Wednesday :: Jun 14, 2006

Upon Reflection, What Really Changed Yesterday For Rove?

by Steve

Just what exactly did Rove lawyer Robert Luskin get from Patrick Fitzgerald if anything? As Christy notes over at FDL this morning, we now have three different versions: the television reporting says Luskin got a phone call, the New York Times says he got a letter, and now Time magazine says Luskin got a fax.

Second, according to Time, the fax contained a qualifier that wasn’t reported in the other accounts:

Luskin had just received a fax from Patrick Fitzgerald, the special counsel in the case, saying that he was formally notifying Luskin that absent any unexpected developments, he does not anticipate seeking any criminal charges against Rove.

Absent any unexpected developments? He does not “anticipate” seeking any criminal charges against Rove? Why does this alleged letter or fax from Fitzgerald sound like nothing more than something that Luskin wanted to swat down the “Rove is about to be indicted” rumors once and for all? Since Fitzgerald has kept his cards very close to the vest, and has never even said that Rove was near an indictment to begin with, how does “absent any unexpected developments” and “does not anticipate” change the facts from last week?

It is very likely that Rove has been cooperating with Fitzgerald from Day One. If Fitz is using Rove as a key witness against Scooter and Shooter, it is not in his interests to indict, or even to openly threaten to indict someone whose credibility can be impeached by Libby’s attorneys at trial for cooperating under threat of indictment. As many others have said, through these five grand jury appearances Fitz has obtained from Rove whatever he needs from him to get Libby, and the only choice for Libby’s team now is to go after Rove’s credibility between now and the trial in January. Indicting Rove or cutting a deal with him only undermines Fitzgerald’s case against Libby.

There is another issue at play here potentially. Joe Wilson and his wife are contemplating a civil suit against those who ended her career. Depending on where that suit is filed, there may be a 3-year statute of limitations on that filing, and the original action that led to Valerie Plame’s exposure hits the three-year mark . . . next month.

Steve :: 1:07 PM :: Comments (24) :: TrackBack (0) :: Digg It!