home

EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove

Sometimes people just don't know when to cry "uncle." I do. I asked Robert Luskin this morning if Karl Rove has made a deal with Fitzgerald. His response:

There has never, ever been any discussion of a deal in any way, shape or form.

Which is exactly what Luskin told me weeks ago. It's over, folks. Karl Rove will not be charged with a crime. He's cooperated with Fitzgerald by testifying to the grand jury five times and providing whatever information he had without a safety net. Without a 5k. Without assurances he would not be indicted. That's a hell of a risk, but Luskin pulled it off. My hat's off to Luskin.

I opined repeatedly on TalkLeft and HuffPo that Karl Rove would be charged at least with making a false statement to investigators in the fall of 2003 before a grand jury was convened -- the Martha Stewart crime. That was wrong.

I'm ready to put this to bed. Karl Rove walked. He's one of the rare subjects of an investigation who was able to talk his way out of an Indictment.

And yes, I think Jason needs to out his sources. If there was and will be no Indictment of Rove, his sources lied. If any are lawyers at Patton Boggs, I hope they lose their jobs and their law licenses.

As for Joseph Wilson's lawyer's statement, it appears to me his lawyer is threatening a civil suit.

Will there be more indictments? I'm not ready to speculate right now.

Update: 7:30 pm, new thread discussing Rove is here. Jane at Firedoglake weighs in, as do Empty Wheel and Digby.

< No Charges for Rove in PlameGate | Sealed Case 06cr00128 and Outing Sources >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#1)
    by rdandrea on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 10:27:12 AM EST
    Agreed. It's over. Now let's go win ourselves an election. It's a better use of our time anyway.

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#2)
    by Sydnie on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 10:33:10 AM EST
    I saw civil suit in that statement too. I hope he goes forward with it and soon. Civil charges caught OJ, they could catch Rove too. Reasonable doubt off the table, I think they could gather enough evidence to show that Rove contributed to this mess in a civil court just fine. Thanks TL. Have you tried to contact Leopold or just Luskin? I would be interested in what Jason would tell you at this point.

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 10:33:21 AM EST
    I agree with rdandrea, now it's time for the American people to do what Fitz couldn't.

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#4)
    by cmpnwtr on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 10:37:00 AM EST
    Would you congratulate someone who helped the cause of criminality and the deceptions that led the world into a war of terrible proportions? Wilson said that this is not about his wife, it's about the decision to bring war to another country based on lies. I think this is a terrible failure of jusice. Because a lawyer uses skill to thwart justice is no cause for congratulations. This is a day to grieve the death of our constitution, the rule of law, and accountability over the thugs who bring hundreds of thousands to their deaths. Fitzgerald has failed. Does collegial admiration supersede all other values here?

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#5)
    by cynicalgirl on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 10:44:29 AM EST
    Thanks for setting the record straight. I hate to be grasping at straws, but I assume that if Cheney is indicted, Karl will cooperate. Even if there is no deal.

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 10:44:45 AM EST
    This is a first and foremost a criminal defense site. Yes, it's important to recognize and applaud the skills of fellow defense lawyers. Fitzgerald has always been just a prosecutor, not a superhero to me. We shouldn't look to the criminal justice system to solve every conceivable social and political ill. And that includes going to war under false pretenses, which we did. I view that as the fault of the voters who put Bush into office in 2000 and 2004. It's time to focus on getting him and the Republicans out, rather than continuing to hope a prosecutor will do our work for us.

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#8)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 10:50:51 AM EST
    Gosh TL, your faith in Luskin is rather disarming. Hard to know what to think now, as every cell in my body is screaming that Luskin is spinning. Not being a lawyer, I have no experience regarding the code of honor that criminal defense lawyers share. It must be a strong one for Jeralyn to throw in the towel, because she has long speculated that Rove had a deal. Does this news reduce the chances that Cheney is going down? Rove was, up till now, the rat forced to squeal on Cheney in order to save his own a$$.

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 10:52:16 AM EST
    Cynical Girl: "I assume that if Cheney is indicted, Karl will cooperate. Even if there is no deal." I think that's right.

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 10:52:42 AM EST
    There was no 15 hour meeting. There was no 4th floor "lockdown". There was no 24 hour deadline. There was no calling in of the Attorney General to the GJ. There was no indictment. There was no "deal". It was ALL a pack of lies, none of it ever happened and there were multiple impeccable sources for that fact - the very people named as involved all of whom issued repeated, unqualified, direct, on the record denials. All of this was obvious weeks ago. What a sad episode. Although I do not agree with TalkLeft's politics I used to respect the site - and did even up until the Zarqawi post a few days ago. I even posted elsewhere how embarrassed I was for you. Yet even this morning an entire comment thread below is filled with denial. This is a story of how irrational hate can be manipulated by shysters. There was only one honorable thing to do and I applaud TalkLeft for doing it. Calling for Leopold to out his sources is what is need, that's what TalkLeft has done. Talkleft thinks Leopold was lied to, I think Leopold is the liar. Keep the pressure on him and let's find out.

