Fitzgerald's Headfake: It's Not Just about Rove and Cooper

by emptywheel

Jim VandeHei, who tends to serve as a Luskin's most faithful stenographer, tells us Rove spent most of his three hour chat yesterday talking about Matt Cooper.

Rove's testimony focused almost exclusively on his conversation about Plame with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper in 2003 and whether the top aide later tried to conceal it, the source said. Rove testified, in essence, that "it would have been a suicide mission" to "deliberately lie" about his conversation with Cooper because he knew beforehand that it eventually would be revealed, the source said. Lawyers involved in the case said yesterday that they expect a decision on Rove's fate soon.

But I don't think Fitzgerald was thinking solely about whether he'll charge Turdblossom with perjury and obstruction, or just with perjury. I think the testimony directly relates to larger conspiracy charges.

First, consider this little detail VandeHei tells us:

His grand jury appearance, which was kept secret even from Rove's closest White House colleagues until shortly before he went to court yesterday, suggests that prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald remains keenly interested in Rove's role in the case.

There's a reason no one knew about Karl's fifth grand jury appearance. It's because someone--either Rove or Fitzgerald--wanted to keep it quiet. I can see why Rove might want to keep it quiet, what with Josh Bolten frantically firing and demoting people. But what if Fitzgerald wanted him to keep it quiet, so other suspects in the case didn't find out?

Why would he want to keep it quiet that he's asking further questions about the Matt Cooper mystery? Well, consider how Libby's Nixon lawyer portrayed the substance of the Libby's original lies in February in a court hearing,

MR. JEFFRESS: Your Honor, the indictment in this case alleges that Mr. Libby lied about a conversation with Mr. Tim Russert in which Mr. Libby recalled that Tim Russert told him, mentioned the wife to him and said all the reporters know it. Mr. Libby also testified that he was hearing that reporters were mentioning to the White House as opposed to vice versa that Ms. Wilson worked at the CIA. Mr. Libby in the grand jury identified two particular people from the press who he recalled had given that information either to him from someone else in the White House who had passed it on to him. The government says that he is wrong about Mr. Russert, who was one of those two people, and indeed that he lied about the conversation. But the indictment also alleges that there is someone who did tell Mr. Libby about this who Mr. Libby didn't remember when did testify at the grand jury, and that is Mr. Cooper and that's alleged in the indictment. [emphasis mine]

Jeffress is basically saying "Well, what Libby said in his testimony is that he heard from two reporters  who said they had heard from other people in the White House or other reporters about Plame. Libby said Russert was one of these people, and that he forgot who the other one was. Now the government is saying he lied about Russert and that Cooper is the one he forgot about."

As I described in my earlier post on this, if that is the substance of Libby's lie as Libby understands it (or the lie he's now telling to get out of lying in the past) it suggests he was trying to tell a story based on a grain of truth. He had heard from a reporter who had spoken to other people in the White House, but that reporter was Judy and she apparently first found out from him. And he had heard from a reporter, later in the week, who had been told by someone else in the White House about Plame, but he obscured who that reporter was.

That reporter, of course, was Matt Cooper. Cooper told Libby on July 12 that he had heard that Plame worked at the CIA and was involved in getting Joe Wilson sent to Niger. And, according to the indictment at least,

LIBBY confirmed for Cooper, without qualification, that LIBBY had heard that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA;

Now, curiously, this discrepancy (whether Libby told Cooper or Cooper told Libby) is not the basis for the perjury and false statements charge. The basis for that is whether or not Libby told Cooper that he had been hearing this from journalists and whether or not he knew it was true. And whether he told Cooper that he didn't know whether Wilson had a wife or not. Now, it's not entirely clear from the indictment--because Fitzgerald doesn't highlight it or mention it in the substance of the perjury charge--whether Libby testified he told Cooper or rather just confirmed something Cooper presented to him. But the language cited from Libby's FBI interviews seems to suggest Libby testified to telling Cooper, not to confirming Cooper's story:

Q. And it's your specific recollection that when you told Cooper about Wilson's wife working at the CIA, you attributed that fact to what reporters –

A. Yes.

Q. – plural, were saying. Correct?

A. I was very clear to say reporters are telling us that because in my mind I still didn't know it as a fact. I thought I was – all I had was this information that was coming in from the reporters.

