Can't help but agree with Larry O'Donnel that it doesn't seem to fit the Fitzgerald style to try to scare people into turning. He seems a straight shooter who would rather make the air-tight case, rather than play games with threats and leaks.
Posted by tom at October 7, 2005 02:05 AMThe thing is this: Rove is most likely testifying because he is worried about possible perjury charges. If his testimony at different times in the grand jury materially conflicts, then he is guilty. However, by allowing Rove to testify again, Fitzgerald is allowing Rove to explain away those inconsistencies -- thus undermining a perjury charge. (You never give a witness a chance to explain away his inconsistency if the inconsistency is material to the charges you're trying to prove. Juries will sometimes accept even very lame explanations.)
So why would Fitzgerald allow Rove to come in? It occurs to me that Fitzgerald's case may hinge to some degree on the truth or falsity of one of Rove's previous statements -- and Fitzgerald wants to try to glue one of those statements in place.
Second, of course, Fitzgerald may be using this to elicit new statements on Rove on a matter other than his previous inconsistencies -- and this is the only way he can get Rove back in.
Murray Waas reports that Rove will indeed be questioned anew on his contacts with Scooter Libby and Stephen Hadley in the week before Novak ran his infamous column.
Posted by Tom Burka at October 7, 2005 06:01 AMOh, he's trying to flip people. He doesn't, strictly speaking, need to flip them. I'm dead certain by now that he has Rove where he wants him. But if you've gone to all the trouble Fitz has, you might as well punish as many crimes as humanly possible.
What's really funny to me is that Rove is almost certainly going to lie again today. I don't know whether he'll lie with an eye toward protecting Bush, and the McKinleyesque legacy Rove always hoped to leave, or protecting Karl Rove. But I'll bet he tries to get cute, one way or another. Because certainly a direct mail genius like Rove can handle a federal prosecutor, right?
Posted by dj moonbat at October 7, 2005 06:01 AMRegarding the espionage point, you consistently hear defenders of the offenders say everyone knew Plame was an agent, so what is the big deal? The casual way with which this information was further spread is the height (or is it depth) of chutzpah.
Posted by The Heretik at October 7, 2005 06:02 AMMurray Waas reports that Rove will indeed be questioned anew on his contacts with Scooter Libby and Stephen Hadley in the week before Novak ran his infamous column.
Frankly, I think Murray Waas is far too credulous toward his sources.
Posted by dj moonbat at October 7, 2005 06:27 AMI think that Fitzgerald is bringing in Rove one last time to see if he will turn on his boss. The gig is up for Rove and everyone involved in the grand jury knows it. Fitz is offering him one way out of a lengthy prison term and one simple question.
"Did President Bush or Vice-President Cheney discuss the outing of Ms. Plame with you before you called all of the reporters?"
Posted by Growth Factor at October 7, 2005 06:48 AMIf Fitzgerald is successful in apply these new legal theories against Rove and company, then he or someone else could use them to go after those private citizen lobbyists involved in the AIPAC leaks.
Posted by romdinstler at October 7, 2005 06:48 AMThese aren't new legal theories (the only thing new is that they used to punish espionage by death).
Posted by dj moonbat at October 7, 2005 07:00 AMwithout sounding like a progressive liberal idealist,is it possible Fitzgerald has infomation leading him, and his staff, to know of covert intellegence officers, who have been killed due to the Whitehouse retaliation activities?
Although I have read little of this notion, I think of it everytime I read about what they did!
Rove in for the fourth time. What a tangled web we weave.....yada yada. I don't know much about it, but I'd think that three appearances should have been enough to develop a storyline that the grand jury could indict on, if it indeed could. This leads me to think that Rove is not the target. Anyone under Rove that is indicted will be a victory for Bush/Cheney because there is no way they were not involved in this affair. And I also think that there is no way either of them will be indicted. Some fingerpointing maybe, but no indictments. If I am wrong, I won't cry.
Posted by T2 at October 7, 2005 07:40 AMT2, I love ya, guy, but I think you're sorely mistaken. This fourth appearance is Rove's attempt to wriggle out of perjury charges from appearances 1-3. The story line for indictments is already there; the questions are "indictments for what?" and "indictments for whom?".
At the very least, Rove or Libby will receive an indictment--but probably both will. Beyond them, the big question is whether Fitz has the goods on how Rove and Libby--neither of whom were on that trip to Africa, where the Plame memo circulated--got the information in the first place. If the actual players settled on Ari Fleischer early on as the patsy, Bush and Cheney remain untouched. But if not...
Posted by dj moonbat at October 7, 2005 08:06 AMhere's my take:
Matalin, Powell and Fleischer are probably witnesses for the prosecution. Matalin and Fleisher got out of the Bush WH soon after the prosecutor was appointed, iirc. I'm sure that Carville told Matalin to get the hell out to keep her out of jail and Fleischer figured it all out by himself. Colin Powell has taken this opportunity to get back at the WH for ruining his reputation.
Fitz already has the goods on both Libby and Rove. I think that the only reason Rove is going back to Fitz is to keep himself out of a big time jail sentence. He'll probably still go to jail but it will be a shorter sentence and probably in a luxe prison but prison nonetheless.
Posted by Ga6thDem at October 7, 2005 08:28 AMdj,
As our greatest president once said, "There you go again".
Considering how this whole thing evolved, do you believe it credible that Rove, Libby or anyone else in the White House would leave themselves open for a perjury charge?
Is there anything in the last 40 years that would lead someone like Rove to believe that a "cover up" story would fly?
