home

O'Donnell Has Questions Re: Rove

By Jeralyn, Section Valerie Plame Leak Case
Posted on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 02:53:47 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Lawrence O'Donnell has three questions for Robert Luskin, Karl Rove's attorney. The first is whether Luskin was notified that Rove is a subject (as opposed to target) of the grand jury - Lawrence explains the difference. (So do I, here.)

On 10/16/04, (available on lexis.com)the New York Times reported:

"....Mr. Luskin said Mr. Rove was not discussing his testimony because prosecutors had asked him not to do so. In addition, Mr. Luskin said, Mr. Rove has been notified in writing that he is not a target of the inquiry."

"... In the inquiry into the unauthorized disclosure of Ms. Plame's name, the prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, has told most of the people who have testified that they are subjects of the investigation."

''He has been cooperating fully from the beginning,'' Mr. Luskin said after the grand jury appearance. Mr. Rove has previously testified to the grand jury, although multiple appearances do not necessarily signify that a witness is suspected of wrongdoing. He was also interviewed at least once by F.B.I. investigators, who last fall conducted a preliminary inquiry in the case."

So in addition to perjury before the grand jury, Fitzgerald could be investigating making a false statement to a federal official under 18 USC 1001. I also wouldn't discount conspiracy to commit obstruction of justice.

Lawrence's third question is this one:

Since Time delivered its e-mails to the prosecutor on Friday, have you asked the prosecutor whether Rove’s status has changed? From witness to subject? Or subject to target?

< Sex Offender Was a Blogger | Prosecutor Addresses Jail Requests for Judith Miller >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    O'Donnell Has Questions Re: Rove | 8 comments (8 topical)
    Re: O'Donnell Has Questions Re: Rove (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:52 PM EST
    I would like to know when Mr. Rove was notified in writing that he was not a target.

    Re: O'Donnell Has Questions Re: Rove (none / 0) (#2)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:52 PM EST
    Yes, that is the question, isn't it. We'll know soon enough.

    Re: O'Donnell Has Questions Re: Rove (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:52 PM EST
    Newsday (New York) October 16, 2004:
    Washington attorney Robert Luskin said in an interview with Newsday that his client Rove has voluntarily appeared before the grand jury and has been cooperating with the probe since it began more than a year ago. He added that Rove has been assured in writing, as recently as this week, that he is not a target of the investigation being conducted by special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald.


    Re: O'Donnell Has Questions Re: Rove (none / 0) (#4)
    by jarober on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:52 PM EST
    Sadly for TL and the rest of the left deperately in search of any club to beat the administration with, it looks like the information flow went the other way. Seriously - if you thought about this for even a second, can you imagine Time Magazine or the NY Times sitting on evidence that Rove was the source prior to the election? Good gosh, the media nearly wet itself over the faked memos - there's no way they would have sat on that story. An application of Occam's razor would have told you that.

    Re: O'Donnell Has Questions Re: Rove (none / 0) (#5)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:53 PM EST
    James, You're grasping, bud. The entire case here revolves around retribution. Plame's identity was leaked by the administration as RETRIBUTION for her husband's inability to be a lackey and company man for bushco. And faked memos? Are you still clinging to the notion that all of this stuff is just made up? The validity of the Downing Street Memo has been verified by the British Government. Have you heard them dispute the contents? Are any of the parties suing on the basis that it contains false information about them? And bud, the reverse flow of information suggested as a possibility in the WAPO piece STILL REQUIRES THE LEAK OF HER IDENITY BY THE ADMINISTRATION IN THE FIRST PLACE! Or are you claiming that these reporters gained this knowledge through clairvoyance? If they continued the leak by passing it on to others during their interviews, then that's another matter to be dealt with, but IT HAS NOTHING TO DO with how Plame was outed by Novak in the first place, a mere eight days after her husband reported the ugly truth.

    Re: O'Donnell Has Questions Re: Rove (none / 0) (#6)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:53 PM EST
    dadler - Uh, I think he was referring to the Rathergate memos, dude. You do remember that, don't you? As to who did what, I think we are still sorting that out. Or do you think we can just tell the GJ and SP to go home, ole dadler knows it all?

    Re: O'Donnell Has Questions Re: Rove (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:53 PM EST
    If the written notification Rove received prior to Oct.16, 2004 is the one Luskin is referring to, quite alot has happened between then and now. If Rove's status has changed recently, Mr. Luskin may not be entirely forthright in his comment, but, on the other hand, he wouldn't be lying either.

    Re: O'Donnell Has Questions Re: Rove (none / 0) (#8)
    by jarober on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:56 PM EST
    Dadler: "And faked memos? Are you still clinging to the notion that all of this stuff is just made up? The validity of the Downing Street Memo has been verified by the British Government. Have you heard them dispute the contents? Are any of the parties suing on the basis that it contains false information about them?" 1) I was referring to Rathergate 2) As to the "Downing Street Memos", you might wanto actually read them, keeping in mind how the British use the term "fixed". Those memos don't mean what you think they mean when you understand the colloquialisms. 3) As to the information on Plame, it's been widely reported that Plame's identity as a CIA employee was widely known on the NY and DC cocktail circuit frequented by Wilson. i.e., her identity was an open secret among the cognoscenti. I still stand by my Occam's razor comment. Regardless of your thoughts on news media bias/lack thereof, had the Times (and/or Time) had evidence that Rove outed Plame before the election, it would have been a big story. The fact that Cooper and Miller never wrote that story ought to tell you something.

    O'Donnell Has Questions Re: Rove | 8 comments (8 topical)