. . . .

Q. And at the same time you have a specific recollection of telling him, you don't know whether it's true or not, you're just telling him what reporters are saying?

A. Yes, that's correct, sir. And I said, reporters are telling us that, I don't
know if it's true. I was careful about that because among other things, I wanted to be clear I didn't know Mr. Wilson. I don't know – I think I said, I don't know if he has a wife, but this is what we're hearing. [my emphasis]

And again from grand jury testimony:

Q. And let me ask you this directly. Did the fact that you knew that the law could turn, the law as to whether a crime was committed, could turn on where you learned the information from, affect your account for the FBI when you told them that you were telling reporters Wilson's wife worked at the CIA but your source was a reporter rather than the Vice-President?

A. No, it's a fact. It was a fact, that's what I told the reporters.

Q. And you're, you're certain as you sit here today that every reporter you told that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, you sourced it back to other reporters?

A. Yes, sir, because it was important for what I was saying and because it was – that's what – that's how I did it.

. . . .

Q. The next set of questions from the Grand Jury are – concern this fact. If you did not understand the information about Wilson's wife to have been classified and didn't understand it when you heard it from Mr. Russert, why was it that you were so deliberate to make sure that you told other reporters that reporters were saying it and not assert it as something you knew?

A. I want – I didn't want to – I didn't know if it was true and I didn't want people – I didn't want the reporters to think it was true because I said it. I – all I had was that reporters are telling us that, and by that I wanted them to understand it wasn't coming from me and that it might not be true. Reporters write things that aren't true sometimes, or get things that aren't true. So I wanted to be clear they didn't, they didn't think it was me saying it. I didn't know it was true and I wanted them to understand that. Also, it was important to me to let them know that because what I was telling them was that I don't know Mr. Wilson. We didn't ask for his mission. That I didn't see his report.

Basically, we didn't know anything about him until this stuff came out in June. And among the other things, I didn't know he had a wife. That was one of the things I said to Mr. Cooper. I don't know if he's married. And so I wanted to be very clear about all this stuff that I didn't, I didn't know about him. And the only thing I had, I thought at the time, was what reporters are telling us.
. . . .
Well, talking to the other reporters about it, I don't see as a crime. What I said to the other reporters is what, you know – I told a couple reporters what other reporters had told us, and I don't see that as a crime.

Still totally ambiguous. Did Libby testify that he told Cooper about Plame, or that he confirmed the story about Plame? Fitzgerald doesn't reveal that part of the testimony to us. But Jeffress says Libby forgot who had told him about Plame, that he forgot that Matt Cooper had been one of the journalists who told him about Plame. And Libby must have testified that he told Cooper--otherwise Fitzgerald wouldn't have agreed in August 2004 to limit his questions for Matt Cooper to his conversation with Scooter Libby.

I'm suggesting--as I suggested in my earlier testimony--that in addition to lying about journalists and so forth, Libby also lied about whether Cooper told him or he told Cooper. I'm suggesting that Libby told the FBI and grand jury that he--Libby--told Cooper, not the other way around. I'm suggesting that Libby did so to hide the evidence that someone in the White House had told Cooper about Plame already.

If I'm right, then Fitzgerald is interested in more than just when Vivnovka told Luskin that she knew Rove was Cooper's source. He's interested in how Rove's changing story lines up with Libby's attempts to hide the fact that Karl Rove had already told Cooper of Plame's identity when Libby confirmed it for him on July 12.

The lie I suspect Libby told--that he was the first to inform Cooper of Plame's identity, survived until August 2004, when Cooper testified that Libby was not his source for Plame's identity. Only then, apparently, did Luskin "discover" an email proving that Karl Rove had talked to Cooper beforehand. Up until then, though, a number of people must have conspired to hide the evidence of Rove's conversation with Cooper: the person who altered the phone log, the person who hid the emails, and Libby, who lied about what he said to Cooper.

