Rove Will Not Be Charged

by emptywheel

The NYT announces today that Karl Rove will not be charged in the Valerie Plame case. I'm still looking for a copy of Luskin's statement, but it includes the following:

On June 12, 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove.

[snip]

In deference to the pending case, we will not make any further public statements about the subject matter of the investigation. We believe that the Special Counsel's decision should put an end to the baseless speculation about Mr. Rove's conduct.

Karl Rove won't be frog-marched. But I'm not sure this means the case will end with Libby.

Now I don't want to raise hopes too high. This may well be the fizzle Murray warned of on the Plame panel over the weekend. But here are my thoughts:

When those of us on the Plame panel got to know each other over the weekend, sitting at the pool so Joe Wilson and Larry Johnson could smoke their stogies, someone (it was probably me, but my sleep-deprived memories of this weekend are hazy) asked who thought Karl Rove was cooperating with the investigation. Two and two halves of us raised our hands. (And I'm not sure whether the last member of the panel had shown up yet, so that may well have been half of us.)

I was one of those who raised her hand halfway. My logic is this:

Dick Cheney is dragging down the White House. He is largely responsible for the mess in Iraq. He is trying to sabotage any attempts to negotiate honestly with Iran. And he is exposing everyone in the Administration to some serious legal jeopardy, in the event they ever lose control of courts. At some point, Dick Cheney's authoritarianism will doom Bush's legacy.

But you can't make him quit. His is a Constitutional office, he was elected along with Bush, so you can't make him resign like you can with your Treasury Secretary or your Environmental Secretary. What better way to get rid of him, then, than to expose him to legal proceedings? It gives you the ability (farcical, but no matter) to say that you have severed all ties with his policies and legacies.

Now here are some data points:

• There is clear evidence (for example, in the White House's reluctance to publicly exonerate Libby in Fall 2003) that the White House holds OVP responsible for this mess.
• Patrick Fitzgerald received a large new chunk of evidence recently, a bunch of emails.
• In March leaks suggested that Rove was helping Fitzgerald understand those emails.
• Not long ago, the guy who coordinated the cover-up in Fall 2003 (April 14) and the guy who covered it up with the public (April 20) left the White House.
• In an appearance on April 19 Novak denied taking the Fifth--but he did not deny cooperating with the investigation.
• After Rove's grand jury appearance on April 25, Luskin gave a somewhat tortured denial of Rove's jeopardy.
• Fitzgerald's public comments have recently implicated Cheney more and more, first by revealing that Dick ordered Libby to leak Plame's identity the NIE (in late January), then by showing the world Dick's immediate response to Joe Wilson's op-ed (in May).
• Yesterday at Libby's status hearing, Fitzgerald revealed the White House will not block Libby's access to any materials.
• In his statement today, Luskin does not claim the investigation is over--he refers to it as a "pending case" and refuses to make further public statements.

This is an outtamyarse speculation, but I think it is possible that those emails revealed the Fall 2003 cover-up, and that Rove at first tried to bully his way through them (all the while recognizing his legal jeopardy increased). The people who were tangentially involved--Card and Scotty--decided to save their skin. And then Rove and Novak, presumably with Bush's blessing, traded real cooperation in exchange for Cheney's head.

I'm not trying to give people undue hope, or trying to cheer people up. But it has become clear that Cheney was the architect of this smear, from start to finish. It has been clear that Fitzgerald has Dick in his sights. If Fitzgerald got closer to being able to prove that case, I think it possible that the Texas mafia might sacrifice the person who caused all this difficulty (and who had become the White House's anvil dragging it down) in order to save its beloved Turdblossom.

When I introduced myself to Byron York over the weekend, he said something to the effect of "a lot of people here have high hopes that Rove would be indicted." I responded, "but don't all reasonable people have hopes that Rove will be indicted." York didn't respond. But as soon as I walked away, I wished that I had responded, "No Byron, many of us have even higher hopes that Dick Cheney will pay for his obvious involvement in this case." It's worth noting, by the way, that Byron York appears to have been one of the first, if not the first, to break the news that Rove will not face charges. It's also worth noting that, when we spoke, York tried to make the case that Rove has been cooperating all along. "No Byron," I patiently explained, "I mean Big-C cooperation. The other stuff was just Rove proving his testicular fortitude." York's attempts to downplay the possibility of Rove's cooperation may not mean anything, just 36 hours before he announced that Rove would not face charges. Then again, it might.

This case may be over--at least at the legal level. But until Patrick Fitzgerald reveals that he is done, we won't know what Rove's escape from justice really means.

