Rove Revisited; UPDATE

dr. elsewhere here

[[I place the UPDATE here at the top because I'd like readers to keep this recent development in mind as they read through my considerations. At the end of the post, I reference Marcy/emptywheel's reason for becoming obsessed with this case in the first place. She did not want to see what happened with Iran-Contra repeated in this case. An honorable motivation, and we should all agree.

Well, it appears those repeating wheels are already in motion. It seems there is now, less than a week after Rove's ...whatever, talk of a Libby pardon. Now please note that this talk is based on the interpretation of Luskin's announcement that Rove is fully "off the hook." However, if you read further in this post, you'll see that nowhere in Luskin's statement or press release is there any reason to believe that Fitz delivered anything like a definitive release of Rove from all charges.

There is something increasingly fishy about this whole Luskin statement, a familiar stench that reeks of Rove. Has Fitz been Roved? Hell, has Rove's own lawyer been Roved??]]

(original post:)

This may seem like old news this late in the week after Luskin's announcement that Rove will not be indicted, but I'd like to make several points about the matter, some of which I had put in comments to Joe's posts, so forgive any redundancies.

Warning: This is a long post. So to help folks navigate, there are eight points of discussion, which cover (1) the timing of the announcement, (2) the wording of the announcement, (3) the "sealed v. sealed" document, (4) the ongoing investigation, (5) the "deal," (6) Leopold's story (including new Luskin comments), (7) Cheney, and (8) Fitz. Honestly, had no idea when I started this that it would explode in this way, but the case has become so darn convoluted, you simply cannot mention one aspect of it without dealing with half the others. And I want to be perfectly clear here, I do my share of speculation, as many others are doing, as well. So, for what it's worth, here goes.

Point One: Isn't it interesting that this story is already old news? What else happened that day, only four days ago? Bush flew to Baghdad, he did. And that, less than a week after Zarqawi was 'killed off' (whatever; Joe's post on Gary Buell's thoughts on this, very important). I made the observation some time ago that most of the more embarrassing revelations in this Treasongate case have coincided with some sort of spectacular side show. Notice that the timing of the latest side shows, Zarqawi and then Georgie sticking his little toe into the tiny comfort zone of Iraq's roiling waters for a relative nanosecond, left us with precious little media space to scrutinize the real meaning of Luskin's announcement. So the canned war scenarios, a la Wag the Dog, have served to distract the public from the uncomfortable truths beneath the surface that does not even get scratched because, ooh look shiny/scary things eastward across the big water. And because the surface only got scratched, Rove is for all practical purposes (rarely have I used that phrase more fittingly) now free to do his dirty work. Let the '06 Rove campaign sliming begin.

Point Two: As Joe astutely pointed out, the language of Luskin's announcement is notable for its waffle words:

On June 12, 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald formally advised us that, absent any unexpected developments, 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. (emphasis mine)

This announcement (which has alternately been described as a letter, a fax, or a phone call, as well) is hardly definitive, despite what much of the media has portrayed (google rove-luskin to get a sense of the spin, if you haven't seen it). The phrases I highlighted above are not trivial. Fitz "does not anticipate" charging Rove, but with the important contingency that "unexpected developments" must not present themselves in this "pending case." Could it possibly be more tentative?? One cannot help but wonder just what exactly Fitz did say that Luskin carefully edited out for public consumption. Easy enough to imagine something along the lines of "Ok, you understand the limits and criteria for keeping your client free of charges, so see to it he doesn't cross the line and continues to cooperate. Or else." But that's just one possible scenario.

There is just so much fishy stink about the whole thing...

(To read the rest, click "Permalink" below)

As I stated in a previous comment:

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 respectfully silent do-bee?
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?

I'll add here that Mr. Luskin takes an awfully wobbly stand on Rove's, erm, "integrity" in this matter. Consider again that line: "We believe that the Special Counsel's decision should put an end to the baseless speculation about Mr. Rove's conduct."