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#10)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 10:57:44 AM EST
    I wonder if Jeralyn wakes up every morning and says "Gees, I hope I don't lose DaveW as a reader". My guess is, not. I think Leopold should be investigated and let him stay in the papers every day as people await for his indictment, should be fun reading. Of course, Leopold did not twist intel to land us into a war that has cost Americans well over 200 billion but that is not the issue now is it? Leopold needs a Ruskin....

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#11)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 11:03:51 AM EST
    "This is a story of how irrational hate can be manipulated by shysters" Kinda like that lynch mob you've got going over in Iraq.

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#12)
    by anon55 on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 11:09:16 AM EST
    *****Jason Leopold to appear on Ed Schultz Show @ 3:30 p.m.**** Link to article

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 11:13:13 AM EST
    So, people are ridiculous for not taking Robert Luskin's word on what Fitzgerald said, when he's been spinning hard for months? People are ridiculous for parsing his words, when he's been carefully crafting statements from day one? In the immortal words of Peggy Noonan, "Is it irresponsible to speculate? It is irresponsible not to."

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#14)
    by Dadler on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 11:16:42 AM EST
    Jeralyn, Thanks for all the reporting of info on this case, and for the reasoned, self-critical conclusion. Once again you show what a consumate pro you are -- a truly great mix of passion, ability, humility, and equanimity. A credit to genuine liberalism. Another donation coming TL's way.

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 11:21:35 AM EST
    What Luskin told TL is not inconsistent with Rove cooperating, and managing to dodge a big fat bullet. A "deal" would be Karl Rove cooperating and pleading guilty to a lesser charge, to avoid a more heavy duty charge. Okay, so there was no deal and no talk of one. Rove and Luskin were so scared s***less he'd be indicted that they cooperated fully without the deal, and in the end they managed to get away without being indicted at all. I for one, almost from the begining, felt that Cheney was more likely the kingpin of this operation. An indictment of Rove would have giuven me personal satisfaction, sure. But the guy who needs to be taken down for the Plame matter is Vice President Dick Cheney (plus Libby and all the rest of the cohorts).

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 11:25:03 AM EST
    One other thing. In a few months, when it all comes out, I think this case will show "sqealing" in a positive light.

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#17)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 11:30:30 AM EST
    Libby Sosume- Like the silent falling tree, all deals implied and never stated. I like that idea.
    I for one, almost from the begining, felt that Cheney was more likely the kingpin of this operation.
    As you know TL has believed, as I do, Cheney is the kingpin and has been in Fitz's sights for a long time. Hope that doesn't turn out to be another falling tree that went silent into the night.

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 11:44:15 AM EST
    Leopold will be on Ed Schultz at 3:30 EST - should be interesting ...

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 11:45:36 AM EST
    Libby, I agree with you. That's what I meant about not having a safety net. Luskin said months ago Rove was cooperating fully without any promises. Had Rove been indicted that strategy would be seen as a disaster. I doubt I would have the nerves of steel required to advise a client to do that. And yes, Luskin made it sound like Rove was cooperating because it was his civic duty, as I said here:
    [Luskin] reiterated [to Raw Story] that Rove has been cooperating fully since day 1. Shorter version: Rove is an American hero, not a rat. Sorry, but I don't buy it. Luskin and Rove obviously would prefer Rove to come off as Mr. Truth, Justice and the American Way -- a helpful White House official who told the truth and let the chips fall where they may -- rather than as a rat who sold out his confederates in order to avoid jail -- but no matter how they try to whitewash it, it's a rollover.
    I still think Rove incriminated Cheney and others in the VP's office -- he's just not getting anything for it officially. That's a big deal, because if he were, Libby's lawyers would have to be told of the deal and could use it in cross-examination if Rove testified at trial. Now, Fitz has preserved Rove's reputation which could make him a star witness. Perhaps this was Fitz's intention -- to create an unimpeachable witness against Libby and others.

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#20)
    by fireback on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 11:46:55 AM EST
    Wait, Wait, Wait a minute. Jeralyn, I hate to parse here, but I have to. If Rove offers to tell the truth from here on out (i.e. cooperate). And Fitz says if you do I "do not anticipate seeking charges". Has he struck a deal? Or simply agreed to be truthful without having to publically announce any "deal". I hate to feed this anymore, but I don't trust these guys at all. If Fitz's ultimate goal is to get Cheney, it would not surprise me at all to see him make some unusual "arrangements" to get testimony. You may be right. But I think there is way too much circumstantial evidence to conclude, without Fitz saying so himself that is is "over". I'll be standing by until then.

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#21)
    by fireback on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 11:50:20 AM EST
    TL, I just read your post while I was writing. I think I may have misread your original post. I agree. Thanks for your additional legal insight.

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#22)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 11:54:31 AM EST
    Perhaps this was Fitz's intention -- to create an unimpeachable witness against Libby and others.
    Yes it is never good to underestimate Fitz. Nice to imagine a silver lining here.

