Rove's Latest Press Offensive

by emptywheel

Jim E points us to Rove's latest press offensive with Michael Isikoff (and reporting from the reality based among us, Evan Thomas). As Jim points out there are two new data points in this column. Or rather one new data point,

In February 2004, Rove testified before Fitzgerald's grand jury—twice.

And one new totally crazy claim,

Among other things, Luskin told the prosecutor that sometime between October 2003 and January 2004 he'd had a drink with Time reporter Viveca Novak.

The first point makes sense. It suggests that Fitzgerald met with Rove twice in the first go-around of grand jury appearances, as he did with Libby. But the second one? That takes David Shuster's 7 month lapse between the Vivnovka tip and the discovery of the email (from March until October) and turns it into a one year lapse (from October to October). As Jim E suggests, maybe Luskin is now trying to excuse away Rove's FBI interviews. But at some point, if you learn your client did talk to a witness he claims not to have spoken with and it still takes you a year to find the evidence of that conversation, you're supporting the second obstruction charge (for hiding or tampering with the email evidence) as much as you're explaining away the perjury charge.

As I've suggested, the rest of the story gives a third (Shuster, VandeHei, and now Isikoff) version of Rove's timeline, mostly stuff we know.

But the most interesting passage of the story, IMO, is this one:

Rove and his legal team hope they will be cleared soon. It is not clear whether Fitzgerald is just tying up loose ends or building a case. Some lawyers suspect that he may be playing a tactical game with Libby's defense team. By keeping a file open on Rove, he can resist requests from Libby's lawyers to "discover" documents relating to the ongoing investigation. Such gamesmanship, however, may be too clever by half for Fitzgerald, who is regarded as anything but sly or devious.

Wow. First of all, I assume the, "Rove and his lawyers hope they'll be cleared" is just a grammatical slip, but it's worth noting. I just finished explaining why I think Luskin isn't in any legal danger. Maybe Newsweek knows differently.

Second, the notion that Fitzgerald is just playing a tactical game. (And did Isikoff speak to both Luskin and one of Libby's lawyers for this?) The implication, of course, is that either a) Fitz is doing this to hide information that would exonerate Libby, or b) Fitz is doing this to hide information he's using in a larger conspiracy ... wait a second, if he's using the information, then' he's right to hide it!! So unless you think Fitz is devious enough to hide info that would exonerate Libby (knowing full well that that would give Libby a wide open invitation to appeal; it's not like Libby doesn't know what evidence is out there), then the whole statement is bullshit, either an expression of the cabal's larger frustration that Fitzgerald hasn't yet tipped his hand, or the frustration that Libby has thus far been unsuccessful at uncovering the evidence Fitzgerald has against the cabal as a whole.

Nyah nyahnny nyah nyah!

Whatever the passage means, someone is losing his touch. I can't fathom why any of the lawyers involved in this case want to make a statement that anything is "too clever by half" for Fitzgerald. Sure, maybe I wouldn't use the words "sly" or "devious." But shrewd? Sharp? Clever? Uh huh. If I had a client whose liberty was on the line, I wouldn't want to suggest anything is too clever for Fitzgerald, particularly not to refer to something so basic as hiding your evidence of conspiracy until you indict for that conspiracy.

Is someone taunting the Special Prosecutor?

Comments

[anon]

Rove loves to taunt. Not surprising that his lawyer would. A bully's bravado is what I see here. But I disagree with you - I think Luskin is in trouble. I think Fitz has got testimony and emails and interviews up the ying-yang that show that both Libby and Rove coordinated the Wilson info and knew how explosive it was. And I don't think Luskin's ploy stopped Fitz from indicting Rove. I think Luskin's ploy put him in legal jeopardy, so Fitz has got to sort through that too.

[lemondloulou54]

I liked the bit at the end of the Newsweek article where Rover asks someone at the Fox anniversary party, "How's my 5th grand jury appearance playing out there?" Yup, regular family values stuff.

[emptywheel]

I really am wavering between whether I think that Rove is squealing (and is trying to cover-up his cooperation) or whether he is really worried. But I find it fascinating that it took me 5 minutes to find an Isikoff and Thomas story on Rove on the web. As it took me a long time to find last week's VandeHei and Kornblut stories, when I wasn't following someone's link.

Anyone think it's a coinkydink that these media outlets are all hiding their Rove coverage?

[obsessed]

EW - Could you elaborate on why the media outlets would downplay their latest round of Rove stenography?

[Daniel DiRito]

Are remarks like these the last throes of delusional people who have for far too long been able to say whatever they choose and by repeating it over and over, make it seemingly become truth? I've long thought Rove and his cohorts were very bright but the more this episode unfolds, the more it appears that they have succeeded more with brawn than brain. They may have met there match with both in Patrick Fitzgerald.

read more observations here:

www.thoughttheater.com

[Mimikatz]

I think it is so amusing that Rove apparently lied to Luskin. Defendants lie to their attorneys all the time, but you have to wonder if Luskin realized Karl had lied to him. Maybe he thought he was in on the con too, as so many have thought, to their detriment, with this crowd.