Good grief, where IS the syrup? First waffle, "we believe." Were there anything definitive in this Fitz-to-Luskin event as a whole, this would hardly be the phrasing Luskin would choose. When a client has been cleared of all charges and will not be prosecuted, the attorney does not slink around in nothing but his beliefs! They announce without equivocation the unequivocal facts. Instead, they assert nothing firmly here because apparently there is nothing they can assert that is either documented or comfortable/safe for Rove.

Second waffle, "should put an end." Why not "will" instead of "should?" If his client was cleared, wouldn't he feel free to be definitive? Even if Luskin were the humble, demuring type (so NOT), this wording would not inspire certainty. Is this "should" just wishful thinking? Or part of their plan? Reading the MSM headlines gives us a big clue; to a lapdog, Rove is presented as cleared, safe, exonerated, back in the saddle, period, end of story. Most items herald Rove's big win while calling for the head of Fitz. Rove's version of Mission Accomplished.

Third waffle, "the baseless speculation." Ho boy. Now, shoot me if I'm way out on a limb here, but isn't "baseless speculation" just about the wimpiest sub for "false charges" you have ever heard? Does not even approach the punch that the similar but tougher "groundless accusation" has, now does it? Luskin had to have consciously rejected that phrase, likely because he did not want to even suggest publicly that the accusations - particularly those coming from the prosecution - might have no basis in fact. And we do have to wonder why he did not just say "false charges." Instead, he chose the whitewashed "speculation" that would safely encompass the entire country, actually. And, to be fair, there has been a lot of baseless speculation about Rove; Luskin is just carefully avoiding the chance to make clear which speculations were baseless and which were spot-on. Again, so unlike Mr. Blabbermouth.

And finally, fourth waffle, "Mr. Rove's conduct." The whole alarm system should be going off about now, replete with bells and whistles and of course, the requisite smoke. Notice Mr. Luskin did not - I repeat, did NOT choose the phrase, "Mr. Rove's innocence." Because, you see, he could not. (More about this in Point Six below.)

All of which forces us to persist in our speculation about...

Point Three: The "sealed" indictment. Hard to keep speculation from fact here, but it is a bit odd that Jason Leopold's claims did roughly coincide with a "Sealed v. Sealed" document finding its way to public record (referenced as such; the contents are not public), and with a real Fitz visit to Judge Hogan prior to Luskin's announcement. A "US v. Sealed" document is not uncommon, but "Sealed v. Sealed" is almost unheard of, likely to provide more secrecy. These sealed indictments can be kept sealed for weeks or months, and months would take us into the Libby trial at the start of next year. Beyond that, we can only speculate. And we're allowed, so why not? One interpretation might be that the document is indeed an indictment of Rove, and that it is Fitzgerald's insurance that Rove will testify "truthfully" in the Libby case, or at least consistently with what he had to say - about others - to the GJ in order to get his ass out of the sling.

But Rove does not just think about his ass; he also thinks about his obsession, which is - as he has boldly and unabashedly announced to the world long ago - to keep the Republicans in power for the foreseeable future. He is now free to do this for the '06 campaigns, which is not a comforting thought in all this, but there it is. Libby's trial is not until early '07, after the new Congress is in session, and ya gotta know Rove is not just gearing up to beat the Democrats, but to defeat the divisions within the Republican party. What worked "well" for his purposes was an entire Congress that kowtowed to the WH agenda in every way, and he will be targeting a repeat performance, whatever that takes (despite the fact that his carrot-stick enforcer team, aka Abramoff-DeLay, are gone).

Not only do we know that Rove is unbounded by conscience in these matters, but he is also highly motivated by fear of subpoena power in the hands of a Democratic Congress. We also know that he will be counting on a new Republican Congress to ultimately let everyone off the hook on everything from treason to torture, courts and judges and juries be damned, even - dare I say it? - Vice-Presidents. Thinking about his ass has likely kept Rove preoccupied with Dick (ooh; did I really just type that?? It was honestly so innocent I can't bring myself to delete it!), as they have long been at odds over who has strategy power, which is the psychological stuff that really stirs all these facts into a wildly frothing brew.