Update: Here is the most important snippet from the statement Joe Wilson's lawyer sent out this morning:

While it appears that Mr. Rove will not be called to answer in criminal court for his participation in the wrongful disclosure of Valerie Wilson's classified employment status at the CIA in retaliation against Joe Wilson for questioning the rationale for war in Iraq, that obviously does not end the matter. The day still may come when Mr. Rove and others are called to account in a court of law for their attacks on the Wilsons.

Update 2: Guys, I guess I need to make this more clear. Christopher Wolf, the guy who would take a lawsuit against Rove if Joe and Valerie were going to sue, just released a statement saying, "The day may still come when Mr. Rove" is called to account.

Update 3: I think it significant that my buddy Byron York, who is the recipient of the most managed press releases in all things Plame, took a rather circumspect tone in his reporting of this.

Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has informed top White House adviser Karl Rove that Rove will not face indictment in the CIA-leak investigation, National Review Online has learned. The word came yesterday, when Fitzgerald told Rove lawyer Robert Luskin that he, Fitzgerald, did not plan to seek charges against Rove. This morning, Luskin released a brief statement:

[snip--York includes the entirety of the Luskin comments that have been released, including "In deference to the pending case, we will not make any further public statements about the subject matter of the investigation. We believe that the Special Counsel’s decision should put an end to the baseless speculation about Mr. Rove’s conduct."]

A decision by Fitzgerald — one way or the other — had been anticipated for months. There was widespread speculation that Rove might face charges for lying to Fitzgerald’s grand jury much like those filed by Fitzgerald last October against Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff. Now, it appears that will not happen. And so far, at least, no one has been charged with violating any of the underlying laws in the case — either the Intelligence Identities Protection Act or the Espionage Act.

In contrast, Byron's buddy Podhoretz, who just makes shit up and tries to be as incendiary as possible, reverts to the Comstock talking points Byron tried to float last week, with no success:

Karl Rove won't say it, and his lawyer won't say it, but I'll say it: Patrick Fitzgerald's conduct in the Rove matter has been disgraceful. He kept Rove hanging for eight months with his bizarre game of keeping the Rove case "open" even though he claimed he did not expect any more indictments. I'd guess this cost Rove several hundred thousand dollars in legal fees and months of sleepless nights. Nice work, Patrick. You have once again reminded us why the misbegotten term "special prosecutor" should be considered an obscenity.

Um, there's a reason Karl Rove and his lawyer won't say this. They know that Rove, while he doesn't face immediate charges, is still in some jeopardy, and they can't risk fucking with Fitz.

Though I share your concern that Karl Rove had to spend thousands to defend himself, really I do. Now how about the thousands that Valerie Plame lost when Karl ruined her career?

Comments

[Canuck Stuck in Muck]

Dear emptywheel,
I'm disappointed, of course, that Rover won't be hung out to dry--he's dirty, no denying it. And I fervently share your hope that VPOTUS will be dressed down in court. And I'm sad, really, for J. Leopold, who obviously thought he had something important to say. I'm still curious about Sealed v. Sealed, mind you, and I'd like to think that Rover rolled over and tattled on Cheney. And I think you're way smarter than me when it comes to all of this. So, I'll retreat to my little corner, now, and listen to the grown-ups more, and only speak when I'm spoken to. Apologies for any disquiet my attempts at feistiness may have caused you. Take care. And keep fighting the good fight.
C.

[victoria2dc]

Good morning!

I heard the news at 5:30 a.m. Denver time... I think my heart stopped because I was CERTAIN he would get his. Anyway, I feel better now. Thanks for your thoughts.

The ONLY thing that will make this right is if the *DARKNESS* goes down. I posted on FDL a link (of course it was from Leopold) that said that Fitz said Rove lied 8 out of 9 times. So if this is true, looks like you're right because he could forgive that if it led him to the big boy, eh?

Have a great day.

[Jeff]

For me the major source of skepticism regarding Cheney is what you point to as evidence: do you think Fitzgerald would be revealing all this stuff about Cheney's role if he were still meaningfully a subject of the investigation? Isn't it rather a paean to what might have been?

Also, Luskin's careful reference to the pending case instead of the ongoing investigation is clearly meant ot be a reference to the Libby case. That's not to say the investigation is not ongoing, Luskin does not say the investigation is over, and the Times is either well-sourced or a little sloppy in asserting that the investigation is effectively over. The Post or someone says there are still unknown issues, including Armitage's status. That's all to say we don't know the status of the investigation. I suspect we'll be hearing from Fitzgerald soon.