[orionATL]

when abuse of power is institutional,

which is the case with the plame disclosure and ensuing cover-up,

i think you have to be very careful who you focus attention on and "charge",

legally or otherwise.

while fitzgerald may well go after luskin,

in fact,

be compelled by the facts to charge luskin,

he certainly must also be reflecting on the dangers to his central propose

of including too many ancillary crooks in his indictments.

it seems there is something in human behavior protective of institutional corruption

so that charging too many miscreants makes observers wary rather than

outraged at the abuse of power.

said briefly,

in exposing institutional corruption,

the wider the circle of people and offices involved in the corruption,

the more precise one must be in deciding who is central to misconduct and who is peripheral.

[tryggth]

Conspiracy.

From the Time article:

Rove, according to the e-mail, didn't say much more to Cooper other than to warn him that Time shouldn't get "far out front" on the story Ambassador Wilson was telling—that the Bush administration was lying about WMD in Iraq and that, specifically, Wilson, on his trip to Niger, had found no evidence that Saddam was trying to buy uranium for atom-bomb making.

From an older newsweek article :

Cooper wrote that Rove offered him a "big warning" not to "get too far out on Wilson." Rove told Cooper that Wilson's trip had not been authorized by "DCIA"—CIA Director George Tenet—or Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip." Wilson's wife is Plame, then an undercover agent working as an analyst in the CIA's Directorate of Operations counterproliferation division. (Cooper later included the essence of what Rove told him in an online story.) The e-mail characterizing the conversation continues: "not only the genesis of the trip is flawed an[d] suspect but so is the report. he [Rove] implied strongly there's still plenty to implicate iraqi interest in acquiring uranium fro[m] Niger ... "

They knew at the time this was bullshit. But they thought they could still keep a lid on it. The discrediting was part of a larger conspiracy (but perhaps not "conspiracy" in a legal sense) to keep the scam going until the "good news" of some WMD find would make the ongoing disinformation campaign irrelevant.

[kim]

I'm fascinated by the disjunct in perceptions about this Flame case. This goes far beyond partisan politics; there are serious delusions at work, here, but whose?
=================================================

[kim]

Love delayed is love denied. Where's the heat of justice from the old flame?
==============================================

[obsessed]

there are serious delusions at work, here, but whose?

Hopefully we'll find out soon

This goes far beyond partisan politics

I agree. So do Geroge Will, William F. Buckley, Brent Skowcroft, Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell ...

[kim]

Geroge
Peroge
Pudnin' Pie.
Afore it falls,
Kiss the sky.
========

[MediaFreeze]

Well...That clears up one mystery. It seems Vivica had it right...

Nyah nyahnny nyah nyah!

WaPo 12/03/05:

Shortly before his client's second appearance before the grand jury in October,

Viveca on Oct 15, 2005 Time article Rove Testifies in Wilson Leak:

Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald questioned Rove about his contacts with journalists in what a source familiar with Rove's situation said was his third appearance before the grand jury. "My client appeared voluntarily before the grand jury and has cooperated with the investigation since it began," said Rove's attorney Robert Luskin. "He has been assured in writing as recently as this week that he is not a target of the investigation."

[FreeThoughts]

We should sponsor a contest to see who can explain the Wilson/Plame story the easiest and in the clearest most interesting way. The winner get's a week's time of the opening post at all major (progressive) blogs. Perhaps it can be used by the DEMs before november without boring voters.

[MediaFreeze]

FT here is a link to my summary speculation. I think it holds up pretty well in light of the subject Newsweek article:

The Rove Hadley Email is the key to this case

EW

Did you notice this:

Then, in October 2004, Rove, through his lawyer Luskin, suddenly turned over to the special prosecutor an e-mail, sent to Stephen Hadley, then deputy national-security adviser, that clearly showed that Rove had spoken to Cooper. Reappearing before the grand jury that month, Rove acknowledged that he must have spoken to Cooper, but he still didn't remember doing so. Rove's e-mail to Hadley suggested that Cooper had telephoned him in July 2003 about something else—welfare reform—and then switched the conversation to Wilson. Rove, according to the e-mail, didn't say much more to Cooper other than to warn him that Time shouldn't get "far out front" on the story Ambassador Wilson was telling—that the Bush administration was lying about WMD in Iraq and that, specifically, Wilson, on his trip to Niger, had found no evidence that Saddam was trying to buy uranium for atom-bomb making.

That is, that Rove testified in October 2004 that he must have talked to Cooper, but didn't mention Wilson's wife.

That is, that he testified to the bogus interpretation of the Rove/Hadley email!

Rove still was betting that Fitz would not get Cooper to testify, and that the bogus interpretation would stick. It is only when it became clear that Cooper would testify in mid-2005 that Luskin starts saying that Rove mentioned Wilson's wife!

This is a big deal because it means that Rove was lying to the GJ in his Oct 2004 meeting also...More counts of perjury and obstruction!

It all fits....

I still don't have a really good reason for the "heads up on welfare reform," but I think it may just be that Rove was not supposed to get too far out in front of the smear campaign that Hadley was coordinating vis a vis Novak, so he told Hadley a white lie to justify his conversation with Cooper...