You see, Rove is not a witness for the prosecution; he's been called as a witness by Team Libby. This fact is what's making everything extremely interesting. Imagine the dilemma. Libby might assume that he and Rove had a gentleman's agreement, if you will, what with their loyalty and aspen roots and all, and that they got their stories straight beforehand, sort of like we're thinking Rove and Novak did. But, from some of the, er, "baseless speculation" out there, Rove has given Fitz and the GJ a lot of info that is not helpful to Libby's case, and moreover, is pretty damning to Cheney, as well. Consequently, the decision about whether or not to use Rove as a witness turns on this remarkable risk, a risk that includes the possibility that Rove has given Fitz even more information that could tank Libby, and more. Much more. (sidebar: Although Fitz is not calling Rove as a witness for the prosecution, he has said that he might call Cheney. Now, that will be uber-interesting.)

This scenario also helps explain why Libby's attorneys are so desperately (really, desperately) trying to convince Judge Walton to let them see everything Fitz has on Rove (though all the actual talk on this in the courtroom is all like, 'oh, just as an example, what if Rove....'). Fitz is saying, that would make sense if "he" was my witness, but he's not; and moreover, whatever defense seeks has to be focused on the charge, which is whether or not Libby lied to the GJ; in other words, this can't be "a fishing expedition." The judge has yet to rule on this, but for my money (it'll getcha 12 minutes on a small town meter; scratch that, the town council just this week voted to double the cost, so it'll only getcha 6), Libby will lose this one. Walton has been surprisingly, but encouragingly, strict with the defense on such matters. But, who knows? He may have his limits, as his gag order of Sibel Edmonds strongly suggests. Still, it is not clear - if he is so Republican - why he'd protect Rove, or even Libby, if it meant destroying Cheney.

Now, of course, Team Libby can certainly decide calling Rove as a witness is too risky, and not issue him a subpoena. If that happens, what would Fitz do? Is this included in his insurance package, if that's what the non-deal deal is? I don't think he would call Rove as a witness at that point, and I don't know that he can, so would he then use the indictment? Impossible to say, because we don't know if there is an indictment. Or would this be the prompt for him to subpoena Cheney?

Point Four: The ongoing investigation. Here's the deal, at least from Christy Hardin Smith's perspective at FDL, and she was a federal prosecutor, so she really does know how these things work. She has said this in print, and on the Plame panel this past weekend: The investigation is ongoing. Why does she say this? Because Fitz has said the investigation is ongoing. And now we even have belligerent "Gold Bars" Luskin confirming the investigation is ongoing. Furthermore, Smith has said that - and this is important, folks - the investigation will remain open until after the Libby trial is over. Now this makes so much sense; why shut the barn door before you've corralled all the ponies? Or asses, in this case. Who knows what might come up in trial, or even in the public domain, in the meantime, and so you don't want to burn the bridge (just the barn once the round-up is complete; kidding, kidding).

Naturally, we'll be most grateful when the fat lady sings and this is all over, AND we have seen the whole lot of 'em frogmarched out of the WH in handcuffs. However, we really must be patient. And it might not happen at all. We have to brace ourselves for that cold, hard possibility. This is the downside of real justice, folks, and we've seen it time and again with attempts to get organized crime behind bars. Why would this be any easier, for cryin' out loud, with the uber-mob in charge of all three branches of government? ('Scuse the uber-use of uber.) But also be encouraged by the strong likelihood that Plame and Wilson will file a civil rights violation lawsuit against each and every one of these cretins. But only after the investigation is closed.