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 11:59:18 AM EST
    It's pretty bold speculation that Luskin is telling you the whole and literal truth in that handcrafted line of his. Do you have any supporting evidence for its veracity besides this call? I'm sure we can all cite past examples where his forthrightness has been masked, incomplete, or deliberately misleading. And it's considered good practice to get more than one source before jumping to conclusions that the rest of the evidence casts as unlikely. The only scoop I see revealed here is that Luskin has made another unsubstantiated claim that must be carefully parsed until its true relationship with the facts is fully revealed. It might depend on the meaning of an "innocent" misunderstanding of what he thought you meant by "a deal". I also didn't find Luskin's explanation at all convincing as to why he wouldn't provide a full description of any conditions on the announcement of intent. Frankly, I'm a bit surprised that you did.

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 12:03:03 PM EST
    I think the only way Rove could have avoided an indictment was to give Fitzgerald everything he wanted. Since we know it had to be dragged out of him, he surely would have been indicted for lying, unless he finally went in and told the grand jury that he was ordered to do it... who, what, when, why, where. If they have all the testimony, and at least some of the evidence, this should mean we are going to learn who the traitor in chief was pretty soon. Seems to me, given the condition of congress and the SCOTUS, the ONLY thing functioning enough to get any wrongs righted is through the justice system. It might not be the BEST option, but it seems the only door left open a crack.

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#25)
    by Andreas on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 12:04:06 PM EST
    Talkleft wrote: "We shouldn't look to the criminal justice system to solve every conceivable social and political ill. And that includes going to war under false pretenses, which we did." I agree with the first sentence as much as I disagree with the second one. That "going to war under false pretenses" was a war crime which has cost the lives of tens of thousands of people. Those who are responsible for that crime should be put on trial, convicted and punished according to the principles of the Nuremberg War-Crimes Trial. And, yes, I think that several leaders of the Democratic Party who helped to organise the war probably also are war criminals. They should be put on trial as well. But George W. Bush, Richard Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld and the other mass murderers will not be put on trial when there is no broad political movement which is directed not simply against US imperialism but against capitalism as a whole. *** Talkleft then wrote: "I view that as the fault of the voters who put Bush into office in 2000 and 2004." George W. Bush came into office in 2000 based on fraud and the shameless capitulation of the candidate of the Democratic Party. And he won in 2004 because the candidate of the Democratic Party also supported the criminal war. Blaming the voters for that and to ask them again to support a Democratic candidate during the next Presidential Election defies logic.

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 12:04:11 PM EST
    Sorry for any confusion. Sometimes the legal parlance gets in the way. Because of the sentencing guidelines, lawyers think of cooperation as meaning one gets something back for it. (the 5k, "the deal"). That's what I was wrong about in my prior writings. Rove went in on a high wire, without a 5k or deal or promises and Fitz either decided to believe him or for other reasons, such as to preserve his integrity as a witness against others, not to charge him. Either way, Luskin has maintained all along he cooperated fully with no guarantees and now has been told Rove will not be charged. So legally, there is no deal. But that doesn't mean Fitz didn't decide to reward Rove. The case is over as to Rove. We don't know if it's over as to everyone, and I'm still anxious to learn which of the other witnesses against Libby took deals or got immunity.

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 12:06:52 PM EST
    Ah, like fireback above, I just saw your clarification.

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 12:10:57 PM EST
    A more fully developed version of "doesn't anticipate."
    Luskin had just received a fax from Patrick Fitzgerald, the special counsel in the case, saying that he was formally notifying Luskin that absent any unexpected developments, he does not anticipate seeking any criminal charges against Rove.


    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 12:12:41 PM EST
    Jeralyn: While Luskin's comment seems unequivocal, lets be realistic. You are not MSM. He could have just as easily given this exact quote to the NYT and he did not. So I'm not prepared to assume 'its over.' While there has been much speculation about a cooperation agreement this morning (which Luskin is attempting to shoot down) I find this quote from last evening curious: "...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...." Is there any need - even for courtesy - for Fitzgerald to notify Judge Hogan - if in the exercise of his prosecutorial discretion he chooses NOT to bring charges? That seems backwards. Rather one would go to the presiding Judge of the Grand Jury to notify him OF an action (not a lack thereof) or to ask him to approve an action. Lastly, there is no reason for Sanborn not to confirm if Rove was truly the innocent accused. This is similar to Fitzgerald's visit to the office of Joe Sharp, the President's personal attorney, on the morning of the announcement of the Libby indictment. If he wished to inform the President as the head of the Executive Branch (since indicting a senior member of the Executive Branch is significant) managerially and procedurally, he should have visited the White House Counsel's Office, or in the alternative, informed Margolis to bring it up the chain of command..... Inspector Gregory: "Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?" Holmes: "To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time." "The dog did nothing in the night time" "That was the curious incident," remarked Sherlock Holmes. From "The Adventure of Silver Blaze" by Arthur Conan Doyle