[terrycojones]

If Fitz has given up on Rove (for whatever reason) and the investigative part of the case is over, is that some kind of formal milestone that we should expect to learn of (e.g., Fitz formally advises that he will no longer need access to a grand jury)? I guess that we would know that sort of thing. So if Rove is off the hook, and we don't get news that the investigative phase is over, what are we to conclude? Seems that point should be rapidly approaching.

Poor Dick's ticker may have to start acting up.

[emptywheel]

Jeff

Yes, I expected this response from you. As I've said before, I think those signals may have been inducments for Libby to settle. Libby right now faces 50 years, though realistically about 15. If he gets slapped with a conspiracy to obstruct, conspiracy to out a spy, and some more charges, then he effectively faces life.

[ArthurKC]

There is still the fact that it was highly unusual for Rove or any witness to testify five times before a Grand Jury. When Rove appeared in April it was either to clear up potential problems for Rove, i.e., an opportunity for Rove to paper-over some seeming discrepancy that Luskin had an new explanation for, or it was the culmination of a deal with Fitzpatrick, i.e., Rove was delivering on a promise to testify. If the latter, the question remains: Is it Libby or Cheney who is hurt by the testimony? I suspect it is Libby, who is now being left to twist slowly in the wind, soon to take the fall for all the wrong-doing in PlameGate.

[Kagro X]

What Luskin's statement does say:

We believe that the Special Counsel's decision should put an end to the baseless speculation about Mr. Rove's conduct.

What Luskin's statement does not say:

This definitively clear Mr. Rove of any suspicion of wrongdoing.

[bboop]

While I will remain terribly disappointed that KKKarl might not get what he most deservedly had coming..I do think Rover cut a "deal". This slimebag is too good at what he does to NOT take out someone else instead of offering up himself. Its his schtick to cut somebody else off at the knees. My question is......is it just Cheney? I don't think so. The investigation appears to be ongoing. Fitz may not be quite done with Karl yet. Should be a very interesting summer. I may have an air-conditioner put into my computer room just to keep up with this.

[Immanentize]

Thanks, emptywheel you are the greatest!

I am sensing something slightly different from the statements. This strikes me as classic cooperation language -- "does not anticipate" means that Rove will not be indicted as long as he continues to provide truthful information and testifies in all trials or GJ proceedings as requested. It sounds as if the case for indictment was propably very clearly laid out to Rove and his many attorneys and then he was offered a little time to think about what his next course of action would be. That would be major cooperation as you suggest.

However, I would be surprised if Fitzgerald goes right to Cheney, or gets to him at all. I anticipate a stop at Addington on the way. I also suspect that Libby is now carefully considering his options to avoid disasterous consequences. Or will he be the only man to take a stand (and fall?) The guy has a family, and it must seem obvious that no one has his back. If I were John Cline, I would be suggesting a few serious plea meetings with the prosecutor. This action will really shake a few trees in the witness world.

Meanwhile, I would guess that Rove's involvement and time commitments with Fitzpatrick has just increased, not decreased. I find it hillarious that Luskin pouts: We believe that the Special Counsel's decision should put an end to the baseless speculation about Mr. Rove's conduct. And then he refuses to discuss any details. HA! I mean, who is the biggest purveyor of baseless speculation in this matter, if not Luskin.

[fireback]

I would like to believe that Rove rolled. As a devil's advocate, here are some thoughts and questions.

Did Fitz believe he didn't have a strong enough case against Rove? If you look at the Libby case (and I'm sure I'm probably missing alot here), he's got 3 reporters (Miller, Cooper and Russert) and 2-3 witnesses (Armitage, Ari, maybe Cheney) and Libby's notes to prove his case. So, my question is, what does he have against Rove?

I know this may seem like the obvious million dollar question, but I think it would be an interesting exercise to clarify what IS the case against Rove?

[Jeff]

emptywheel

Sorry for being so predictable. I just have a hard time believing Fitzgerald ever really thought there was any chance that Libby would flip on Cheney, much less that he would think there was still a chance at this point. As always, I'll be happy to be proven wrong on the small point and the large point and bow before another ew speculation borne out by events. I also will note that I think it is a strategic mistake to play the Cheney expectations game the way the Rove expectations game was played.

How'd you know the issue of the status of Fitzgerald's ongoing investigation was going to be an issue yesterday anyway? I didn't see anything about that in any news report or in the order from the judge.

[pollyusa]

Corallo says they're done.