Point Five: As for Luskin's claim to Jeralyn at TalkLeft that there is no deal, Luskin could easily be mincing words like garlic. To him, a "deal" might mean a written document with agreed upon terms that everyone signs off on in triplicate. But I can conceive of an understanding, an informal "offer" that Rove could not refuse, or even just a situation in reality that Rove could not dispute. Such as Fitz says, here is the indictment. It is sealed, and will remain so unless your testimony before the court in Libby's trial deviates so much as an "um" from what you have shared with the GJ. So, no need for signatures or agreements on terms; this is it. Do I make myself clear? Luskin and Rove then refuse to negotiate or make a deal, and Fitz says, look, the indictment is sealed and it is my discretion as to when it is opened, which could be, oh, this afternoon. Can you hear me now? They may have then agreed to continue to "cooperate," and ultimately requested, because they did get his drift, that he produce a note defining Rove's status, such as they say he did.

I'm no lawyer, but that does not seem an unreasonable request. After all, Rove has been dangling a while. And he likely holds an important key to the case, so it's not wise to tick him off. However, Fitz would not have considered the political impications of this letter, which has clearly been used to get Rove back in the campaign saddle (and we hope his mount gallops him directly into that burning barn). The campaign - or any other political issues, for that matter - none of this is any of Fitz's concern; his obligation is to this case.

Point Six: While lots of folks are screeching for Jason Leopold to out his sources on the supposedly debunked story of a Rove indictment, I for one find it interesting that he has not. Because it is not just Leopold, it is the entire Truthout editorial staff. They published an explanation of why they were sticking with the story, and claimed they had more than one source, and they felt these folks were exceedingly credible. Given the way things have unfolded, I've wondered if they have seen through the Luskin announcement and the flimsy and confusing peripheral details they got, and still consider the core of the story - that Rove was indicted - to be accurate. Those sources are likely insisting that it is true; who knows about the details like the 24 business hours or whatever? I don't really care about the small stuff, particularly when the timing and the nature of the core stuff are just too ...coincidental?

Leopold and Truthout will have to make some sort of announcement at some point, and rather soon. I don't envy them; a dilemma quite different than Libby's with Rove's testimony. For all Leopold's flaws, he and Truthout seem to want to stop these criminals, which is not a bad thing, as long as you play by the rules you would apply to others.

Many saw the Leopold story as a Rove sting, and that could be the case. That may or may not hinge on the integrity of the sources, who could easily have been innocently used. We can only encourage Truthout to really consider alternative explanations for the story they got. If they can find reason to doubt it, let's hope they call it quick and out the sources, who have been warned, after all. But in many ways, I think it's too early to know what's really going on. Remember two things. One, we don't have enough information to confirm or trash that story at this point. And two, one of the earmarks of the classic Rove sting - such as Dan Rather - is that the story itself is true. Rove just creates a complex smokescreen in order to discredit the source and ultimately distract from the damning facts the matter.

**I wrote that last paragraph prior to discovering that Truthout has posted what is essentially a stand down on the Rove story, and for much the same reasoning I have listed here in terms of questioning the definitiveness of Luskin's announcement. They continue to stand by Leopold's reporting, therefore, and choose to cautiously wait and see.

The bottom line is, we don't really have any new facts from the Luskin announcement, other than noting that Rove's status is sufficiently safe at this point for the waffle statements to be made. Though the Leopold story could have been a sting, it would seem just as likely that much of Luskin's announcement and presentation has been Rove-crafted. While it is true that Luskin could not claim anything that is not true, the painfully careful wording of his announcement suggests he has spun whatever Fitz did say to maximally benefit his client. That's his job, but he may still have stretched the truth too thin and ticked Fitz off, hence the silence from the prosecutor's office. Hell, could be this whole event was manufactured by Rove and Luskin to get Rove out from under the dark cloud and onto the campaign trail. Fitz may have said the words attributed to him at some point, but Rove is nothing if not exquisitely selective in picking what notions to spin; who knows what else Fitz said. Again, Rove and Luskin may be playing a very dangerous game of chicken. And again, we'll see.