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#30)
    by scribe on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 12:13:01 PM EST
    TL: Ok, if you say so. I agree on the "working without a net" - very (insanely) gutsy from Gold Bars' POV, but a strategy that allows Fitz to put Rover on w/o any cross-examination fodder about deals. It winds up being a mutually benficial arrangement, but it's only one which can be pulled off with a client who's disciplined. And, in the event Rover welshes or worse, there's still a couple years left on the statute of limitations. Which will keep the minds of everyone on his side of the table concentrated, or at least focused. On Leopold burning his sources, if it's not time already, it will be in a few days. I'm of two minds on how, if they're Patton Boggs folks (an assumption), they would/should be treated. For all we know, all those things Leopold reported could have happened, or those sources could have been directed to sow that story for some propaganda/PR purpose we have yet to discern. OT, did you notice Barbara Comstock is going to work PR for House Appropriations Committee Chair Jerry Lewis and that he's lawyered up? Busy girl, she.

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#31)
    by beefeater on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 12:14:08 PM EST
    What if the plan is for Rove to sue Leopold/Pitt, Truthout, DU, Wilson, et all for slander in order to put a chill an the blogs? Are their sources shielded? Drudge has been sued.

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#32)
    by Richard Aubrey on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 12:15:51 PM EST
    So what do you guys think of Armitage as The Man whodunnit?

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 12:16:34 PM EST
    Jeralyn, Thank you for your work and for taking a potentially contentious situation with Luskin and using it to keep us informed. Yes, Rove walked. Yes, he probably didn't (at least according to Fitzgerald) break the law. I would just like to point out, however, that there is a stark difference between illegal vs. unethical, a difference I point out with a little greater detail here. At some point it's GOT to not be acceptable to live with "Well, he didn't break the law". At some point, justice has to go beyond the rule of law and has to take into account the spirit of that law. Sour grapes from me? Sure. But more importantly, our judicial system took yet another blow today. I, for one, will be wearing a black band around my heart. . .

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 12:16:37 PM EST
    Fireback asks:
    If Rove offers to tell the truth from here on out (i.e. cooperate). And Fitz says if you do I "do not anticipate seeking charges". Has he struck a deal? Or simply agreed to be truthful without having to publically announce any "deal".
    That would be a deal. But, those aren't the facts as we know them. Rove swore to tell the truth every time he went to the grand jury -- not just "from here on out." He didn't take the 5th. He didn't have a deal then. Now he's been told he won't be charged. So, there is no deal. No quid pro quo. He cooperated with the investigation hoping not to be charged, and maybe hoping Fitz would find him more valuable as a witness than a defendant, and now he is not going to be charged.

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#35)
    by cmpnwtr on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 12:17:07 PM EST
    We shouldn't look to the criminal justice system to solve every conceivable social and political ill. And that includes going to war under false pretenses, which we did.
    I appreciate the response. I don't look to the criminal justice system for an answer to the ills of the Iraq war. There is no answer and the people of Iraq and the U.S. will pay the price for generations to come. But I do take Fitzgerald's word that a crime was committed involving the intentional leaking of a CIA agent. And the crime should be prosecuted. Just because the one investigated is a powerful member of the regime in power, or has a highly paid attorney, doesn't mean he should avoid prosecution. It is a failure of criminal justice, and Luskin helped to make it a failure. Fitzgerald is not a super-hero but he seems to have failed in his duty to prosecute a crime that is so central to the larger crime. This is a sad day for America.

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#36)
    by scribe on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 12:27:57 PM EST
    Oh, and for the folks now asking "Where can Karl Rove go to get his reputation back?" the fairest answer is "South Carolina's a good place to start". To go a little further, I think its a fair thing to say that, for a man who's made a living trashing others' and, in the words of other Repug activists being "out there ruining careers" while they were having a drink at the end of a hard day on the campaign trail, Rover's gotten off pretty lightly. As it stands now, he still has a job and has managed to stay out of court. For those who think his bringing a suit over his reputationm etc. would be a "good idea", they should think again and then STFU because that is about as stupid an idea as comes down the pike. If he were to start a suit he would be subject to discovery and every single flaw in his character would be open to being scattered across the public domain and every single instance of his mis-, mal-, non- and tortfeasance would be available to be placed before the jury. Not much limit on "prior bad acts" evidence in the civil side of the courthouse. And, for the finale, remember, in civil court, a plaintiff implicitly waives his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination by filing the complaint. In many jurisdictions, the plaintiff gets a choice - keep the Fifth Amendment right, or keep prosecuting the lawsuit, but not both. Even if one is in a jurisdiction where one is allowed to assert the Fifth and keep going on the suit, there is almost automatically an instruction given to the jury that they may draw an adverse inference, i.e., in their deliberations over his civil lawsuit they may consider him guilty of whatever it was he took the Fifth on. I think it highly unlikely Rover would sue. Not enough money to be gained from the damage and calumny he'd have to go through to get it.

