home

Karl Rove and Fitzgerald's Timing

By Jeralyn, Section Valerie Plame Leak Case
Posted on Mon May 22, 2006 at 04:10:42 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

MSNBC reporter David Shuster said on Hardball tonight. Crooks and Liars has the video:

Rove's legal team and former prosecutors tracking the investigation expect Patrick Fitzgerald to announce a decision at any time.

Rove's legal team tells me differently. Rove spokesman Mark Corallo told me a few minutes ago that as they have been saying for weeks, the timing is still unknown and there is nothing new to suggest it will be tomorrow or even this week. In fact, "we have no expectation on timing anymore. "

Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, earlier today confirmed to me that "there has never been any discussion of any plea under any circumstances whatsoever." He added, "as a defense lawyer, you'll understand that if a prosecutor hasn't figured out whether or not he thinks a charge is appropriate, plea discussions are a bit premature."

He also said that each time Truthout tries to justify its reporting of a sealed indictment, "mythical secret service detail" and locked-down meeting at Patton Boggs with Fitzgerald, Rove and his lawyers last week, the story "gets more far-fetched."

< Wired News Publishes Sealed AT&T Documents Online | Al Gore: The Hottest Star in Cannes >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Karl Rove and Fitzgerald's Timing | 19 comments (19 topical)
    Re: Karl Rove and Fitzgerald's Timing (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 04:40:57 PM EST
    Of course, in a broad sense "at any time" and "the timing is still unknown" mean exactly the same thing: i.e. we have no f*ing idea, really. It's just that the one (Shuster, who has been predicting an imminent indictment for a few weeks now) is speculating that it might come soon, and the other, i.e. Rove's defense team, want to spin it that, really, nothing's been going on, they're just caring for sick cats and making cotton candy with their kids, and they've barely even been thinking of Fitz, who's he again? I'm sure that's how they'll continue to spin it until the day Fitz gives his news conference, or, alternatively, until they can crow that Rove is entirely in the clear ...

    Re: Karl Rove and Fitzgerald's Timing (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 04:51:48 PM EST
    In the post today, Luskin pretty much reiterating what he has told Talk Left- Rove Lawyer Has a Pet Peeve By Howard Kurtz Luskin calls the reports "absolutely bizarre. I'm waiting for him to tell me whether Fitzgerald had the chicken or the pasta. . . . There was no meeting, no communication with Fitzgerald's team of any kind."

    Re: Karl Rove and Fitzgerald's Timing (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 05:06:56 PM EST
    Sandy, thanks, I saw that. All I can say is you heard it here first -- a week ago.

    Re: Karl Rove and Fitzgerald's Timing (none / 0) (#1)
    by joejoejoe on Mon May 22, 2006 at 05:09:56 PM EST
    MSNBC reporter David Shuster. [TL: Thanks, I fixed it.]

    Re: Karl Rove and Fitzgerald's Timing (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 05:32:29 PM EST
    I really hate to get hooked up with these "hints and allegations," but I so want this bastard to squirm.

    Re: Karl Rove and Fitzgerald's Timing (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 05:32:33 PM EST
    Why doesn't someone ask Luskin to produce the vet receipt for his cat?

    Re: Karl Rove and Fitzgerald's Timing (none / 0) (#7)
    by Patriot Daily on Mon May 22, 2006 at 05:49:50 PM EST
    Jeralyn: Some questions for my expert defense lawyer: (1) If, as reported by Jason based upon 3 sources and knowledge that some MSM had one source, Rove was already indicted, and indictment sealed, could it be that Fitzgerald would work out an agreement with Rove to cooperate in exchange for sealing and sitting on the indictment? This would provide Fitzgerald with leverage so that should Rove stop cooperating at some point with the prosecutor, Fitzgerald could just whip out the indictment and proceed to trial quickly. This would serve Rove's purpose of trying to avoid trial and/or reduce jail time and keeping things mum until after midterms and could serve Fitzgerald by getting key evidence against bigger fish, like perhaps Cheney. Only problem is that if true, we would not know perhaps until after the trials were completed years down the road, unless some leaker leaked the indictment papers. (2) Could such a Fitzgerald-Rove agreement be called something other than "plea" agreement? If it is always customary to call such a deal a plea agreement, my next question is could defense lawyers arrange to call the "plea" agreement by some other name, such as settlement agreement or witness cooperation agreement, so that Rove could avoid the stigma of plea agreement or try to spin that it was not a plea agreement?

    Re: Karl Rove and Fitzgerald's Timing (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 05:58:39 PM EST
    Yes, Jeralyn, some kind of euphemism that would play for public consumption....much like the Limbaugh deal. Very Rovesque.

    Re: Karl Rove and Fitzgerald's Timing (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 06:04:14 PM EST
    Luskin has unequivocally denied there is a plea agreement or that there have been plea negotiations of any kind. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

    Re: Karl Rove and Fitzgerald's Timing (none / 0) (#11)
    by Pol on Mon May 22, 2006 at 06:30:34 PM EST
    Luskin has unequivocally denied there is a plea agreement or that there have been plea negotiations of any kind. Do you have evidence to the contrary? Since when do we believe a word Luskin says? I believe that Fitzgerald DID meet with Rove in a 15-hour meeting. I believe that what happened after that is classic Rovian. Rove's cronies contacted Leopold with the story of the meeting, expecting it to spread like wild-fire across the blogosphere. This was to innoculate Rove when the news actually broke. Lefties would be up in arms about the impending indictment, like we did with Dan Rather and 60 Minutes. Rove would then get the media to slam weblogs, ala Howie Kurtz today, saying we react to rumors, not facts, and going for a real blow to the jugular and the legitimacy of blogs -- the only effective tool we have in this election year to communicate what really happens in this country. The media emphasis and outcry would be on the blogs and by the time Fitz announced the indictment, people might even feel sorry for ol' Karl. Unfortunately, bloggers and commentors did not fall for it, and Kurtz's column coming off as sounding rather biased and ineffective.