***And now, just before my final pass at this monster post (apologies), I ran across this interview with Luskin via emptywheel. He's only a bit more candid here, but two things really pop out. One, almost the entire interview focuses on his anger toward, not Fitz, but - get this - the blogosphere. Yup. And he specifically targets the Leopold article in the process of claiming there were "hundreds" of such "baseless speculations," but names no others. Which does lead us to suspect quite heavily that Leopold's story was Roved. Still, we have to consider what that means. In Dan Rather's instance, the story was true; Rove just sent in a confederate with questionable details that tanked the entire kaboodle. The same thing could be operating here; the indictment is true, but "pending" (to use Luskin's own word about the case), so let's leak the indictment along with a host of falsehoods and then the whole story will be destroyed. So I'm still not convinced Rove is thoroughly free and clear, also because....

Two, Luskin at no point explicitly claimed his client's innocence. He alluded to it, danced around it, but never said it.

“The scariest thing in the world is to be the lawyer for an innocent client, because all you can do is screw it up,” he said. “So from my personal perspective—and particularly because I like and respect my client so much—it’s a huge sense of relief that I didn’t manage to screw it up.”

He steps right up to the edge, but never comes right out and says "Karl Rove is innocent and he has been completely exonerated, end of story." There has been no such claim from either Rove or Luskin that Rove is innocent. We should also remember that Luskin could be referencing in the above quote only the original charge of the investigation, which was all about exposing a secret agent. Luskin never makes that distinction, and never specifically addresses if Rove is clear of charges that his client outed a CIA agent, or of charges that he lied and perjured himself. What is pretty amazing is that Luskin and the MSM are ignoring the fact that Rove lied like a rug to Scottie and the press, and an enormous deal was made of that at the time.

So Rove lied to the public, but then I suppose he told the GJ he just "forgot." That's where my doubts get manic; he had to convince the GJ, and I just don't think he could. That, or else Fitz never felt he had enough evidence to present to the GJ in the first place. Given that Fitz referred to Rove in the Libby indictment as "Official A," and that every such Official A he has ever referenced in an indictment was eventually also indicted, I'm still holding out on the possibility that Rove does still have an indictment hanging over his head, and that it will drop like a guillotine, "absent any unexpected developments."

Another couple of thoughts on these latest Luskin notes: Emptywheel characterizes his phrasing as "walking on eggshells," and I clearly concur. She also points out that neither of these guys have boasted about Rove's exoneration, nor have they complained at all about Fitz. Not one complaint. I suppose they could be leaving that to their minions; that predictable grunt job has already started, as noted. But one has to wonder how Fitz will read all this manipulation of the truth of the case, its status, and particularly Rove's status, if that's what's going on here. The Luskin-Rove response has clearly been carefully crafted to avoid getting into real trouble with Fitz, but that may still not avoid ticking him off, and it sure is a dicey game they're playing, with awfully high stakes. It also occurs to me that Fitz may have decided to give Rove a little leash, just to see how - or what - he might do without the imminent threat of indictment. Will he try to contact Libby? Novak? Any of the other players? Geez, what amazing gymnastics you have to perform when you lie.

The most important gymnastics routine for lying politicians is of course to get the media on board, and no one has manipulated that better than Rove. In fact, Luskin's interview not only trashed the blogosphere, he praised the MSM for doing the best that they could, what with all the blog pressures and all. The blogosphere is now officially on notice, folks; we have been pitted against the very media the WH supposedly despises, but now they're giving them a big bear hug, while all the blog gets is the big blame. In psychology, this trick is called splitting, playing one person or group against another. Rove has this down to a pathological science. Or a scientific pathology, whatever.