Fitzgerald called Luskin late Monday afternoon to tell him he would not be seeking charges against Rove. Rove had just gotten on a plane, so his lawyer and spokesman did not reach him until he had landed in Manchester, N.H., where he was to give a speech to state GOP officials.

Mark Corallo, a spokesman for Rove, said the White House official “is elated” and said that “we’re done”.
MSNBC 6/13/06

Fitzgerald talked to Hogan before he notified Rove.

Fitzgerald met with chief U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan before he notified Rove. Hogan has been overseeing the grand juries in the CIA leak case. Fitzgerald's spokesman, Randall Samborn, declined comment. Asked if the CIA leak investigation is still continuing, Samborn said, "I'm not commenting on that as well at this time."
AP 6/13/06

[fireback]

The sobering thought just occured to me related to Jeff's earlier comment. By sobering I mean for one who wants closure one way or the other. As long as Libby's trial is still pending, I don't see why Fitz would 'close' the investigation. If Rove did not roll, Fitz is still after Chenney. If Fitz needs Libby for this, he could wait months to offically announce any type of closure.

[KnotIookin]

Nolle Prosequi

can this possibly have come into play here?

could fitz have sought and recieved an indictment against rove, sealed it and then, for some still unknown reason, decided to not pursue prosecuting the indictment?

Lufkins comments seem to indicate that not publically indicting Rove was based on a prosecutorial decision, not a lack of evidence.

[emptywheel]

Immanentize

You raise several really great points. This may represent an interim step. Though I don't think Karl leads to Adddington. It's my impression they didn't have much to do with each other. Karl may lead to WHIG, though of course one prominent member of WHIG, who was right in the middle of the cover-up, quit recently.

But I also think Fitzgerald might trade more in an effort to get more--Cheney without a bunch of interim trials, Cheney before 2006 (which, frankly, is in the interest of WH too). So this might be one case where he deviates from his normal methodical approach.

And yes, as I said to Jeff, I think the Cheney comments in the Libby trial are designed as a threat. Libby's not going to save Cheney's reputation by bringing this to trial. And he may save himself a decade in prison if he settles. Furthermore, if he even suspects that Rove is cooperating, then I imagine his attitude toward the case has changed.

[Pilgrim]

I keep remembering couple months back when one of the sharp Plame writers (Murray Waas, maybe?) wrote that if Rove is not indicted he could probably thank the interference of Viveca Novak.

[Jeff]

Libby's not going to save Cheney's reputation by bringing this to trial.

I will just point out that 1) nothing Libby is going to do or not do will save Cheney's reputation; and 2) it does not matter one bit - Cheney has never cared about his reputation, and rightly so, since his ability to govern has not hinged at all on his reputation, as far as I can tell.

And he may save himself a decade in prison if he settles.

True, but I suspect that's outweighed by 1)truly fanatical loyalty to Cheney, and 2)the likelihood of a Christmas 2008 pardon.

if he even suspects that Rove is cooperating, then I imagine his attitude toward the case has changed.

Good point, still ultimately outweighed by the anticipation of a pardon; but a prisoner's dilemma situation may have played some role in explaining Rove. We'll see.

I think tpmmuckraker is taking the right tack in pressing Luskin on the fishily concise nature of Luskin's statement. No baseless speculation there, just good questions pressing Luskin into a little bit of a corner. Though as polly notes, one of Rood's questions has been answered by Corallo, when he said that Fitzgerald evidently informed Luskin in a phone call yesterday afternoon.

I suspect we won't be hearing from Novak until Fitzgerald declares the investigation for all intents and purposes over.

Also, I read in the Note - though they have their head so far up their ass that I can't always tell when their tongue is in their cheek - that Armitage is supposed to be on Charlie Rose today.

[margaret]

This is so interesting. Only Luskin is talking about what Fitzgerald "said" to him. But, Fitzgerald hasn't made his own statement. So, I'm perfectly happy to wait a bit longer and see if Luskin is blowing his usual smoke, or if this new little turn of events has a deeper significance other than letting kLouse von Rove off the hook. You know, kind of like, maybe the possibility that Fitzgerald is playing Rove like a fisherman plays a fish on the line...giving him some slack before the final "gottcha" jerk.

[CMike]

From the Guardian article cited by Emptywheel:

Fitzgerald also said he doesn't anticipate any fights with the White House over witnesses he plans to call at Libby's trial in January. Fitzgerald has indicated that he might call witnesses ranging from Cheney to former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer and former State Department official Marc Grossman.

