One of the perqs of blogging is that I get free copies of books from publishers that hope I will review them. This morning I tripped over Jason Leopold’s book News Junkie when I left the house for supplies. I’ve read the first few chapters of it, and it makes me a little sad to see what’s happened to Jason over the whole Rove indictment story. I’m not sad because I believe Jason’s version of events. I’m guessing Jason would think me a fool to trust him. I’m sad because I can tell from reading his book that this whole affair is something he is singularly poorly equipped to deal with emotionally. I hope he has friends and family, and a sponsor, that will help him get through this. It would help a lot if Patrick Fitzgerald would make some kind of announcment. We do deserve to know what it going on.

Mark Ash, the editor at Truthout has an interesting explanation for what is going on, and I sure would like to believe he is right. I have excerpted it at length below the fold (I hope Truthout doesn’t mind).

On
Tuesday, June 13, when the mainstream media broke their stories that
Karl Rove had been exonerated, there were frank discussions amongst our
senior editors about retracting our stories outright. The problem we
wrestled with was what exactly do we retract? Should we say that Rove
had not in fact been indicted? Should we say that our sources provided
us with false or misleading information? Had Truthout been used?
Without a public statement from Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald
we felt that it was premature to retract our report.

After
spending the past month retracing our steps and confirming facts, we’ve
come full circle. Our sources continue to maintain that a grand jury
has in fact returned an indictment. Our sources said that parts of the
indictment were read to Karl Rove and his attorney on Friday, May 12,
2006. Last week, we pointed to a sealed federal indictment, case number
“06 cr 128,” which is still sealed and we are still pointing to it.
During lengthy conversations with our sources over the past month, they
reiterated that the substance of our report on May 13, 2006, was
correct, and immediately following our report, Karl Rove’s status in
the CIA leak probe changed. In summary, as we press our investigation
we find indicators that more of our key facts are correct, not less.

That
leaves the most important question: If our sources maintain that a
grand jury has returned an indictment – and we have pointed to a
criminal case number that we are told corresponds to it – then how is
it possible that Patrick Fitzgerald is reported to have said that ‘he
does not anticipate seeking charges against Rove at this time?’ That is
a very troubling question, and the truth is, we do not yet have a
definitive answer. We also continue to be very troubled that no one has
seen the reported communication from Fitzgerald to Rove’s attorney
Robert Luskin, and more importantly, how so much public judgment could
be based on a communication that Luskin will not put on the table.
Before we can assess the glaring contradiction between what our sources
say and what Luskin says Fitzgerald faxed to him, we need to be able to
consider what was faxed – and in its entirety.

What
appears to have happened is that – and this is where Truthout blundered
– in our haste to report the indictment we never considered the
possibility that Patrick Fitzgerald would not make an announcement. We
simply assumed – and we should not have done so – that he would tell
the press. He did not. Fitzgerald appears to have used the indictment,
and more importantly, the fear that it would go public, to extract
information about the Plame outing case from Rove.

Yes,
it does appear that Truthout was used, but not lied to or misled. The
facts appear to have been accurate. We reported them, and in so doing,
apparently became an instrument. From all indications, our reports,
first on May 13 that Rove had been indicted, and then on June 12 when
we published case number “06 cr 128,” forced Rove and Luskin back to
the table with Fitzgerald, not once but twice. They apparently sought
to avoid public disclosure and were prepared to do what they had to do
to avoid it.

The
electronic communication from Fitzgerald to Luskin, coming immediately
on the heels of our Monday morning, June 12 article “Sealed vs. Sealed”
that became the basis for the mainstream media’s de facto exoneration
of Karl Rove was, our sources told us, negotiated quickly over the
phone later that afternoon. Luskin contacted Fitzgerald, reportedly
providing concessions that Fitzgerald considered to be of high value,
and Fitzgerald reportedly reciprocated with the political cover Rove
wanted in the form of a letter that was faxed to Luskin’s office.

Our
sources provided us with additional detail, saying that Fitzgerald is
apparently examining closely Dick Cheney’s role in the Valerie Plame
matter, and apparently sought information and evidence from Karl Rove
that would provide documentation of Cheney’s involvement. Rove
apparently was reluctant to cooperate and Fitzgerald, it appears, was
pressuring him to do so, our sources told us.

I’ve been thinking about Ash’s reasoning, and I have been thinking about whether it is possible that Rove really was indicted, but that indictment is sealed, and will remain so as long as Rove is cooperating in Fitzgerald’s investigation. I don’t want to engage in wishful thinking, and Ash’s conclusion, while it makes a lot of sense, seems too good to be true. Here is how I see it.

We know that Karl Rove made false statements to the FBI, just as Scooter Libby did. We know that Karl Rove made false statements to the Grand Jury, perhaps on multiple occassions. And we know that the case against him is pretty strong. Rove’s defense that he had a faulty memory would probably not fly in front of District of Columbia jury. So, what possible reason would Fitzgerald have not to indict Rove?

One possibility is that Fitzgerald does not want to disrupt the functioning of government by indicting someone as important as Karl Rove on mere perjury and obstruction charges. I find that hard to believe. The only other possibility I can think of is that Karl Rove is cooperating. But, if he is cooperating, who else but Dick Cheney can he be cooperating against? And is very hard to believe that Karl Rove would agree to cooperate against Dick Cheney as long as George W. Bush has the power to pardon him.

Now, the last possibility, and it is a real one, is that Leopold, Ash, and the other Truthout editors are getting yanked around by their sources. But, even if they have everything wrong, it still doesn’t explain why Fitzgerald would decline to prosecute someone that lied to his grand jury and obstructed his investigation for years.

Something is going on.

My best guess is that Rove made some kind of deal that would prevent Fitzgerald from giving a press conference and calling him out as criminal. This allows him to keep his job and work on the elections. The big question is, what has he had to give in return for this? Will Fitzgerald ever make an announcment that Dick Cheney has been indicted?