Here's the story Rove is still trying to tell about his lies:

Rove testified, in essence, that "it would have been a suicide mission" to "deliberately lie" about his conversation with Cooper because he knew beforehand that it eventually would be revealed, the source said.

Yes, it would be a suicide mission. But he still might lie if there was a reason why everyone at the White House was hiding evidence about the conversations with Matt Cooper. Why is the Cooper conversation so important, besides the fact that it proves Rove was an active leaker in this process? I'm not sure. But several reports of the July 12 strategy session aboard Air Force Two suggest Libby and Cheney were trying to figure out how to respond to Cooper. So this conspiracy, as so many others, may lead right back to Dick.

Comments

[Jeff]

Fitzgerald's 8-27-04 affidavit makes it perfectly explicit that Libby testified that he brought up Wilson's wife on July 12 not just with Cooper but also with Miller and, I think, Kessler (who testified that their conversation didn't touch on Plame at all). So I think it's exactly right that one of the things that makes Fitzgerald suspicious about Rove is that it looks like Rove and Libby could have coordinated their stories in order to hide Rove's contact with Cooper, and Rove only started coming around once it was clear that Fitzgerald was going to not only go after Cooper but succeed at getting him to testify about his original source on Wilson's wife.

I'm not sure, however, that the strategy session on Air Force 2 between Libby and Cheney was focused on responding specifically to Cooper.

The story Libby tells about raising Plame with Miller obviously covers his own part, by making it sound like he only brought up Plame with Miller after having heard from two reporters (one directly, one indirectly) about Plame. As for Kessler, who knows - maybe for consistency.

But there remains something puzzling about Libby's testimony about July 12, and I'm sure it has to do with Cheney. I mean, Libby acknowledges - I think, though it's hard to tell what comes from Cathie Martin - getting all this direction from Cheney on how to respond to reporters, but somehow he has to persuade the prosecutor that Cheney didn't instruct him to say anything about Wilson's wife, that was just freelancing on Libby's part. But then, according to Libby, he freelanced about PLame with no less than three reporters on July 12. It's weird.

One last thing: Cheney seems to have told Libby to reiterate with reporters the information that had been declassified and released by Tenet, and repeated in distorted fashion by Fleischer, the day before. The other thing that had happened the day before -- allegedly -- was that Novak's story went on the wires. But if that was really the case, and the White House knew it, I don't see why that wasn't Libby's alibi. He knew the report was out so he was just repeating it to other reporters. The fact that this was no part of Libby's story may just mean that it's not true, as I've suggested before, that Novak's column was out on the 11th.

[emptywheel]

Let me just clarify. I think it's clear that Libby testified to having told Cooper of Plame. So why didn't Fitzgerald include that--a clear lie--in the perjury charges? Because he was still investigating it.

[emptywheel]

Also, want to highlight something Anonymous Liberal noted in Kornblut's New York Times article:

The identity of Mr. Novak's original source for the column that triggered the entire case is still unknown, at least to the public. Mr. Novak has testified to the grand jury since Mr. Rove's last appearance in October 2005.

If they brought Novak back, they may be closing on Novak's continued inconsistencies. Or on his story about Rove.

[p.lukasiak]

Let me just clarify. I think it's clear that Libby testified to having told Cooper of Plame. So why didn't Fitzgerald include that--a clear lie--in the perjury charges? Because he was still investigating it.

just an aside in support of this theory that you didn't mention. FitzG was reportedly surprised by Cooper's testimony that Libby was not Cooper's original source, but merely a confirming source. Now, the only reason I can come up with for FitzG being surprised by that info is if Libby had (as you are stating) told FitzG that he (Libby) was Coopers original source....

**************

as to why this lie is not included in the perjury indictment --- it would be a very tough charge to get a conviction on, because the defense could create sufficient confusion about who exactly said what to whom about whom at what point to get an acquittal on that charge. There is really no daylight in the five counts of the indictment that FitzG brought --- its not "he said/he said" its "Libby said this, and we have tons of documents and testimony that shows he lied about these things."

[Jeff]

I pretty much agree with lukasiak - there are in fact a bunch of apparent lies that Fitzgerald didn't specify as the basis for the indictment - and would just add that it would also be sort of confusing and not that persuasive to indict Libby for saying he told reporters about Plame, when part of the motivation for the indictment is the significance of telling reporters about her or not.

