TalkLeft has a good run-down of the latest battle between truthout.org and Rove’s attack dogs. The concise version? They are both calling each other flat out liars. Rove’s spokeman claims Leopold and Ash are “bald-faced liars or completely delusional or both.” Rove’s lawyer was equally dismissive. From 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.”
Truthout says they ‘believe’ they have the story of Rove’s indictment right, that his indictment is sealed, that Rove has turned state’s evidence, that the case has been expanded to Cheney and, perhaps, other areas outside of the Plame affair. (The Niger documents?)
It’s impossible for me to judge the veracity of either side as they both suffer from massive credibility problems. However, it is hard to explain why Rove would not have been indicted by now if he had not cut some kind of deal.
Here are some of the possibilities:
Patrick Fitzgerald
Fitzgerald would probably not be inclined to cut a plea deal with Karl Rove unless one of three things are true.
1) Fitzgerald thinks that he will have difficulty convicting Rove of a serious crime, such as conspiracy, and Rove is willing to cop to a lesser charge to avoid the risk of a long trial and possible jail sentence.
2) Fitzgerald wants to make a conspiracy case, or actually charge someone with violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (50 U.S.C. 421 et seq.) and he needs Rove’s testimony for that.
3) Fitzgerald has his eyes on a bigger fish than Rove, which can only be Dick Cheney.
I think we can dismiss (1) because Fitz seems satisfied to charge Libby with lesser offenses, and a conviction for perjury will still vindicate justice for any crime left uncharged. Therefore, charging Rove with the same or similar charges would probably satisfy Fitzgerald.
Number (2) is a possibility, but I haven’t seen much evidence that Fitz is looking to expand the case beyond the Plame investigation or charge anyone with anything other than a cover-up.
The most likely scenario is number (3). Fitzgerald wants to charge Dick Cheney with crimes varying from simple perjury (unlikely) to obstructions of justice (more likely), to something more serious (conspiracy). If Karl Rove has really been indicted, it seems likely he has turned state’s witness against Dick Cheney.
But the problem with this scenario is that, in order for Rove to turn state’s witness, he would have to truly believe that he would go to jail if convicted, rather than receive a pardon (no matter how unpopular such a pardon would be). Is it possible that Rove has received no assurances that he will never see the inside of a jail cell?
Or is this some grand strategy to keep Rove from being indicted a little while longer so he can work on the midterm elections from his office in the White House?
What say you?