Wishfull thinking is a fun exercise, but is it plausible that a republican strategist would make such an error as to force a republican attorney general to appoint a republican prosecutor to bring down a republican administration without any pressure being brought by a republican congress and republican court?
Maybe it was all the fault of George "Medal of Freedom" "Slam Dunk" Tenent.
If anyone in the White House is charged with a crime, this administration will go down in history as the most honest group of people ever.
Posted by j.west at October 7, 2005 08:35 AMThank God. At he doesn't think Bush is our greatest president ever.
Posted by snark at October 7, 2005 08:45 AMAt least he...
Posted by snark at October 7, 2005 08:46 AMAfter yesterday, I'm convinced that someone posting above me has a serious learning disability.
Posted by pessimist at October 7, 2005 08:48 AMIt was an honest typo!
;)
Posted by snark at October 7, 2005 08:53 AMI never knew that Teddy Roosevelt said "there you go again."
Posted by at October 7, 2005 08:58 AMI never knew that Teddy Roosevelt said "there you go again."
That's because...[whispering]...he spoke softly.
...or you might have been distracted by the big stick he was carrying.
Posted by snark at October 7, 2005 09:03 AMjust more of west's crack pipe talking..don't you get tired of your own bullshit west?
Posted by at October 7, 2005 09:16 AMEach morning before breakfast, Karl Rove invites a democratic strategist to sit down with him for a talk.
Within minutes, the democrat is convinced it’s imperative that he cut his own face off with the butter knife. Karl didn’t tell him to do it, but after their talk, he knows it’s the right thing to do.
This is how Karl Rove warms up for the day.
The question remains. Does it make any sense to you that Rove would leave himself open to a perjury charge?
And I thought it was Dolly Parton. Oh, wait that's "Here you come again...."
Posted by at October 7, 2005 09:17 AMThe question remains. Does it make any sense to you that Rove would leave himself open to a perjury charge?
The boys at Enron didn't think they'd get caught, either. Hubris has some wicked karma.
Posted by at October 7, 2005 09:18 AMwell, again, DJ, I'd be pleased if the entire WH was jailed..as it should be. It sounds more like they are trying to let Rove skate, to me. Time will tell.
Posted by T2 at October 7, 2005 09:19 AMAs our greatest president once said, "There you go again".
Hey, I gotta be me. And I'm pretty sure the Gipper wasn't referring to me, anyway.
Considering how this whole thing evolved, do you believe it credible that Rove, Libby or anyone else in the White House would leave themselves open for a perjury charge?
Yes.
Is there anything in the last 40 years that would lead someone like Rove to believe that a "cover up" story would fly?
Well, he's gotten away with everything else...
Wishfull thinking is a fun exercise
Sure is. It's even more fun with just one "l" in "wishful."
[B]ut is it plausible that a republican strategist would make such an error as to force a republican attorney general to appoint a republican prosecutor to bring down a republican administration without any pressure being brought by a republican congress and republican court?
Yes. Assuming normal levels of competence, the answer would be "no," but this administration does not possess normal levels of competence.
Hey, folks, I understand that it's hard--after BushCo has gotten away with so much--to let ourselves believe that this could be the big one. I have nonetheless come to believe that this is, in fact, the big one.
If I'm wrong, I will go on a bender the likes of which the world has seldom seen. But I really, truly think that several highly-placed administration officials will go down, and that the only question now is whether Rove and Libby are the only ones, or whether they will have company.
Posted by dj moonbat at October 7, 2005 11:43 AM...or whether they will have company.
One can only hope!
Puts "serving your country" in a whole new light.
I'll admit it. I'm truly a pessimist on this one.
Hope I'm wrong.
Posted by muckcat at October 7, 2005 11:55 AMBuck up 'lil muckcat, everything's going to be OK.
dj,
Your common sense is showing through. This thing hasn't smelled right from the start - kind of like a Ronnie Earle indictment.
I've promised goose not to post here anymore if anyone in the administration is indicted. Not to worry, I'll be here to point out the left's lunacy for many moons to come.
Posted by j.west at October 7, 2005 12:12 PMI'll admit it. I'm truly a pessimist on this one.
Hey! That's MY line!
( 8 0-)
Posted by pessimist at October 7, 2005 02:23 PMI always am skeptical of polls, especially those that supposedly radom callings of such a small group (some 800 people). J. West I like your style and would like to join you on your crusade, but I want iamcoyote to make the same bet with me. How about it iamcoyote? Here is your chance to banish me if you have the balls to step up to the plate and put your rant where your supposed ideas are. P.S. Plame and her Husband have been absent from the media circus for quite a while and I didn't see them at the latest Al Gore crackup. hmmmmm
Posted by Cyber Sarge at October 7, 2005 02:41 PMsarge,
Don't make the same mistake I did.
Hold out for a better deal. Hell, I probably could have got 5 to one odds.
J. West, pride comes before the fall. Every time one becomes puffed-up with pride and arrogance, like Karl Rove, you can always count on that same arrogance bring them down.
Posted by Judith at October 7, 2005 06:19 PMP.S. Plame and her Husband have been absent from the media circus for quite a while and I didn't see them at the latest Al Gore crackup.
So that makes them guilty of something somehow?
Yet Cindy Sheehan is a media whore because she's all over the tv. Right.
And if the Wilsons were out doing book signings and interviews they'd be partisan hacks looking to make a cheap buck by pedaling lies.
Kinda like Louis Freeh?
Or is he just a great patriot?
Who can keep up.
Posted by snark at October 7, 2005 07:42 PM