I noticed that last line of Kornblut's article last night, and I'm not yet confident it's not an editor's error, mistaking Mr. for Ms. Novak, even though Robert is the subject of the previous sentence and Ms. Novak's testimony is mentioned separately earlier in the article. I sent an email to Kornblut but don't expect a response, as Times reporters appear not to take the new email function seriously. (I've yet to receive a reply from a Times reporter, though I once got one from a former reporter.)

[emptywheel]

You guys may be right. Though I kind of disagree (daunting that, disagreeing with both of you at once).

Fitz almost certainly leaves out a bunch of the Judy details because 1) she's unreliable and is probably still lying about some of this, and 2) there is more there--if he ever gets into the bulk of the Judy testimony, it'll be for things related to (for example) the NIE, which relate back to Dick.

The Russert stuff, I agree, there is abundant documentation for. No brainer stuff, the Russert charges.

But the Cooper charges are very obscure and there is not documentation for them. They're basically a he said she said about what exactly Libby said to Cooper. And given that no one disputes the timing (that is, even Libby admits to spreading this stuff by July 12), all the other documentation doesn't directly apply. I mean, the Cooper charges boil down to three claims: that Libby told Cooper he had heard this from journalists, that Libby told Cooper he didn't know whether it was true or not, and that Libby said he didn't even know whether Wilson was married. The only evidence--that we know of--that supports that case is Cooper's testimony and (presumably) his email to editors. So if you're going to include all that, then why not include the other related detail, that Libby lied about who told whom. It is clearly more central to the question of obstruction (since it led Fitz to accept an agreement with Cooper that basically led to a 1 year delay in discovering the truth about the leak). So if he didn't include it, it's because he's holding it back for something else.

[emptywheel]

Oh, wrt the Novak point.

Recall that Novak said, when asked at the indictment whether he could talk about his involvement, that Fitz had asked him to hold off for one other item. Now, I suspect Fitz has asked Novak not to testify until the Rove indictment is done. (And the conpiracy to obstruct justice indictments.) But he may have been speaking about a very specific issue.

[emptywheel]

Or let me say further about the Cooper charges. With the Cooper charges, Fitzgerald has the same problem as Libby has more generally. That is, it's not a question of whether what Libby said was true or not. (It's not a question of whether Libby really was hearing from journalists about Plame.) It's a question of whether he actually said something to a specific person.

Now, the Russert charge is substantive. By proving that Libby really hadn't forgotten about Plame on July 10, you can prove that Libby lied in what he said to the GJ.

But for the Cooper charges you have no such clearcut evidence. It doesn't matter that Libby hadn't heard from a bunch of journalists, nor that we really do know he knew Wilson was married. The only thing that matters is Cooper's and Libby's competing version of the story. The case would actually be stronger if Fitz had made it a question of whether Libby told the truth about being Cooper's source. Because we can prove that to be a lie with corroborating evidence.

[p.lukasiak]

EW....

another possibility why Libby's "I told Cooper" lie wasn't included in the indictment is that may have been a original lie that was recanted at some point after Cooper testified otherwise ("Oh, now I remember....") while standing by the rest of his testimony (like the "I didn't even know Wilson had a wife" crap).

[Tom Maguire]

Disagreeing with Jeff is always a perilous course. However, I'll chime in with EW that the actual Cooper stuff in the indictment doesn't look any more compelling then the matter of who told whom.

That said, the entire jury might go bald from head-scratching if Fitzgerald indicted Libby, *not* for leaking to Cooper, and *not* for saying he leaked to Cooper, but for being wrong about whether he raised the subject with Cooper.

Well - while folks wonder about Libby's lies that did not result in an indictment, add this to the stack - per a recent defense filing, Libby testified that he had no knowledge that Ms. Plame had classified status:

Mr. Libby was not, of course, a source for the Novak story. And he testified to the grand jury unequivocally that he did not understand Ms. Wilson’s employment by the CIA to be classified information.

I find the absence of a perjury count there to be quite interesting.