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 12:30:03 PM EST
    Out of curiousity, when you write and their law licenses. Why their law licenses?

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#39)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 12:39:28 PM EST
    In my opinion, for a lawyer at a firm to breach the attorney client privilege of a firm's client by providing information about a client's case (like that the client has been indicted and turned down a deal) to the media without authorization should result in disbarment (and loss of a license.) I'm not saying that's what happened. I said "if."

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#40)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 12:44:52 PM EST
    I have to attend to my own clients now and will be offline the rest of the afternoon. I'll try to respond to any further comments tonight.

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 12:46:03 PM EST
    DC Gaffer: A few answers to your question. I don't think Luskin spoke to the New York Times, it's information seems to be gleaned from the press release Mark Corallo sent out (I published it here.) Perhaps the Times didn't ask Luskin that question. I'm not an MSM reporter, but I am a criminal defense lawyer as is Luskin. I think that's the main reason he is communicating with me. I trust him not to expressly lie to me just like he has decided to trust me to correctly relay his words to the blogosphere. He would (a) tell me he can't discuss it or (b) avoid communicating with me if he couldn't answer my question about whether there was a deal. Yes, it is natural for Fitz to tell the Judge Rove is not going to be indicted. It has been an issue in the Libby case for months, with Fitz saying he can't turn over info on Rove because the investigation as to him is ongoing. The only conclusion I can draw from all this is that the investigation as to Rove is complete, no charges will be brought, he has no "immunity" or deal, and that Fitzgerald may or may not bring charges against others in the future. I suspect if he does, information from Rove will prove critical in the new cases as a witness.

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 12:46:09 PM EST
    Ah I see, thank you. For the sake of arguing, because there just isn't enough of that on the internet, if the information they provided was false, then did they really breach confidentiality?

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#42)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 12:50:20 PM EST
    Jeff a commenter on emptywheel's Rove Will Not Be Charged thread points out that Armitage is going to be on Charlie Rose today.
    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


    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#43)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 12:54:10 PM EST
    Fair enough, TL. But having been - many decades ago - like Fitzgerald a Jesuit trained inner city high school kid, I know in my gut that he's not done. Maybe with Rove, for now, but there's more here than meets the eye.

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#44)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 12:55:25 PM EST
    From C & L
    Leoplod just said he wouldn't out his sources on Ed's show. He now says that it's a group decision with Truth Out.


    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#45)
    by jazzcattg1 on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 01:13:42 PM EST
    I too heard Leopold's explaination - I am amazed that he is standing by the original story and won't out his sources, as previously promised-

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#46)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 01:15:51 PM EST
    should be interesting to hear what JL has to say. seems like there is more to this story than Luskin's a great lawyer, Rove's cleared of charges and Jason got burned. there seems to be a piece missing from this puszzle . . .

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#47)
    by Patrick on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 01:20:24 PM EST
    Well that's that. I checked the Rove Indictment Contest thread, and saw I was the only one who predicted no indictment. One would think that meant I won the contest, but we should wait for a difinitive word from the judges. If I am judged the winner, please forward the $25 to Concerns of Police Survivors.

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#48)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 01:22:59 PM EST
    scribe--thanks for the education on civil law suits

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#49)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 01:23:45 PM EST
    99% of the sheeple, including reporters, don't comprehend the fact that a grand jury can return a True Bill to indict, and corrupt prosecutors routinely refuse to file motions with a judge to issue arrest warrants. So Rove could have been secretly indicted by a grand jury "under seal", and the US prosecutors, who are employed at the whim of Jr Bush, could have ignored the grand jury's order. I personally filed felony criminal charges against govt employees who confessed to 1,000s of felony car thefts, extortion and contract fraud, including Victor "Victoria" Ashe, then mayor of Knoxville Tennessee, now Bush Jr's ambassador to Poland. Leola McConnell, the Liberal Democratic candidate for Governor of Nevada in 2006, confirmed that Bush and Ashe are gay lovers, since at least their days in Skull & Bones at all-male Yale. I subpoenaed Ashe to ask him about his two arrests for gay crimes while a Tennessee legislator, but his govt trial lawyers quashed my subpoenas, and I later won that trial pro se. But the Knox County attorney general Randy Nichols has obstructed justice by refusing to allow me to file criminal charges for confessed theft of my two cars, extortion, mail fraud, official oppression, and confessed theft of 1,000s of other cars in Knoxville. So the Chicago grand juries may really have ordered the arrest of Karl Rove, along with the rest of the Gay Mafia tailhooking the White House. However, it does appear that probable cause does exist for any law enforcement officer to make a warrantless arrest of Rove, and for any person to make a citizen's arrest of Rove, based on what has been confessed by the Media Mafia. Even the grand jurors can arrest Rove by citizen's arrest. Prosecutors are not true gatekeepers, except when the sheeple choose to do nothing. Google the "Battle of Athens" Tennessee in 1947, to understand the power of citizens' arrest of an entire sheriff's dept for election fraud and other felonies. Apparently, the prosecutor also refused to prosecute the sheriff and his deputies, even tho they were all under arrest for attempting to murder voters at the polls. mcconnellforgovernor.com

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#50)
    by Patrick on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 01:27:36 PM EST
    Whoa! Have you talked with your doctor lately? Seriously, Pirate, get help.

