Atrios' statement on Rove/Leopold

[Canuckistanian]

For what it's worth.

Rover

I never had any faith in Leopold's reporting about Rove, but this latest news doesn't prove or disprove the basic question of whether Fitzgerald was ready to indict Rove. It's quite likely Rove has cut a deal of some sort. It's quite possible that Fitz's letter to Luskin, which hasn't been made public as far as I can tell, says something along the lines of "as long as you cooperate as promised your ass is safe for now."

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_06_11_atrios_archive.html#115021086256551479

[kentuck]

1. Or he could be investigating a totally different matter...?

Which he would have more evidence? Who knows?

[Canuckistanian]

4. The FDL post gives me some hope

Maybe the ultimate goal is Crashcart. Rove could just be roadkill on that track.

[liberalmuse]

2. I was wondering about that.

I'm in no position to speculate, but one has to wonder if Rove is squealing like a pig to save his own ass. Perhaps there's a bigger fish to fry, perhaps not. Cheney?

[OzarkDem]

3. Thanks, A

Plame & Wilson's attorney said pretty much the same thing.

This investigation is far from over and there's no indication that Rove is in the clear.

[onenote]

5. let's just pour more speculation on the fire

"Its quite likely" a deal has been cut? Its possible, but what evidence other than complete speculation, is there that's "quite likely"? And yes its "quite possible" (love that word "quite") that the letter refers to some deal. Its also equally "quite possible" that it doesn't. Given this story's history, you would think folks would give it a rest and stop guessing at stuff they can't possibly know or substantiate.

[OzarkDem]

8. Step back for a minute and review the evidence

There's more than enough evidence showing that Rove knew of Plame's identity and purposefully revealed it to others. There's also more than ample evidence that he knowingly tried to cover up his involvement, and did so on numerous occasions.

There's nothing speculative about that. And there's absolutely no reason to support speculation that Rove isn't culpable, just because there is no indictment right now.

[onenote]

9. i said nothing about Rove's culpability, nor did the linked post

That post speculated...yes, speculated without any evidence to back it up...that Rove had "quite likely" cut a deal. Even suggested there was a growing "consensus" as to this point, although its unclear what the universe of this consensus is. And as long as its you're acknowledging that any claims about this stuff is speculation, no worry.

[nolies32fouettes]

6. more here:

http://www.progressiveu.org/100931-rove-roller-coaster-derailed#comment-47795

[theboss]

7. No, that's impossible

The TO story was that there IS an indictment. Fitzgerald does not have the power to magically make it disappear.

[Red_Viking]

12. Fitz has prosecutorial discretion

Just because the GJ hands down an indictment doesn't mean the prosecutor will bring charges. It's possible everyone is telling the truth, as weirds as that sounds. Rove may very well have been indicted under seal back in May, and Fitz used that to put the squeeze on. This is a common prosecutor's tactic, and Fitz especially uses it when dealing with organized crime. He works his way up the food chain, methodically, so the ultimate case is iron-clad.

I really don't have an opinion about the veracity of anything on TruthOut. But, Fitz has prosecutorial discretion to bring charges or not. Rove can be indicted and not prosecuted. Happens all the time. Sounds like Luskin released selective bits of a letter than may well outline the terms of Rove's plea agreement. The indictment doesn't have to disappear; it can still be there, hanging over Rove's head, ensuring he complies with his plea agreement. Right now, it's all speculation! And that drives me crazy.

Fitz is so thorough, I'd be surprised if this is the end. I'm staying tuned!

Peace,

RV

[Peace Patriot]

14. Well, the question of who could make it disappear may be found in that

"Sealed v. Sealed" indictment that Fitzgerald filed, back when Rove was on the hotseat (a month ago). What if it's "Fitzgerald v. Gonzales" as some legal experts have speculated? ("Sealed vs. Sealed" is a very unusual title for an indictment--usually it's "U.S. v. Sealed.") The gauntlet may have been thrown on Fitz v. the Extralegal Powers the Bush Junta Has Been Asserting. We may be looking at an as yet invisible "Saturday Night Massacre."

And if we had had some intelligent discussion here at DU, as to why Leopold's sources were convinced that Rove had been indicted--instead of all the stupid, pointless, counterproductive ragging on Leopold--we might be in a better position to analyze developments in this case, and the political landscape in front of us for November, as well as the prospects for our democracy and our country in general. But stupidity has reigned. And the stupid are still at it today.

My thanks to Atrios for an intelligent comment. And I hope DUers smarten up about the destructive operatives that are at work in this open forum.

[onenote]

15. who says "sealed v. sealed" is an indictment?

There is absolutely no support for that statement. In fact, it is far more likely, given what various DUers have uncovered, and given the long time practice of the DC Court, that sealed v sealed involves a challenge to a GJ subpoena and is not an indictment.

[karlrschneider]

10. Well, all that might be true but it doesn't vindicate the JL story

that flatly stated an indictment had already been handed down, and the purported date as well.

[Canuckistanian]

11. Nope, I guess not

But it doesn't mean the end of Rove's legal jeopardy, either.

[Tsiyu]

13. So why does everyone have their fork and knife in the air and napkin

tied under chin ready to gobble up Rove's attorney's words like Thanksgiving dinner?

Give it up!

There is such a need in this f'in world to "prove I'm right" constantly.

"I'm right."

"No, I'm right. You're an idiot."

"Bullshit. I'm right and you know it."

"You were wrong about A. You'll be wrong about B."

"I'm right."

'No, I'm right."

I've listened to conversations - on long, long car trips - among nine little kids that were more intellectually stimulating.