Let me close by agreeing with Jeff about the significance of the Libby/Cooper discrepancy as to who told whom. And since no one is rushing to shake my hand, I will note that we have heard this theory before.

[emptywheel]

Heck, Tom, I'm waiting for Jeffress to get indicted for lying that "Libby was not a source for Novak." Because I'm still strongly suspicious (based on what LIbby didn't want Judy to say and based on the Waas/Townsend story) that there was some kind of contact there. I read the statement, frankly, as Jeffress playing to the media again.

And, unlike you, I suspect, I'll place the classified info non-perjury count in teh bucket of "charges Fitz is coming back to."

Hand shake to you for that earlier formulation of this theory. I must have inhaled it and replicated it and expanded on it unknowingly. Are you then in agreement that there seems to be a conspiracy involved, both Libby's testimony and the elimination of emails/phone logs recording Cooper's call? ;-p

[Ardant]

Apologies if this has been addressed, just doing a glance this am. The "Rove testified, in essence, that "it would have been a suicide mission" to "deliberately lie" about his conversation with Cooper because he knew beforehand that it eventually would be revealed, the source said. Lawyers involved in the case said yesterday that they expect a decision on Rove's fate soon."

To me, the way this is written makes it sound like "why would I lie about this when I knew it would come up." If he knew the Cooper issue would come up why didn't he testify about it the first time?

I might be too literal or missing the obvious here.

[Tom Maguire]

Are you then in agreement that there seems to be a conspiracy involved...

I am in agreement that my guy's position could look better.

I will note the general principle that *disproving* a conspiracy is difficult.

Let me put it this way - I will be surprised if Fitzgerald indicts anyone for conspiring to discredit Joe Wilson or out his wife - the distinction between that and normal WH message management is problematic.

I will be much less surprised if he pins someone for trying to coordinate their response to the announcement of the investigation. However, about the best thing I can say about Libby's story in that regard is it might be too stupid to be false - I would have thought that five minutes reflection could have given him a more plausible, unindictable story. But would such a story have bought him the time Bush/Cheney needed to get to Nov 2004?

Well - as to whether Libby and Rove cooked up a story to delay any embarrassment past the election, and risked jail guided by the thought of possible pardons: I hope not, but certainly can't prove that is not the case. And there are certainly straws in the opposing wind.

[orionATL]

another ride on the fitzgerald merry-go-round - exhilarating but i'm getting dizzy again.

i like the image that comes to mind from paul lukasiak's comment (9:38):

"There is really no daylight in the five counts of the indictment that FitzG brought --- its not "he said/he said" its "Libby said this, and we have tons of documents and testimony that shows he lied about these things."

fitzgerald as

craftsman and master mason.

then

"the cask of amontillado"

popped into my head.

another image to savor.

[Daniel DiRito]

Ah, yes, when all else fails there is the “that would have been stupid defense”. It appears that Karl Rove has chosen this to be a piece of his final efforts to avoid indictment. I’ve always found the very notion of this defense flawed. The premise of the defense is that smart people wouldn’t do stupid things or make decisions that could rationally be expected to lead to negative consequences. In Rove’s case, as I understand the issue, the argument is being used to explain an oversight to reveal all the details of his conversation with Matt Cooper (specifically the part about Valerie Plame)…in essence he simply forgot that portion of the conversation but to lie would have been stupid…and Rove knows people don’t think he is stupid.

The unspoken assertion by those who use this defense (Tom DeLay comes to mind) is that they may use their intelligence to walk right up to the line, but they are also smart enough to never cross that line…basically they know the rules so well they can navigate them like a skilled tightrope walker. On the surface it sounds reasonable and plausible.

Unfortunately, history often seems to contradict this defense and the premise upon which it is founded. That’s not to say these individuals are stupid…they are actually quite bright. However, what people may miss is an understanding that whatever these people possess in terms of smarts sometimes pales in comparison to the zeal with which they seek wealth, prestige, or power. In essence, smart people, not unlike others who lie and manipulate, are not above self-deceit in order to augment lofty goals, obtuse egos, and an unbridled hunger for power.