Point Seven: There has been some speculation that Rove would never squeal on Cheney, or even mildly implicate him - indeed, would never consider turning on him - because he's so loyal and beholden and besides, he'd just be doing himself in. I think this is a grave misunderestimation of Karl, and a grave misoverestimation of Cheney, not to mention a serious disconnect from the real dynamic that drives these sub-humans. Though Bush is terminally loyal, he is also vindictive. So is everyone else in that vile gang. Just as important, though, Bush is malleable. Rove and team have convinced him, for chrissake (snark) that he is chosen by God here, so let's start channeling Shakespearean tragedy, shall we? Remember all the intrigue and backstage sabotage? We all know that's more real than the perpetual publicity stunts we get from these guys. I may as well put in my own version of the possible fictions.

We cannot let ourselves forget that it is the way of criminals to turn on each other; emptywheel alluded to this in her list of facts, as Joe posted. The dynamic is all about power, and everyone wants it, to hell with everyone else. There is just no way to fully fathom how power hungry both Cheney and Rove really are; think of all they've accumulated in just five years. Both their dreams have come true, Republicans rule the country and the US rules the world; Rove has masterminded their power grab here, and Cheney has marshalled it internationally. And as long as things seemed to be going well - read: as long as they were getting away with it - no doubt these two got along famously.

But things have gone terribly wrong; polls tanked, there was even rebellion in Republican ranks, and neither Rove nor Cheney can boast a flawless resume. Rove was behind all the domestic disasters of last year, including Social Security and Harriet Miers (losing his policy portfolio does make sense), and he's been under investigation for felonies. But then Cheney and his ol' buddy Rummy cannot get this war right, no matter how much Bush wanted it - or had been convinced he wanted it - in the first place. And then there's his money grabbing and his bunker level approval rating and his drunken shooting accident. But despite all the errors and the power plays between these two, Bush remains dependent on them both.

Cheney is a very old and established player, and has unquestionably held sway over this administration on every dimension. There can be little doubt that Cheney has held power over Rove, too, getting the final word, which can't have made Rove too happy when they disagree. And given how rough things have been of late, tensions had to flare. Cheney has become a serious detriment, and Bush would probably do some better in the public eye without him. But, Cheney cannot be fired because he's a Constitutional officer; we elected him. That has to burn Rove's shorts even more, but not nearly so much as how much influence he has lost with Bush because of a potential indictment, an indictment in a scandal Rove might be framing as Cheney's fault.

Enter the desperate man, stage far right (of course, the entire cast is crowding that end of the stage).

One would think that Rove has lost power because he has been under investigation. However, I'm suspicious that he has launched the campaign of his life now precisely because of that investigation. I'm suspicious that he has set his mind to both cover and clear his ass by nailing Cheney, because Cheney drags the party down. To do that, though, Rove has to regain so much power and influence with Bush that he will be allowed, even sanctioned to do go after the VP. It won't be enough to simply list all the ways in which Cheney is an anvil around their throats, though that is simple enough to do. Rove must make Bush believe that nailing Cheney is the only way to save their precious project of US and world domination. For Jesus. Or whatever romantic, lusty phrasing gets them off. Rove can believably appeal to this side of Bush, but I cannot even imagine Cheney trying, can you?

Rove would then conceivably unleash all his most despicable and devious tricks to take Cheney down (not that there would be much of a public outcry on that count). And what's more, we absolutely know that Rove is more than up to the task. We might therefore be seeing more exposure of the Dick's evil deeds, whereas Cheney was always able to suppress those things in the past. Of course, we might also watch for Cheney to return similar salvos; one wonders what Cheney might have on Rove.

Again, all this is just my wildest psychological and theatrical speculation, and little if any of the power dynamics will come out in Libby's trial, so we'll likely never know the truth (until the Bard reincarnates and writes the real story). We just have to pray that Fitz does in fact subpoena Cheney to testify in Libby's trial. I'll be shocked if he does not, because it seems clear that Cheney is in Fitz's viewfinder.

[another sidebar: Don't miss Frontline Tuesday night on PBS; all about Cheney and black ops.]