Fitzgerald is not likely to be misdirecting the court as to his intentions. If Fitzgerald says he might call Vice-President Cheney to the stand in a Libby trial that would mean the prosecutor does not expect to be indicting Cheney; at least not between now and then. Emptywheel?

[emptywheel]

Jeff

I completely disagree with you about Cheney and his reputation on this issue. Recall the timing: Shuster fucks up and suggests Libby's team, and not Fitz, have talked about the introducing the NIE. Jeffress issues a press release as fast as he can, even though it exposes him to the risk of a gag order. That weekend, Cheney has one too many drinks and shoots an old man in the face. And since then, Cheney has been suffering from a mean case of narcolepsy.

The attention of this case is getting to Cheney. Badly. Well I agree that Cheney doesn't want to be loved, Cheney also thinks a criminal investigation into his doings is an indignity that a Vice President shouldn't legally have to undergo. Plus, Cheney's goal for this administration was to leap executive power, past where it got reversed under Nixon, much further. An investigation into his acts will ruin that goal.

Also, honestly, if Rove has flipped with Bush's approval, I think it's a crystal clear indication that Libby's surefire pardon is no longer so surefire. I could be wrong there, and I'm sure Libby's got a much better sense than I what this means, but if I were him, I'd be thinking a lot more about my own protection. Does that mean Libby'll flip? Probably not, you're right about fanatical loyalty to Libby. But does that mean Fitzgerald wouldn't try to push him to do so? Hope.

When is Charlie Rose, and can I stream it?

CMike

Until Fitz has issued more indictments, he will treat this as the only case he's got. And he will continue to try to convince Libby to settle. One good way to do that is to continue convincing him that going to trial won't accomplish the one thing Libby's lies were designed to accomplish, saving Cheney's ass. If Fitz has more on Cheney, it no longer serves Libby or the cabal to draw this out.

[fireback]

CMike,
I think you have to look at the timing of when Fitz said he might call Cheney as a witness. Was it before or after the Leopold reported meeting (May 12th) between Rove's attorney and Fitz.

Some don't give much credence to Leopold's report, but based on his and his editors conviction, I believe there may be some truth in there.

I suspect in some future filing we might see some enlightenment on this. I agree though, it seems a correction to the court is in order if the Rove-flipping-against-Cheney holds true.

[fireback]

On second thought, as I just read at FDL, what if Rove is flipping against Libby, to put added pressure on him to flip against Cheney?

[Jeff]

emptywheel

Complete disagreement - what I live for! This one goes a little to your point at the Plame panel, which really got me thinking, about bloggers' perhaps distinctive ability to focus on character. (Two of my thoughts were: we're not all Dickens, now are we? Plus he made his characters up, after all!) Character is tough to get at from afar, especially in a highly charged political context; I'm thrilled when I can predict a single, very localized action by a very close friend I've known for years which has no geopolitical consequences whatsoever. But I do have to agree with you that some of the revelations do seem to have gotten to Cheney, although I remember thinking a different reporter's reporting had to do with the Cheney shooting. I completely disagree that Cheney has been slowed down much in his project for the imperial presidency on steroids. But you're probably right that the case has been tough on him in some way. So I have to give up complete disagreement on that one.

As for Charlie Rose, I confirmed it with the pbs website, Armitage is on today. I can't find any way to stream it, but you can check there for your local station. For me, it's not on until quite late, which is a bummer. But I strongly suspect Armitage will be laying his role out, and that probably means that he too has been cleared by Fitzgerald. Unless it's a preemptive explanation for a deal on his part? In any case, I have to imagine it means his role and status in the case is now fixed.

[Jeff]

CMike

It's worth noting that Fitzgerald has apparently not specified to the court that Cheney will or might be a witness. That report is just getting it from Fitzgerald's recent rebuffing of the defense's claim that Fitzgerald positively indicated that Cheney would not be a witness. Fitzgerald is not saying either way at this point. So there's not much to read off of what he said in court yesterday, from the reports anyway.

[jane hamsher]

First thing I thought about when I read that, ew, was that scene by the pool and the 2 1/2 hands that went up. I honestly don't see what the big fuss is about. Whatever Fitzgerald wanted he got without the expense (and circus) of a trial. As you noted we don't know what he wanted and Johnston's extrapolation is either sloppy or poorly attributed (we discussed that tendency too this weekend, and I think we were guessing towards the former). Anyway you're right, the last guest was not there at the time, and he -- and everyone else there -- indicated they thought Cheney was the big fish in this. I personally have no doubt that we'll be hearing more on the Big Time front real soon.