Maybe Rove did turn on Cheney. The phrasing is of interest: Fitzgerald "does not anticipate" going after Turdblossom -- which sounds rather like a parent who "does not anticipate" punishing a child who promises to clean up his room.Luskin, Rove's attorney, refuses to divulge documentation or reveal any details of how he learned this information. You'd think those docs would have appeared on Drudge by now.
emptywheel makes a fascinating argument (which she honestly labels "outtermyarse" speculation) that Rove will try to oust Cheney on behalf of Bush, who (in this scenario) considers Dick an albatross:
* There is clear evidence (for example, in the White House's reluctance to publicly exonerate Libby in Fall 2003) that the White House holds OVP responsible for this mess.Which brings us to a final point. How can Tony Snow continue to repeat the "Cannot comment due to an ongoing investigation" line?
* Patrick Fitzgerald received a large new chunk of evidence recently, a bunch of emails.
* In March leaks suggested that Rove was helping Fitzgerald understand those emails.
* Not long ago, the guy who coordinated the cover-up in Fall 2003 (April 14) and the guy who covered it up with the public (April 20) left the White House.
* In an appearance on April 19 Novak denied taking the Fifth--but he did not deny cooperating with the investigation.
* After Rove's grand jury appearance on April 25, Luskin gave a somewhat tortured denial of Rove's jeopardy.
* Fitzgerald's public comments have recently implicated Cheney more and more, first by revealing that Dick ordered Libby to leak Plame's identity the NIE (in late January), then by showing the world Dick's immediate response to Joe Wilson's op-ed (in May).
* Yesterday at Libby's status hearing, Fitzgerald revealed the White House will not block Libby's access to any materials.
* In his statement today, Luskin does not claim the investigation is over--he refers to it as a "pending case" and refuses to make further public statements.
UPDATE: Luskin told TalkLeft that "There has never, ever been any discussion of a deal in any way, shape or form." Which sounds pretty damned categorical. On the other hand, Rove has also said that he was cooperating fully with the investigation...and a lot of signs do point to the possibility that Cheney really is the target...so...
8 comments:
Talkleft says no deal. Jerralyn talked to Luskin. Doesn't make it so, but I reiterate my point from below:
The indictments have been quashed.
Oh-link to Talkleft:
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/015080.html
I always knew that Fitz wouldn't prosecute. I had to laugh at FDL and others who typed out a couple of million words about it. All you have to do is look at history. Recent history at that. Remember the 90's, Hillary, and the inevitable indictment concerning Vince Foster? Fitz came from the same band of crooks that produced Guliani, Louis Freeh, and 9-11.
sunny, i don't know the law on this, but if indictments have been quashed, then that fact should be out there for public consumption.
if you look at fdl's analysis - from ch smith, who is a former federal prosecutor - she points out that that 'sealed v sealed' document is 'public record'. in other words, it's listed as existing in the court (whose court, don't know; fed court, dc, maybe? pretty generic). if it's quashed, that will also become public record.
quashing means the judge has weighed in, i believe. an indictment only requires the judge's signature.
my understanding is also that the 'sealed v sealed', IF it is an indictment on rove, can remain in place until his end of whatever bargain (if any) is upheld.
smith at fdl also points out that, whereas luskin was once mr. blabbermouth about every faint thought that crossed his mind, he is now mr. prim with pursed lips, expressly making reference to the fact that the investigation is ongoing.
now really, if it were the case that his client were completely OFF the hook, no connection with regard to damning evidence against him or any deal to be upheld by him, do you honestly think luskin would be such a respectful silent do-be?
put another way, were rove really off all hooks, don't you think luskin would be popping champagne on the steps of the courthouse and booking interviews to share all his seedy little thoughts on the matter?
to my mind, that is THE most telling piece in this puzzle.
so let's keep vigilant about this. sit tight, as this case is not over till fitz says it's over. and even luskin is saying it is NOT over, for cryin' out loud.
i hope to have more to say on all this as soon...(chuckle) as i get my life together.
Speculation Alert!
What about this? Fitz secures an indictment, but immediately Abu via McNulty requests for it to be quashed. Therefore, the judge seals the indictment until he reaches his decision on whether he's going to comply with the request.
Yesterday, Fitz meets with Hogan. Today, we hear Rove is off the hook.
Quashing of a sealed indictment will not be a matter of public record. Quashing of an un-sealed, or open, indictment would.
Frankly, this whole speculative scenario suggests to me that Cheney as well as Rove may have been indicted, which brought down the fury of Torture Boy.
We can discern the true nature of things by Fitz's next move.
Announces the investigation is over, but does not explicitly clear Rove? Prabably a quashed indictment.
Announces the investigation is over, clears Rove? Probably no indictment at all, and tells me Fitz may be a sell-out. Rove was involved. That much is plain.
Announces the investigation is ongoing, but clears/and or does not mention Rove? Probably cut a deal.
Hay, SOMEBODY has been indicted, right? No small potato either!
Perhaps Fitz has something in the indictment that he doesn't want ANYONE else to know right now.
Miss P.
gosh, i wish i had time to post a real post, but for now....
please please please go to firedoglake and review their thorough and astute coverage of all things plame. christy hardin smith is a former federal prosecutor and knows of what she speaks. and, she has reviewed every single document to come out on this case with great scrutiny, AND she's followed the press coverage, attorney talk, spin, WH spin, etc. ad nauseam.
sunny, do you know of fitz met with hogan yesterday? if so, is there any significance to that? the judge on this case now is reggie walton, not hogan. hogan was the judge who heard the miller and cooper contempt charges.
i'm not convinced that a quashed sealed indictment would be secret. the 'sealed' part would remain as such, but its status - as sealed v sealed - would seem to require as much public record as its filing.
and i disagree that the indictment would have also included cheney because fitz needs rove to get to cheney in full. and fitz goes after the most complete charges he can muster. he knows rove knows cheney's culpability, and rove has intimated much in order to save his own ass. fitz would want to snare rove as fully as possible, then use that to corner him into agreeing to testify against cheney, and the details of that (which may or may not require rove to testify yet again) will then be used to indict the dick.
we're all free to speculate, but i so recommend that you follow smith(reddhedd), as she really knows her way around a federal courtroom.
and emptywheel has every detail there is to know about the history of this case committed to memory, and she is just wicked smart, so the speculations she offers that joe has posted are most powerful.
for what it's worth, i've been almost as obsessed with this case as the aforementioned folk, and these are the BEST sources for analysis of what it all means. the BEST source for real details coming out on the case is, of course, murray waas.
and if you missed the panel discussion with these three, plus jane hamsher, dan froomkin (who was surprisingly good) and joe wilson, check out cspan's archives. it was stellar. absolutely stellar.
From http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2070319
Fitzgerald met with chief U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan before he notified Rove. Hogan has been overseeing the grand juries in the CIA leak case. Fitzgerald's spokesman, Randall Samborn, declined comment. Asked if the CIA leak investigation is still continuing, Samborn said, "I'm not commenting on that as well at this time."
Reggie Walton is the trial judge in the Libby case.
ah, sunny, you're absolutely right. walton IS the judge in the libby case, and hogan is overseeing the leak case. i've become so saturated with walton i forgot the distinction; thanks for the correction.
i'm putting together a post on all this right now, but smith at firedoglake says that the investigation will not close till after libby's trial is over, which makes perfect sense. who knows what might come up in the trial, and you don't want to burn the bridge.
especially since rove could burn the prosecution on the stand. in which case, they can trot out that sealed indictment (assuming that is what it is) and do the rove frogmarch we've all been dreamin' of.
Post a Comment