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#51)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 01:30:36 PM EST
    The topic is a mine field of possible "actionable" public statements, but we all know that there are deals and then theres deals. Lets see the porcine one deal his way out of his karma. Remember Lee Atwater.

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#52)
    by Patrick on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 01:33:06 PM EST
    Jondee, It's good that you are an eternal optimist.

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#53)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 01:49:19 PM EST
    "06 cr 128" (Sealed vs. Sealed) (from Mark Ash at Truthout 13 June 2006) We know for certain several things about federal indictment "06 cr 128" (Sealed vs. Sealed). The indictment was returned by the same grand jury that has been hearing matters related to the Fitzgerald/Plame investigation. The indictment was filed in the time frame (around May the 10th) that the indictment of Karl Rove was first reported. The title of the indictment, Sealed vs. Sealed, is unusual. Typically a sealed federal indictment will be titled, "US vs. Sealed." The indictment has been sealed for roughly five weeks, an unusually long time (although not unheard-of). We know that experts watching the Fitzgerald/Plame investigation are keeping a very close eye on "06 cr 128" (Sealed vs. Sealed). We know that we attempted to contact Karl Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, on two occasions while researching this issue and both calls went unreturned. Should be interesting to hear what TL has to say about Sealed vs. Sealed. Probably has something to do with Cheney. If I am not mistaken, he is the highest ranking official that can be indicted.

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#54)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 01:51:04 PM EST
    I can't speak for Jason, but I, for one, am tired of "getting clowned" by this bunch. I wish he would...turnabout's fair play...not really, but it would make me feel better...

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#55)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 01:59:05 PM EST
    Pat - I consider it realism. Cause and effect. Again, see Lee Atwater.

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#56)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 02:19:32 PM EST
    1. If, just assuming hypothetically, Rove made a deal, would it be possible that one of the terms of the deal (negotiated by Luskin) would be that the terms of the deal and the fact that there even was a deal would remain confidential? 2. If the answer to #1 is yes (it's possible), is there a reason to think it's unlikely? 3. Finally, if it's possible for there to be such a confidential deal, wouldn't Luskin not only be free, but actually ethically obligated to his client, to tell people there was no deal? Saying he couldn't comment would give too much away, wouldn't it?

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#58)
    by DonS on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 02:27:39 PM EST
    I don't care how gutsy a defense lawyer Luskin is (honor among defense lawyers and all that). He's still spinning the way it serves his client best. That's not the same as knowing the truth. It certainly exonerates Rove from nothing, though you may unsurprisingly find that's exactly how the media regards it. Its just lawyering and spinning. Turdblossom skated.

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#59)
    by oldtree on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 02:28:16 PM EST
    based on what has been said and done today, I disagree because; an indictment is the only thing that would get Rove to testify, knowing he will get a pardon. Since Fitzgerald can wait until after the election (if there is one) to bring charges, he must have a pressure point on the dog to keep him in line. Fitzgerald has no comment, others say there is a sealed indictment, and only rover's mouthpiece says there is going to be no show today. the various statements disagree as to how lutefisk was informed. sorry, think it is luskin's way of giving his client a chance to do the plea deal and make the admin's look the other way. after all, he has no interest in telling the truth to anyone if he can keep his client out of jail a bit longer.

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#60)
    by ras on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 02:31:13 PM EST
    "EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove" Exclusive? Well, in some quarters perhaps. In others it's been clear where this was heading all along.

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#61)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 03:21:14 PM EST
    Sorry, Jeralyn. I just don't buy it. There's deals and then there's deals. I think Luskin is still spinning. I think politically, there's no way Rove could've taken an actual immunity agreement because it would mean he's guilty of something, and it would have had to be disclosed at Libby's trial. So, in light of these new comments I now think either Luskin lied to you, or he told Fitz right off the bat that Rove had Cheney to offer in exchange for not getting prosecuted, but Rove could never take immunity or it would be the political kiss of death. Fitz then agrees simply not to charge him in exchange for his truthful cooperation, but nothing is ever memorialized, and it appears as if Rove is just a "good citizen," doing his civic duty and hoping for the best. Fitz is just a prosecutor to me too, and I wouldn't put it past him and Luskin to have a "gentleman's agreement". Neither wins if there's an actual immunity agreement, and they both win if Fitz gets Rove to give up Cheney and Luskin gets to look like the criminal defense lawyer with the world's biggest balls.

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#62)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 03:33:46 PM EST
    What if Karl Rove really isn't guilty of anything & this was just another example of Democrats' hopeful thinking or maybe Plame wasn't outed by anyone other then her big mouthed, publicity addicted husband?