    Re: Karl Rove and Fitzgerald's Timing (none / 0) (#12)
    by Patriot Daily on Mon May 22, 2006 at 06:37:22 PM EST
    No evidence to the contrary, just curious. Rove likely had a hand, just guessing, in Bush's penchant for Orwellian names - like terrorist surveillance program to replace illegal spying, Clear Skies initiative for air polluting law - so I am wondering, is it out of the question for defense lawyers to work out a more politically acceptable name to be used instead of plea agreement, like witness cooperation agreement? While it is true that a plea agreement is a plea agreement, it is also true that if Rove's plea agreement were called witness cooperation agreement, for example, then Luskin would be technically truthful with his response to you. Alternatively, if there really has not been any plea agreement or plea negotiations, does that just leave 2 possibilities: (1) Fitzgerald decided to not negotiate a plea and went simply to indictment or (2) Jason and the MSM sources were just misinformed such that there has been no plea agreement, no plea discussions and no indictment. If Luskin's denial is truthful, and excludes orwellian names, is there any other possibility?

    Re: Karl Rove and Fitzgerald's Timing (none / 0) (#9)
    by roxtar on Mon May 22, 2006 at 06:37:51 PM EST
    If there's a plea and an agreement, it's a plea agreement. Rove can call it the Spring Cotillion if he likes, but that doesn't make it anything other than a plea agreement, just like when a $5 crack wh*re bargains soliciting down to loitering.

    Re: Karl Rove and Fitzgerald's Timing (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 06:57:02 PM EST
    TL- Did Kurtz contact you for his column? I'm wondering if he just pulled the cat stool quote from your report without attribution, or whether it's a canned line that Luskin's been using with everyone?

    Re: Karl Rove and Fitzgerald's Timing (none / 0) (#14)
    by ltgesq on Mon May 22, 2006 at 07:36:08 PM EST
    i have seen indictments under seal before in large drug conspiracies where they need to file the indictment to lock in the statute of limitations, but don't want the rest of the conspirators to know who is cooperating (or who has been arrested for that matter.) Whether there is a plea, "a precharge adjustment", or any other agreement is a matter of semantics. What lawyer is going to confirm that his client is a cooperating witness under a sealed indictment? Patience is a virtue we should all enjoy right now. I look on a potential rove indictment as an unscratched lottery ticket. Its a wonderful dream that will most likely be better than the reality.

    Re: Karl Rove and Fitzgerald's Timing (none / 0) (#15)
    by Sydnie on Mon May 22, 2006 at 08:43:06 PM EST
    Posted by w0551 May 22, 2006 07:57 PM TL- Did Kurtz contact you for his column? I'm wondering if he just pulled the cat stool quote from your report without attribution, or whether it's a canned line that Luskin's been using with everyone?
    I was wondering the exact same thing or has this become a part of his "pat answer"? Let's see, Luskin takes is cat to the vet, Corallo is making cotton candy ... just a bunch of "regular" guys without a worry in the world. When have you ever heard a lawyer talk that much about their private life in an attempt to disprove something?

    Re: Karl Rove and Fitzgerald's Timing (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 08:56:08 PM EST
    I was a bit perplexed by O'Donnell's interview on MSNBC/Countdown. He fairly stridently distanced himself (while not naming names) from TO and seemed to be overcompensating toward Rove on his answers. Who knows, this story is always reaching its nasty little tentacles out to burn someone and he may be afraid of stepping in a cowpie. He normally has great analytical insight but his fear overcame that option.

    Re: Karl Rove and Fitzgerald's Timing (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 09:10:18 PM EST
    You know, Jeralyn, the most fascinating aspect of this entire affair has been your new-found access to Luskin's and Corallo's ears. Think about it. Those two, and by default Rove, now have a foot in the door of the liberal blogosphere. The implications are numerous. Not merely their obvious ability to manipulate their message among us, but also their ability to get a story spread without the MSM. While on the one hand, they're using the right-leaning mainstream media to sully blogs as fanatical rumor mills, and with the other they're giving the pretense of respect. Not that I think you would succumb, but I just have to say it anyway, beware the seduction of direct source cultivation.

    Re: Karl Rove and Fitzgerald's Timing (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 10:24:17 PM EST
    w0551 -- Mr. Kurtz did not contact me before writing his story. The similarities are quite obvious, so either he read them on TalkLeft but didn't say so or he got the same quotes independently from Mr. Corallo or Mr. Luskin.

    Re: Karl Rove and Fitzgerald's Timing (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 23, 2006 at 02:59:20 AM EST
    A lawyer of Mr. Luskin's experience when asked a point blank question about a meeting or a purportedly sealed indictment or plea negotiations will say something like "I'm not commenting on that." or "My obligation to my client forbids me to comment on that matter." He will not lie outright for two rather good reasons: first, if he suspects his client is going to be indicted or (and this is wildly unlikely) has been indicted under seal, his lie will be found out to the detriment of his client; second, a lawyer making positive and false statements repeatedly to the press is going to be hauled before the Bar and disciplined. Important as Rove may be to President Bush, from Luskin's perspective he is simply another client and not worth losing a rather lucrative career lying to protect. And, before, the less informed begin the "all lawyers - especially ones who defend Rethugligans - are liars" you might remember that your hostess is a lawyer and so, for better or worse, is St. Fitz. Lawyers operate under a canon of ethics; Truthout, not so much, Jason Leopold, even less.

    Karl Rove and Fitzgerald's Timing | 19 comments (19 topical)