Waas: Rove to Cooperate With Criminal Probe

Murray Waas has a new article up on Talking Points Memo in which he reports that Karl Rove's attorney says Rove will cooperate with the the federal grand jury probe of the firings of nine U.S. attorneys.

Murray has more info on his own site.

Rove has been interviewed by investigators in the internal DOJ probe into the prosecution of former AL Governor Don Siegelman.

The criminal investigation into the firings is being led by Nora Dannehy, the Acting U.S. Attorney for Connecticut.

Luskin said that Rove "has not and will not assert any personal privileges." He also said that in regard to the earlier probe, Rove had not done so, but had rather only "followed the guidance of the White House."

Go read Murray for why he thinks Rove won't cooperate in the Judiciary Committee probe and why Obama won't invoke executive privilege.

< Does The Obama Executive Order Permit "Rendition?" | The Meaning of Lower Death Penalty Stats >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Believe it when I see it (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by denise k on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 06:29:04 PM EST
    I agree with Josh Marshall.  I will believe he is cooperating when I see him or the fruits of his cooperation.  Talk is cheap and the Bush administration (Rove) made the initial-statement-of-agreement-followed-by-actions-in-opposition an art form.  

    My thoughts, exactly. Believe it when I see it. (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Angel on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 06:47:18 PM EST
    Yep, me three, n/t (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 07:34:12 PM EST
    He Is Going To Appear (none / 0) (#10)
    by squeaky on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 09:52:43 PM EST
    No doubt, imo. That is cooperating, He must have been worried that he would have to go to jail if he did not physically appear in court

    I don't think the meeting will be fruitful.


    There must be a limit to power (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 07:38:48 PM EST
    This needs to be resolved in the courts. The assertion of executive privelege must has some limit, even if the Bush team doesn't believe it. I believe there's more than 2 letters out there anyway. I wouldn't be a bit surprized if they all had a letter. We'll never get to the bottom of this mess unless we're able to force them to testify.

    not that it would be valid but what (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Patriot Daily on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 07:49:20 PM EST
    happened to bush instructing rove 4 days before he left WH that rove should not cooperate with any investigation under Bush's claim of executive privilege?

    this is very interesting indeed.

    Rove got better legal advice than (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by ruffian on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 09:31:29 PM EST
    whatever GWB was selling him.

    since I never judge a lawyer (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 12:05:30 AM EST
    by his clients, I'll agree. Luskin is a very good lawyer.

    Just because he's working with the DOJ (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by joanneleon on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 01:34:58 AM EST
    shouldn't exempt him from honoring the subpoena for the Judiciary Committee.  At least it seems that way to me.  They are two different branches of government.  If he refuses to appear again, the committee should hold him in contempt and DOJ should enforce it.  Somehow this seems like it could turn into a betrayal of the Judiciary Committee by the DOJ, again.  

    rove will say nothing (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by cpinva on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 01:35:53 AM EST
    of substantive value, unless and until he is faced with the very real possibility of sharing bunk space with Bubba, who hasn't seen a real woman in 20 years, his good lawyer notwithstanding. the same goes for ms. meiers.

    the republicans play for keeps, the democrats to keep from being disliked. so far, pres. obama has maintained that difference.

    Fitz had no complaints... (none / 0) (#6)
    by diogenes on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 07:51:58 PM EST
    Fitz never had any complaints about Rove's cooperation with HIS grand jury investigation.

    why would he? (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 12:07:38 AM EST
    Rove sang for his supper with Fitz every chance he got -- it took four times before he got it right. And by "right" I mean until his version of truth matched the government's version. Only then is the Government satisfied. Cooperator's testimony is not the truth, only the Government's version of the truth. It's what makes our system morally bankrupt.

    Is our system different (none / 0) (#18)
    by ThatOneVoter on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 09:15:28 AM EST
    from other countries'? Do European countries not make deals with cooperators for testimony?

    is Congress corrupt too? (none / 0) (#19)
    by diogenes on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 09:33:19 PM EST
    So is Rove going to have to sing four times until he tells the Democrats in Congress what they want to hear too?  Not a ringing endorsement of the Congressional subpoena.

    Could someone please... (none / 0) (#7)
    by NYShooter on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 08:12:06 PM EST
    ...explain to me an item I've never been able to understand?

    Re: Valerie Plame (slightly off topic)

    A covert agent of one of our security agencies is deliberately "outed"; the perpetrator is known, yet the issue is not pursued. All I ever heard as an explanation is, "it's really, really hard to prove treason." Or another goody, "the law is really, really complicated when it comes to proving this type of case."


    Who writes laws that are so complicated and/or impossible to implement?

    Why have laws that can be openly flaunted?

    Any 5th Dimension Talmudic scholars here?

    No (none / 0) (#9)
    by squeaky on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 09:39:25 PM EST
    But my guess is that if torture were legal Rove would confess to everything you wanted.

    Ask Fitz (none / 0) (#11)
    by diogenes on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 09:52:55 PM EST
    He had the grand jury which indicted no one for outing Plame.  
    Since grand juries are famous for being willing to indict a ham sandwich if told to by prosecutors, maybe Fitz has an answer for you.

    "..maybe Fitz has an answer for you." (none / 0) (#13)
    by NYShooter on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 11:20:45 PM EST
    Sadly, he probably does. And I'm dumbfounded that legal scholars, a lot smarter than me, haven't written about it, or tried to explain to the lay public how this travesty could happen.

    Or just maybe, Fitz is one decimal point shy of the hero status he universally enjoys.

    As with our economic calamity, we know who the villains are, but in America, circa 2009, "The Law" is savagely enforced only upon the weak, the poor, and the different.

    What a cruel hoax it is that the aforementioned groups, who have nothing but hope to cling to, placed their dreams with an African-American Constitutional Professor  who wasted not a second in turning their fate over to a fellow brother, Eric Holder, The AA Kapo. I guess more prisons does fit into the "rebuild the Infrastructure" mantra  we bet our futures on.

    We lived through "1984," and have now entered "A Clock World Orange."  


    Tonight Jonathon Turley on MSNBC (none / 0) (#12)
    by hairspray on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 10:57:40 PM EST
    said that he believed that Rove would testify.  Essentially I believe he said that now that Rove was not able to claim executive privilege from one administration against the executive of another administration there is no valid claim.  Does that make sense?  Turley said that he didn't think that Obama would uphold that kind of privilege.  Turley also went on to say that Meyers and others would probably have to come clean as well.  He was pretty pessimistic about that gang's chances to skate through this.  He even envisions a possible grand jury in the Dan Seligman case.