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#63)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 03:54:39 PM EST
    I doubt the Devil hires a saint as a lawyer. Since Rove is "the Devil" I doubt Luskin is a saint. If he was forthcoming he would post the letter and get rid of all the speculation. I sure there is a small guilded picture frame with gold matting to go with the one they used to frame Zarqawi's death picture in. I don't take his "spin" as absolute fact.

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#64)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 03:57:53 PM EST
    To PMain, that's wishful thinking on your part. To the rest of us who expected Rove to go down, well, I agree with rdandrea, let's move on and win ourselves an election. If Rove has been behind the political strategies and outcomes that have caused Bush to reach such low poll results, he's actually an asset at this point. Think Nov. 7th.

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#65)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 04:09:04 PM EST
    Talk Left writes...
    "Karl Rove walked. He's one of the rare subjects of an investigation who was able to talk his way out of an Indictment."
    Ok. But you see, as your average 9-5 American, seems to me that nobody in this government would every be held accountable for anything in a court of law. So once again, it's just another failed attempt at holding the "deciders" accountable for their decisions. I disagree 100% with your assesment that the Criminal Justice system isn't the proper place for taking the Bush Administration to task for lying/falsifying evidence/spreading propaganda to start this War. The fact that it's hard to pin these people down to a legal technicality because they're so well connected, so wealthy, and have so many powerful allies is not the point. I know one gigantic crime they are all guilty of. There is enough proof in print to fill hundreds of Football fields.
    "I view that as the fault of the voters who put Bush into office in 2000 and 2004. It's time to focus on getting him and the Republicans out..."
    To say that it is all the fault of the American people for voting the Neocons into office in '00 and '04 assumes that our elections are held on a level playing field with full, accurate disclosure. Nothing could be farther from the truth. As I've pointed out here and elsewhere MANY, MANY times, a very small minority of Americans elect our politicians. Feingold just received 3% of the "likely to vote for" poll in Iowa. It doesn't appear that I'll be working/paying to help Democrats this time.

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#66)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 05:09:41 PM EST
    Now let's go win ourselves an election?? You have got to be putting me on! You cannot win an election when the criminals we wish to dethrone control the counting of votes!! How did that one get by you??!!! Bush lost both elections by significant margins. He was appointed by Supreme Court Judges who are on record as saying they needed to protect George Bush. (Notice they did not say they wanted to defend the Constitution nor protect the rights of Americans to select the President of their choosing but rather they needed to "protect Bush") The second election was stolen and the evidence for that fact is overwhelming. Get a grip on something other that your member there, Cowboy. Everybody knows that the dice are loaded Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed Everybody knows that the war is over Everybody knows the good guys lost Everybody knows the fight was fixed The poor stay poor, the rich get rich That's how it goes Everybody knows (Thanks to Mr Cohen) Everybody who does not suckle from the breast of Corporate Media knows the score. The corruption runs too deep now. The two most corrupt institutions in America are the DOJ and FBI (remember the Hostage Roasting Team?) To whom do you turn when the Mafia owns the Sheriff? We are voting with our fingers crossed because we know the game is fixed. Voting is a joke and the Republicans are laughing all the way to the Casino Boat.

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#67)
    by Slado on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 05:51:19 PM EST
    Is there some sort of pattern here? Gore will prevail in the Fl recount. Gore didn't win but the Supreme Court will vindicate him. Gore will prevail @ the Supreme Court. Dems will take back the house and or Senate in 2002. Bush Rove will go down because of Plame affair. Kerry will win in 2004. Dems will take back the house and/or Senate riding Kerry Victory wave. Kerry won according to exit polls. Yahoo!!! Kerry might not have won tonight but there is still hope. Kerry lost. Ohio was stolen. Rove will be indicted no doubt. Rove indictment on the way. Yahooo!!!! Rove not indicted but maybe we'll get Cheny!? Dems will take back the house in 2006, maybe the Senate too. Bush will be impeached. Forgive me if I wait patiently for the actual results.

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#68)
    by Slado on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 05:56:41 PM EST
    Josh, nice concrete Blond/Pump up the Volume refrence. Solid.

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#69)
    by rdandrea on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 06:15:47 PM EST
    Slado: Usually I regard you as a truthteller of the kind who's a real pain in the ass. That would be a compliment, by the way. This time, you're spot on. We dems who are hoping for some kind of bolt out of the blue are delusional. What we really need to do is to have better ideas, better organization, and more money. Then we can win at the polls and not have to worry about much of this crap. Elections are how the public speaks. Let's win one for a change.

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#70)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 06:23:25 PM EST
    Jeralyn, I just have one question that I should have asked with my previous post. I really need a legal opinion on this. Considering this fleshed out version of Fitz's announcement to Luskin: "Luskin had just received a fax from Patrick Fitzgerald, the special counsel in the case, saying that he was formally notifying Luskin that absent any unexpected developments, he does not anticipate seeking any criminal charges against Rove." Is that common parlance when letting off a suspect in a grand jury investigation, or does that seem at all like peculiar wording?