In the end, it’s a mistake to evaluate these situations on the basis of the individual’s intelligence…and historically juries often don’t. It’s not difficult to understand that a jury also evaluates where arrogance, greed and the desire for power sit in relation to intelligence. One’s desire for the former has a direct impact upon the amount of intelligence that is applied to any particular activity to achieve the latter.

The mathematical genius who abandons math for theater is not necessarily stupid. He is simply motivated by other interests and the application of his intellect may or may not be the dominating part of his life equation. Those who know this individual may know that he is smart but they may also know that a passion for theater, despite its failure to be a reasonable and rational calculation, is able to override the application of intelligence. He may well fail in theater while still being a very smart man.

Why would anyone assume the actions of politicians are any different? A better analysis of how these individuals and their scandals unfold is described by the “choose your poison principle”…what compels; controls. In looking at Karl Rove there is little doubt he is passionate and motivated. His history is littered with demonstrations of aggressively pursuing his objectives. To presume he would never cross the line, given his obvious intensity, would shift the use of the “that would be stupid defense” to Patrick Fitzgerald and a full Grand Jury. That would likely require a lot of smart people to look stupid. Is Karl Rove smart enough to pull that off? Perhaps.

read more observations here:

www.thoughttheater.com

[Tom Maguire]

Back to the headline of this post:

Fitzgerald's Headfake: It's Not Just about Rove and Cooper

I have always found it odd that Rove's involvement with Libby in preparing Tenet's plank-walk for the 16 Words has just dropped out of the reporting.

One might wonder - if Rove really was involved with that, how did he *not* learn about Joe and Val? And just what did he learn, and from whom, and why does no one care?

Unless, of course, they do care.

[viget]

I think I agree with EW here, Tom. Can you say "superseding indictment?" Fitz doesn't have to show his entire hand on Libby right away, especially when Libby's obstruction has delayed his ability to get to the bottom of things.

If you also subscribe to the theory that Team Libby's secondary task (if not really their primary taks) is to go fishing with discovery and find out what *other* evidence Fitz has on the other members of the conspiracy, it would suggest to me that Team Libby and the other involved actors strongly suspect that Fitz's got a boatload of evidence that he hasn't indicted Libby on, and that would probably include conspiracy charges.

I really think that this Rove firewall Libby came up with is key to the whole case unraveling. Once Cooper spilled his guts on that, Fitz had to know that at least some other WH official and Libby were somehow coordinating their stories. And he had to keep that info on the qt, hence the many redacted paragraphs concerning Libby's testimony about Cooper (and maybe Cooper's differing account) in the August affy.

Hence, it would make sense that Fitz didn't indict on the obvious lie of who told whom about Plame. If he did, Libby's attys would be entitled to discovery on that subject, evidence, I'm sure would point to other discrepancies with Rove's testimony about his conversation with Cooper. (and that might be shared in an effort to stem conspiracy indictments)

I also wonder if this Cooper bombshell is the big reason why Tatel went along with the reporter subpoenas. Maybe Fitz was saying that he didn't think that Libby really had the covert ID of Plame, but he had to investigate Miller to be sure. And that he strongly suspected that Rove was the real leaker based on evidence we've yet to see and the fact that Rove and Libby had conspired to hide Rove's involvement.

And it also leads to a burning question I've had for some time: if Fitzgerald was so surprised by Cooper's bombshell, had no reason to suspect Rove was involved, then why did he haul Rove in front of the GJ back in Feb 2004, BEFORE he talked with Libby?

[emptywheel]

Tom

It hasn't falled out of my reporting. But that may not be what you're talking about.

Ardant

The problem with the "I would be suicidal" line is it assumes that Rove would have known a number of unexpected things would happen before they happened. Before Ashcroft's recusal, no one thought their FBI testimony would be looked at seriously. Before Fitzgerald's appointment and subsequent subpoenaing of journalists, no one thought the journalists would get subpoenaed. Before journalists started talking in August 2004, no one thought the journalists would talk. No one, apparently, thought the missing emails would be discovered. If you think of it this way, then you realize that Karl would be stupid not to try to get out of the crime he had committed, assuming nothing too serious would dismantle his position of strength. Only something did.

