this kind of victory to restore their mojo going into the fall.

Christy @55: “There are a lot of reasons that you make strategic decisions for the long-term that may not make sense in the short term to people on the outside of a case.”

Thanks, Christy, this speaks to me so well, because I don’t understand what this strategic decision (re Rove) means for the long term. But, I feel calmer now.

How do I rid myself of the burning desire to tie that fat bastard to a tree and whip his pasty ass with a hickory switch?

Cujo @ 111

Or Gonzales?

95 graphicus says:
June 14th, 2006 at 11:22 am
“Let’s not hero-worship this guy before he has proven himself.”
=============
Read Fitzgerald’s resume. If he were to resign as special prosecutor tomorrow, he’d not need this case to earn my respect. He’s one of a kind. He has not and will not quit. He works day and night. Unlike the current administration, he regards the Rule of Law and our Constitution as a guide for him to follow.

His job is a dangerous one. Would you dare to walk down the street to the Court House to talk to the Grand Jury to indict Libby? Come on. Think about it!

As to Rove:

The guy who wrote “Bush’s Brain” was on tv tonight. He said Karl leveled Supermen! Impressed???? Such porcinocracy! Hooves under those shoes of his. Loosen one tether and he becomes a cumbersome float for Thanksgiving Parade. A big spectacle! What a speaking voice he has. Exposure and blackmail are his forte.

This guy has a team of movie script writers working for him. He just chooses what is nastier day by day!

Why should we send a quality act like Fitz out on a suicide mission? To take on the Gooper leader in a time of war without the Dem Party or MSM behind you – that to me is a suicide mission and a waste of talent.
Here’s the smart play. We already have public opinion and we can break off enough of the Dem party and media to obliterate the opposition.
This thing is very doable so long as we have the net – our best weapon.
And remembering that the best disinformation is 95% true we simply keep’a-goin’ because we are winning this war. Make no mistake – small battles don’t matter much when you are winning a long war. We will win.

Skimmed through the comments. Didn’t see anything relating to the George Ryan case in Illinois. IIRC, the case was initially a “bribes for Licenses” investigation, wherein truckers were getting license by paying off DMV employees. Ryan, at the time frame the investigatons were looking at, was the the Secretary of State. He was NOT, a “target” in the case. After years of slogging invetigative work, the non-target, who had become Governor, was convicted of numerous criminal acts. I’ll put my money on the same kind of work in this case that he showed in the Illinois case. It may take a while, but if there’s a little bit of flame under all the smoke, Fitz will find it. In this case, Justice delayed may not be Justice denied.
(no pun on “flame” “Plame” intended)