home

Karl Rove: Subject or Target?

By Jeralyn, Section Valerie Plame Leak Case
Posted on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 04:23:58 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Continuing from my earlier post with differing reports about whether Karl Rove received a target letter: Let's not get sidetracked. Luskin could have an agreement with Fitzgerald that Rove will plead to an Information charging lesser offenses, and avoid an Indictment. If the grand jury is not going to be asked to indict Karl Rove, there's no reason to send him a target letter. He may not be a target of the grand jury, but he could still be a target of the investigation.

Example: Fitzgerald agrees to charge Rove by Information for false statements and/or perjury and forego obstruction of justice. Rove agrees to waive his right to be charged by indictment to guilty to the charge(s) in the Information, in exchange for an as-yet unspecified sentence reduction that's contingent upon Fitzgerald's determination of the value of Rove's cooperation when all is said and done.

Think Tony Rudy.

More about that here. Jason Leopold has supplemented his article on Rove's target status on the Truthout Forums:

On Monday, I had a conversation with several sources close to the CIA leak case who told me that Karl Rove would return to the grand jury Wednesday for the fifth time. Those sources told me that his appearance was the result of a target letter sent to his attorney Robert Luskin by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. The same sources said that Rove's status changed from being a "subject" of the probe to becoming a "target," meaning that Fitzgerald had enough evidence linking Rove to a crime and told that to Luskin. On Wednesday morning, when the news broke that Rove was going to testify for an unprecedented fifth time, I confirmed with sources close to the investigation that Rove did in fact receive a target letter. This was the case, they said. I then immediately called Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, for a comment about the target letter. Luskin didn't respond.

But upon leaving court Wednesday, after Rove testified for four hours, Luskin issued a statement saying that Rove was not a target of the probe. My sources maintain that Rove is a target and that Luskin understood that. I called Luskin again to get his statement. But he did not return the call. Rove's spokesman at the White House also weighed in, specifically denying my report that Rove received a target letter. This is the same White House that has refused to discuss this case for more than two years but decided on Wednesday to break its silence and respond to my story and deny that it's true. That seems odd.

Update: Digby writes Wolf Blitzer reported Luskin may have written the press release earlier and embargoed it until after the grand jury appearance.

Update: The AP reports, " The only new issue in the CIA leak probe known to involve Rove is a contact his lawyer, Robert Luskin, had with Time magazine reporter Viveca Novak." That's not true. The disclosure of 250 pages of e-mails from Cheney's office is a new issue reportedly involving Rove.

And the New York Times reports Viveca Novak is no longer with Time Magazine, having accepted a buy-out offer after her role in the case came to light.

< European Commission Report on CIA Secret Prisons Released | Duke Accuser's Father: Assault by Broomstick >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Karl Rove: Subject or Target? | 8 comments (8 topical)
    Re: Karl Rove: Subject or Target? (none / 0) (#1)
    by Sailor on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 04:58:55 PM EST
    My vote is target, but perhaps I didn't understand the premise of the question;-)

    Re: Karl Rove: Subject or Target? (none / 0) (#2)
    by Aaron on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 05:02:58 PM EST
    Yes it's about time for Karl to go to prison and do his impression of Ned Beatty in Deliverance. "Come on boy squeal like a pig for me! Su we! " Whheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! Whheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! Whheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! "That's it work that butterball ass, work it boy!

    Re: Karl Rove: Subject or Target? (none / 0) (#3)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 05:09:46 PM EST
    Sailor- It is not worth parsing Luskin's words. Rove is in trouble. Rove will pay. When is the question. I was hoping for last Friday, but this Friday seems good too. And if it means pinning Cheney to the mat, I could wait two more Fridays. If it is all for nailing Bush I could wait six months.

    Re: Karl Rove: Subject or Target? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 05:27:51 PM EST
    in·for·ma·tion (ĭn'fər-mā'shən) n.Law. A formal accusation of a crime made by a public officer rather than by grand jury indictment. So not unexpectedly, I have never heard of this definition before. Apart from the Grand Jury, and apart from an agreement (I take that to mean like a plea bargain agreement), when else can a federal prosecutor charge by Information?

    Re: Karl Rove: Subject or Target? (none / 0) (#5)
    by roxtar on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 05:33:59 PM EST
    If he is a target, his willingness to testify strikes me as odd. Does he think he can testify himself around whatever quantity of evidence that led him to be named as a target in the first place? That strikes me as risky at best, foolhardy at worst. Fitz knows what evidence he has; Luskin doesn't. Exposing your client to an additional opportunity to perjure himself strikes me as dangerous practice. UNLESS The target letter induced a deal, whereby this little Piggy squealed wee-wee-wee-wee all the way home. If you're not gonna deal, you might as well say (to coin a phrase) "Bring It On!", because you will be indicted. Whatever short term benefit may be had from being able to posture that you were soooooo cooperative that you voluntarily testified on five separate occasions would surely be cancelled out by a perjury indictment arising from that very testimony. Bluff and posturing might explain it, but however well that may have worked with the media in the past, I don't think Fitz will be as easily cowed as, say, Tucker Carlson.... The game's afoot!

    Re: Karl Rove: Subject or Target? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 07:25:16 PM EST
    I think that my comments are more coherent when I am not helping my kids do their homework, and making dinner at the same time as posting.

    Re: Karl Rove: Subject or Target? (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 08:54:49 PM EST
    And lest we all forget that the Bush Administration gave Hovak's hubby a cushy job right on the heels of her testimony.

    Re: Karl Rove: Subject or Target? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Apr 27, 2006 at 04:23:27 AM EST
    Plea agreements are just another form of bribery, and considered a legit way to manage cases. The prosecutors' illegal weapon facades as accepted which is very unfortunate, and more importantly reduces the quality of justice which needs all the credibility it can get.

    Karl Rove: Subject or Target? | 8 comments (8 topical)