[emptywheel]

Oops. "fallen" out of my reporting.

Viget,

He hauled Rove in for two reasons. 1) he was hauling everyone in, to get their sworn testimony. 2) he especially wanted to get Rove's testimony regarding what he said to Novak. While he wasn't a suspect for telling Cooper, he was definitely a suspect for telling Novak (to say nothing of his post-July 14 Chris Matthews comments).

[MK]

I'm still interested in the timing here. If Libby's lawyers are pushing so hard for discovery of all the stuff that Fitz is holding in his hand, and the judge is making a case-by-case judgment on what can be revealed to him alone, ex parte, and what must be shared with the defense lawyers, then perhaps it makes sense for Fitz to play some of his cards earlier than he might otherwise? (Not to ignore that Fitz may have more time now that Ryan's been convicted.)
It's like sitting in the absolute darkness in a thunderstorm. With every bolt of lightning, you get a split second freeze frame of the action -- and you keep trying to put those mental images together to make a coherent moving picture of what's going on. Many thanks to all of you here who put your memories and analysis together and help illuminate the darkness.

[William Ockham]

I want to advance a slightly different theory about this current episode based on a completely speculative reading of Luskin's public statements recorded in VandeHei's article.

Luskin said:

"In connection with this appearance, the special counsel has advised Mr. Rove that he is not a target of the investigation."

and

Regarding Rove's testimony, Luskin said that it centered on information that has surfaced since he last testified, in October 2005.

You can read those statements to mean:

Fitzgerald called Rove into to rat out somebody else and it has to do with the newly discovered emails.

I think a plausible explanation of this event is that Fitzgerald now knows how and why the Hadley email didn't turn up and he wants to get Rove's side of the story, again. This looks very bad for Hadley in my view.

[emptywheel]

MK

I'm not sure exactly what you mean--do you mean Fitz should bring on the conspiracy indictment sooner rather than later?

I actually just had this thought about timing. I have said that Karl would happily perjure himself if it postponed other indictments (particularly his own) until after the Mid-terms. I've also said that Rule # 1 in Republican scandals is they try to destroy the evidence. Obviously, I'm suggesting that these clowns are following a well-establish GOP pattern.

Well, Fitz has undoubtedly read the histories of Watergate and Iran-Contra closely. He knows, especially, about the Cap Weinbuger ploy. And he knows that he has until November to expose the full scale of this scandal before he loses his chance, before the Cap Weinburger ploy goes into effect.

All of which may explain why you invite Karl to testify a fifth time, rather than indicting. Once Karl gets indicted, then his crimes will (artificially or not) be frozen in time. "You mean we spent 3 years and all we got were two perjury indictments?" Particularly if you indict on just perjury before the election, Cap ploy goes into effect, because it's easy (as immanentize suggests) to spin the offenses as no big deal.

So what if you can get Karl to give a lot of the evidence you'd get through discovery and trial now, before you finalize the charges? Why not use him--and his expected anxiousness to push this beyond the Mid-terms--to your advantage.

I could be wrong. But I imagine Fitz stands a much better chance of getting to try the larger conspiracy if he delivers those indictments in a tidy little bundle, a bundle that highlights the references to Dick and Bush, before election day.

[fireback]

William,
I was thinking that originally as well, but there's a conflict here.

VandeHei source (probably Luskin): "Rove's testimony focused almost exclusively on his conversation about Plame with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper in 2003"

Luskin statement: "Regarding Rove's testimony, Luskin said that it centered on information that has surfaced since he last testified, in October 2005."

What am I missing here?

[emptywheel]

William

I don't think your argument is mutually exclusive from this one (p luk and I were arguing something similar yesterday--though I think we both think Andy Card may be the target).

If Fitz is thinking about the Cooper cover-up as a conspiracy, then the e-mails are certainly a part of it. And they were probably deleted by someone not named Rove or Libby (so it goes beyond our two big suspects). Add in whoever altered the phone log. Add in whatever reason they tried to cover-up the Cooper conversation.

[fireback]

Perhaps some of those emails relates to the Cooper/Rove conversation in 03.