Point Eight: Fitz. I don't really get why anyone would demonize this man. He may not end up being a hero, but he is human. It makes no logical sense that he would go through all these meticulous and painstaking efforts to bring such thorough and unassailable charges, and to present them as clearly and carefully and caringly as he did in his press conference, if he were a setup. What has it gained some conspiratorial person or group for the WH to suffer this embarrassment at the hands of Fitz? It just makes no sense. And it makes less sense to condemn the man because he worked in the same office with some crooks. I count myself as a fairly honest and upstanding person, yet I have worked with some real jerks, even in academics (another snark). This is like saying that all members of Skull and Bones are out to rule the world. Condemning an entire category of people based on the actions of a few is a reasonable definition of prejudice, and we needn't go there. I should think that the work that Fitz has done, on this case and elsewhere, speaks for itself. If you follow the case very closely, as Christy Hardin Smith and emptywheel and others have done, any notions of his being part of some conspiracy or agenda are instantly dispelled.

Moreover, remember also the particularly impeding complications of this case. First, Ashcroft, Gonzalez, and Andy Card saw to it that the WH was not "officially" alerted to the prosecutor's directive to lock down all documents for eleven hours. Then, Ashcroft did not really deliver an "official" request for such documents. Then, when Fitz took over and demanded these documents, the WH stalled. And let's not forget that Ashcroft and Rove are buddies from way back (Rove ran his campaigns), and it took Ashcroft three months to recuse himself, and then only under duress. This case has been sabotaged from the beginning by everyone involved except Fitz. I for one find it impressive he has managed to get anywhere at all with what he has had to work with.

But, all that being said, Fitz is a prosecutor, and he goes by the book, whatever that book is (and in some cases, the book itself may be very bad). He will not take a case to the GJ if he does not think it will bring an indictment and ultimately a conviction. It's possible that Fitz does not feel he has enough hard evidence on Rove for an indictment now, though my opinion remains that Luskin would be singing a very different song, and much louder, if this were the case. Plus, Fitz has to be willing to weigh the costs and benefits of each move he must make. For instance, he may need Rove to prove a conspiracy, but he may also need proof of the conspiracy to get Rove. He'll sacrifice Rove to get the bigger fish, make no mistake, as he should because it could possibly land Cheney.

Rove also has his own need to be free of the taint of indictment, namely the campaigns. This is another motivator for him in the dance with Fitz. But he'll also now be motivated more than ever before to win in November, what with all that could come out of a Democratic Congress with subpoena power. So, the by-word here should be "we ain't seen nothin' yet." There has not been a word invented yet to describe how nasty it will get. Check out how he's already projecting his crimes onto liberals, claiming they use the blog for "healthy intramovement dialogue," while liberals use it "to mobilize hate and anger." Clearly Rove sees liberal blogs as a formidable force; we should be proud. Just as clearly, though, he was despicable before, but now he is despicable and desperate, so we must watch our collective jugular.

We can hope that the ruthlessness of this strategy backfires (I'd say it always has, except they steal the elections on top of destroying their opponents; some would call that overkill), and that the level of desperation will lead Rove to make a stupid mistake. Should we be encouraged by the recent reaction to Coulter's cruelty? Could it be she was testing the waters? Could she be charged herself with a felony and drown in the very waters she has fomented? We can only hope....

If we really hope to take back our Congress and our country, we'll surely have to do more than just hope Rove and his clan step in all this crap they've deposited in our parlor. And we can't just run them out of town, either, as in just voting them out of office. We really do need to be willing and persistent in calling them out on their every slander, and seeing them brought to justice.

Interestingly, this was the reason emptywheel/Marcy, on the Plame panel, gave for becoming so obsessed with the case. She said that she did not want to see the same thing happen here that happened with the Iran-Contra crimes, where everyone was pardoned and the press just went home.

She's right. But each and every one of us has to be ready and willing to go that distance.