[emptywheel]

MF

Yes, I agree, the key is the email (which is also probably the reason Rove is beginning to sweat).

But let me restate your point. Had Cooper never testified, then the line, "I didn't take the bait" would be interpreted as meaning Cooper was probing Turdblossom to tell him about Plame, but Turdblossom didn't do so. Had Cooper never testified, then the email, by itself, would have appeared to mean that Rove didn't out Plame.

But we know he did.

I'll say what I've always said (p luk's recent speculation notwithstanding) that I thought the email was forged, recreated so as not to be obvious. I think your point supports that argument. It was written such that, had Cooper never testified, it would have exonerated Turdblossom.

I wonder if Vivnovka said anything to Luskin to raise Luskin's confidence that Cooper would never testify?

[kim]

By that late date, don't you think the White House knew they were being baited?
=================================================

[free patriot]

where did you explain why luskin isn't in trouble ???

[&y]

One (obvious) thought about Luskin and his potential legal jeopardy. When committing the crime, the Cabal banked on journalists ("reporter-leaker privilege") as a firewall to keep details vague and their butts out of prison. It seems logical that these same cheating criminals would then turn to their attorneys during the cover-up phase--banking on ("attorney-ObstructorOfJustice privilege") for added protection.

Also about Luskin. What the hell kind of shitty lawyer keeps such lousy records that the best he can come up with is a four-month window for when had a hugely important (according to his story) discussion about an ongoing case?

"Do I know what rhetorical means?!"
-- Homer Simpson

[emptywheel]

fp

In this comment. Basically, I just think Fitz will show the same caution with messing with Attorney-Client privilege as he did with journalists' source privilege. Or, to put it another way, I don't doubt he'd be able to put together a charge that includes Novak and Judy, but I doubt he'll do that for fear of criminalizing journalism.

Which is why I think your point is right on, &y. They've used every level of "source" and "privilge" protection they could, barring pertinent confessions to their spouse or minister. First intelligence sources and methods (to protect people like Curveball--and the SISMI intelligence itself--in the run-up to war). Then journalistic source protection. So hell, why not attorney client privilege. Even if they go to jail, it'll mean they've dismantled the things that prevent our country from becoming a totalitarian state.

[kim]

But journalists shouldn't use confidential and anonymous sourcing to warp the truth. their increasingly vain claim to privilege lies in an increasingly symbolic worship of truth.
========================================

[somethingsrotten]

I think that even though Fritz got some sand thrown in his face, that he is one smart ump. He knows Who's on first, and What's on second, and that we don't knows on third. The only thing that counts is that Fritz knows. He's playing Luskin and Libby's defence team masterfully, utilizing every one of their mistakes. He's not the one with the spinning spitballs. He's the one taking his time throwing slowballs, while the others fan at them desperatly.

I'd bet that he has at least 80% of his "outing" case finished. He's just playing with these jerks, getting whatever he can get off of their lies. It just makes things easier for the big trial later.

[emptywheel]

Remember, somthingsrotten, it's the coverup, not the crime itself.

In this case, I think Joe Sixpack will be more offended when he discovers that Karl Rove manufactured evidence to get off of outing a spy than necessarily outing the spy. More importantly, the degree to which this crowd tried to hide their crimes raises the question of why. And "why" is lying just beneath the surface. They conducted a massive fraud on the American people so they could try to expand an American empire than benefits only the elite.

[Jeff]

The other piece of news in the Newsweek story, I believe (though I fully expect polly to tell me that it's old news, buried in some obscure piece she has at the tip of her fingers), is that it narrows down the timing of Luskin's presentation of the Rove-Hadley email to a two week period:

Then, in October 2004, Rove, through his lawyer Luskin, suddenly turned over to the special prosecutor an e-mail, sent to Stephen Hadley, then deputy national-security adviser, that clearly showed that Rove had spoken to Cooper.

Rove testified October 15, 2004. That means that Rove turned the email over to Fitzgerald in the first two weeks of October. Now, whenever it was, this doesn't look good for Rove - and is further evidence either that Rove is guilty or that he is the most unlucky man alive. But it looks even worse if it happened in the second week of October, because -- and here I'm just following up on a nice post by a commenter at fdl -- on October 7, Cooper and Time's efforts to quash the subpoena(s) that had to do with Cooper's non-Libby sources - including Rove, it turned out - had been denied. Of course, the new subpoena to Cooper had been issued in mid-September, so it doesn't look good that Team Rove had all this time since the conversation with VNovak, but lo and behold they only delivered the Rove-Hadley email to Fitzgerald when it looked increasingly likely Cooper would testify. But it looks really really bad if it was only after the court actually denied Cooper's motion to quash.

So, to pick up one of the questions raised by the fdl commenter, when did Team Rove find the Rove-Hadley email? It just seems to me that Team Rove are trying to thread to narrow a needle - or do to many things at once - with their explanations of the roles that VNovak's revelations to Lusking played.

[kim]

The Captain and the Kidz. Fritz and the Katzenjammer Kids.

They can even smell it in Denmark.
=======================================