Rove Revisited

dr. elsewhere here

Just when it seemed Rove's status in the CIA leak case had gone the way of Florida's 2000 election results and bin Laden's whereabouts, Jason Leopold provides us with an updated refresher.

For those of you following this case, the only information the public has gained in the past several months, technically since Libby was indicted, has come from Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin of "my innocent client paid me in gold bricks" fame, and Robert Novak, of "publish the CIA identity" fame. Like we should trust either one of these guys.

Of course, Plame and her husband, Joe Wilson, have filed a lawsuit against Rove, Cheney, Libby, and unnamed others, but that is somewhat of a side issue, though the overlap will make for fascinating revelations. The latest on the lawsuit includes the fact that Plame/Wilson have added another attorney to their team who has pointed out that Cheney may have a hard time using Constitutional immunity to wiggle out of the suit, as they plan to use the Supreme Court decision against Clinton in the Paula Jones case. Poetic (in)justice, eh (I never thought that ruling made any sense)? And then there's the fact that Cheney has lawyered up, likely his best move since resigning from Halliburton.

To refresh everyone's memory on the most recent activities, Luskin's announcement came after his receipt of a letter from Fitzgerald, the federal prosecutor dogging the case. Up to that point, everyone was certain Rove was toast, and Jason Leopold even reported that he had been indicted, but the indictment was placed under seal as Sealed v. Sealed, evidently a most unusual event. The timing of that filing coincided with the framework Leopold reported, but no indictment was ever announced. He suffered a great deal of animosity from the public, including liberal bloggers, but Truthout stuck to the story.

Now, three months later, and still no change, so Leopold has produced this update. Not much more of interest there, except to point out the fact that the complaint, 06 cr 128, remains in place, which several attorneys Leopold contacted find fairly to highly unusual. Moreover,

These experts said the length of time the indictment has been under seal suggests that the defendant named in the complaint is cooperating with an ongoing investigation and may have accepted a plea agreement.

Former federal prosecutor Laurie Levenson said it's very likely that the indictment was sealed in the first place because the "defendant is cooperating with an investigation and the government wants to keep that person's identity secret" to protect the integrity of the investigation.

In addition, Leopold and Truthout report that their sources close to the investigation claim that the complaint does indeed have to do with the leak probe. These sources also asserted to Leopold that Karl Rove had led the investigation to additional information not previously disclosed to the prosecutor's office, and that the focus has now shifted to the office of VP Dick Cheney.

This information is consistent with my previous speculations in the matter, and suggest we may potentially have our own little October Surprise in store for the Republicans. How quickly Fitz's office moves, however, will not be influenced by the upcoming November elections, though these do not appear to be tacking too favorably toward starboard even without a spectacular assist.

Nevertheless, bear in mind that the press continues to present Rove's status as free and clear, though their only source is his lawyer. Also bear in mind the timing of Robert Novak's bizarre confession, coming the day before Plame's announcement of their lawsuit.

But also bear in mind, that as the press continues to present Rove as an innocent and vindicated man, they also present him as spending all his time managing the Republican party's mid-term elections around the country. These same press outlets note that he has kept his office in the White House, but they all fail to note that he is drawing a salary from the taxpayers while he is doing Party business.

When will one of these MSM lapdogs bother to ask the right questions? Like, is this not illegal?

In any case, I have to say that Leopold is at least tentatively validated, in that the complaint with the mysterious Sealed v. Sealed title does remain in place.

We should be keeping our eyes open for some sort of action in that area in the coming weeks.