.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Born at the Crest of the Empire

Tuesday, June 13, 2006

Rove off the Hook

(Updates at the bottom.)

WASHINGTON - Top White House aide Karl Rove has been told by prosecutors he won’t be charged with any crimes in the investigation into leak of a CIA officer's identity, his lawyer said Tuesday.

Attorney Robert Luskin said that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald informed him of the decision on Monday, ending months of speculation about the fate of one of President Bush’s closest advisers. Rove testified five times before a grand jury.

Drudge has a little of the Luskin statement,
“On June 12, 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove.

“In deference to the pending case, we will not make any further public statements about the subject matter of the investigation. We believe that the Special Counsel's decision should put an end to the baseless speculation about Mr. Rove’s conduct.”


I'm guessing that this means that Fitzgerald didn't think he could get a conviction. (At this point I don't think it's some sort of "arrangement.".) I just don't know. It's breaking right now.

So, does this mean the overall investigation is over? How does this fit in? Need more details. We will get no comment from Fitzgerald's team. The only announcements Fitzgerald would make are indictments and an announcement he's ending the investigation. Neither at this point.

(NYTimes, WaPo, AP, Reuters. All of them have Luskin's statement and a little history, but no new other details.)

Update: Firedoglake seems to not be ruling out the possibility of an "arrangement" between Fitzgerald and Team Rove.
If Luskin is coming out and saying publicly that they got a letter from Pat Fitzgerald which says that Rove will not be charged, there are two things that I want to see and know: (1) what does the letter actually say, word for word; and (2) does it say something along the lines of "Please thank Karl for his cooperation in this matter."

Again, at this point, I just don't know. In support, I find Luskin's "we will not make any further public statements" a little odd in that I would think that Team Rove would want to launch a PR offensive to present themselves as exonerated and unjustly accused, but, at the same time, there is nothing concrete indicating a deal.

Update 2:
The consensus speculation on the left of the blogosphere seems to be crystallizing around the possibility of a plea deal (or a politically better named "arrangement") based on the refusal to release the letter in question, and the odd, very careful language of the Luskin statement "Patrick Fitzgerald formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove."

That does read like an open statement. So long as Rove continues to cooperate fully, which we anticipate, there will be no charges sought.

And, let me add the possibility that if there is such an "arrangement," it might have been made weeks ago. I kept making mental note of Luskin's sudden silence starting about three weeks ago after leaking weekly, and often daily stories to aid his client. If a deal had been struck allowing Team Rove to make an announcement at a time of their choosing, Luskin would've stopped leaking. Just a theory.

I think that's the key to all this. There is nothing concrete to indicate that there is any sort of deal. We can hypothesize, but that's all it is until we see something more significant to indicate that. The thing to watch is whether or not the investigation continues. That will tell alot.

(And, I would really like to see that letter. Why won't you release it Mr. Luskin?)

9 Comments:

  • I don't buy it that Rove's been totally cleared in the case. If Rove is totally in the free and clear, then why not answer some questions about the investigation surrounding Rove, especially if the motive is to stop all the "baseless speculation" surrounding Rove's conduct in the case?

    Frankly, this is a p.r. stunt today, coupled with the Bush visit to Baghdad, to try and take the initiative from the Zarqawi killing and get some momentum going for the GOP. I'm not saying Rove didn't get a letter from Fitz yesterday saying he wasn't going to be indicted in the case, but the way the letter is being spun is a little disingenuous and murky.

    Of course, in the meta narrative, it doesn't matter. Here's what the WH wanted for the news today: Rove is free and clear, Bush is in Baghdad, progress is being made in Iraq. They got that meta narrative and I have a feeling msot of the traditional media are just going to run with that rather than ask a question like: Did Rove trade cooperation in the case to avoid indictment?

    By Blogger Reality-Based Educator, at 9:20 AM  

  • I agree with you, but I have no concrete evidence to support that position. I'm leaning towards the existence of an "agreement" or "arragement" with some political codicils so that they can claim there is no "plea deal" and Rove has been cooperating all along. But again, thus far there's no reporting that to support that, that's just my tea leaf reading.

    And, it does seem a very carefully worded statement and extremely odd that there's no further comment.

    Pure speculation, but if an "arrangement" was reached weeks ago, it might contain the provision that Team Rove could announce his innocence at a future time to create distance from the Leopold story to tamp down the discussion we're having here. If that's true, that would also explain Luskin's sudden public silence starting a couple weeks ago. But again, nothing to support that.

    (Not saying Leopold's reporting was true, but if in the week after that story, this had been announced, it might've lead to a plea deal conclusion.)

    The key thing I'm looking for is evidence whether the investigation is continuing or not. That'll tell us a ton.

    Mike

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 10:52 AM  

  • Wonder how Leopold is feeling this morning .....

    ;)

    And how about Leopold's source and the promise to out them?

    Credibility sinks lower and lower ....

    By Blogger Greyhair, at 11:01 AM  

  • Yeah, Greyhair. I agree. Still no proof that he was technically wrong, you can spin a version of this so the plea negotiations part of the story still fits, but.... I guess it's like trying to prove a negative without any evidence.

    I figured I'd let the rush of this morning's revelations ebb a little before I get into that.

    Mike

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 11:10 AM  

  • I wish I had followed this closer, or had the requisite skills in a legal sense. But filings from the Prosecutor point to the Veep's office. I wonder what Murray Waas will have on Wednesday night.

    By Blogger Bravo 2-1, at 1:01 PM  

  • I have to agree with you about a continuing investigation being the key, although I wouldn't rule out some type of deal either. Rove strikes me as the type to sell out his mother if it would save his ass.

    By Blogger Kathy, at 1:22 PM  

  • Talk Left says Luskin issued a denial that there was any deal between Rove and Fitz. Jeralyn seems to believe him. If Luskin is to be believed, then Rove talked his way out of the indictment and Luskin surely deserves extra gold bars.

    By Blogger Reality-Based Educator, at 2:09 PM  

  • Copy editor, you're right, that's going to be the key to figuring out what just happened. Is it over? I haven't seen anything to indicate that at this point. If it continues, it will either point next at the person responsible for the 250 "missing" emails (deleted) or to the VP for the underlying crime of outing Plame. These are not necessarily exclusive paths.

    Also, Copy Editor, Waas has used Luskin as a second/confirming source alot, so he'll have to get two sources without Luskin's office, so it may be longer than Wednesday.

    Kathy, I agree completely. My sense of this whole thing is that Rove was on the hook since late October. We don't have anything explicitly ever saying there were plea deals, but there is a ton of circumstantial bits at various points pointing to that. If I were forced to interpret, I would say that's what went on, but I'm hesitant to go that far on the front page because we have nothing at this point indicating that beyond a very broad reading of the situation.

    My sense is yes, a deal was struck, although it was structured in an informal way so that it could not be called a plea deal, and my guess is that it's been in place for weeks to be announced when expedient, both for political reasons. But I can't prove it, so I'm trying not to lock myself into that thinking so I can see the little bits clearly as they come out.

    Mike

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 2:24 PM  

  • The usually bellicose Luskin was down right subdued and precise in his statement. I think if this was a real slam-dunk for team Rove he'd be doing a Church Lady superiority dance for the cameras.

    I've no interest in trying to divine the mind of Fitzgerald through Da Vinci code-like clues in the legal paper trail. Fitzgerald has shown himself to be a consumate professional and I trust he will do an honest and thorough job in the tasks set before him. I've no wish to see him on anyone's "side," save the side of fact and truth.

    By Blogger -epm, at 3:28 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home