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#71)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 06:40:47 PM EST
    Slado - You forgot the one about Bush being a uniter-not-a divider. How's that workin out for you?

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#73)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 06:50:44 PM EST
    Sharon, I write in the newest post:
    As to why Fitz would only say he doesn't anticipate indicting Rove rather than saying Rove has been cleared and never will be indicted, consider this. What if he publicly cleared him and Rove then testified for Libby's defense team and said something different than he told the grand jury? Fitz needs to remain free to charge Rove in that event. Also, if the investigation is continuing, new information could develop, particularly if Fitz continues to turn putative defendants. One might convince him Rove lied. Both of these situations are unlikely to occur, but Fitz needs to protect his ability to act against Rove if they did happen. That's what lawyers do, they try to cover all the bases.
    Hope that helps.

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#72)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 06:52:20 PM EST
    Josh, that's one of my favorite all-time songs, but I prefer Don Henley's version. [Everybody Knows ]

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#74)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 07:09:27 PM EST
    et al - What a day to have been traveling for most of it. And I hope you want be too mad when I tell you I have been laughing my rear end off all day.

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#75)
    by Bob on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 07:11:22 PM EST
    Why don't we just start calling Karl Rove "Pancake", cause he has been flipped! Bob

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#76)
    by Patriot Daily on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 07:17:46 PM EST
    So, what happened? If Rove is truly in clear, with no sealed indictment and no deal of any kind (not immunity, or plea agreement with potential information if cooperation not upfront), then what happened? AP analysis suggests that Rove mislead public and reporters by saying Rove had no role in Plame leak to eliminate a political liability for Bush in the 2004 election but meanwhile told the truth to FBI which saved him from indictment. So, was all the material leaked to MSM implicating Rove a bunch of lies? So, was all the blogging about Rove's role then based on lies leaked to media? How could Rove have been involved to extent discussed in blogs and MSM reports and yet no charges, not today or pending for the future?

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#77)
    by Slado on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 07:30:31 PM EST
    rdandrea, thanks for the compliment. Jondee, touche. Your forgot... I don't believe its the mission of the United States to be in the buisness of nation building. If anyone in my administration is involved in this leak they will be delt with.

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#78)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 07:40:22 PM EST
    I asked Robert Luskin this morning if Karl Rove has made a deal with Fitzgerald. His response: There has never, ever been any discussion of a deal in any way, shape or form.
    Luskin did not, as far as I've read anywhere ever say that a deal was not offered or given to rove. I suppose it's possible that Fitz offered one in return for something he wanted from rove, and rove gave it to him with no discussion.

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#79)
    by Bob on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 07:57:17 PM EST
    Rove is not the target. Libby knows that Rove can put rivets in his coffin. It is Libby who is feeling the heat now that he knows that Fitz does not intend to charge Rove with a crime. I expect to hear from Libby sooner than later and I expect the name of his tune to "Cheney"

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#80)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 07:57:29 PM EST
    Yellowcake for everyone! And I'm offering $5 to the first person who can name one thing, anything, Joseph Wilson found on his Niger trip that proved "false" President Bush's 2003 State of the Union statement, "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#81)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 08:04:15 PM EST
    Great graphic on this one TL! CL has outdone his/her self!

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#82)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 08:29:16 PM EST
    Everyone knows that he is guilty os hell, ppj especially. That is why they are laughing so hard. The truth is that the case has been upgraded to tippity toppest top secret status. Since we are a nation at war, Rove must be allowed to continue his evil work unhampered. It is a matter of national security So that is why this is all so strange. Rove and the unit have a new plan.

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#83)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 09:46:06 PM EST
    The difference between you and me is, I wouldnt trade places with Rove in a million years; you probobly would. Just so you could hang out with the big guys.

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#84)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 09:59:21 PM EST
    Another Republican offical crossing the line and then being able to cross back over without as much as a scratch. Interesting.

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#85)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 05:29:18 AM EST
    Jondee - Early on I called this a tempest in a teacup.
    In the end, however, Mr. Rove was not indicted. And Mr. Wilson was exposed in the bipartisan report issued by the Senate Intelligence Committee two years ago, in which the panel demonstrated that Mr. Wilson misrepresented numerous aspects of his account of the trip he took to Niger in 2002. The fantasy Rove indictment should be a cautionary tale for the mainstream media.
    I see no reason to change my mind. However, at least one thing good came out of it. I am sure Mr. Ruskin can now afford regular Vet visits for his cat. ;-)

    Re: EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove (none / 0) (#86)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 12:03:18 PM EST
    About the civil suit, I'm just wondering what damages she'd claim. First, it can't be joe wilson's claim; the argument is that rove outed his wife, not himself, so it would be her. as a result of her name being outed, am i not correct in saying that she got some megamillion book deal? i mean, as a juror, after i learn how "bad" her reputation's been damaged, and that the damage she suffered is a mega book deal she would never have had prior to the whole incident, what am i supposed to be awarding her???? just a question.