home

No Charges for Rove in PlameGate

By Jeralyn, Section Valerie Plame Leak Case
Posted on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 07:21:03 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Patrick Fitzgerald has written a letter to Karl Rove's lawyer informing him that Karl Rove will not be charged with a crime in PlameGate.

In a statement, Mr. Luskin said, "On June 12, 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove."

....In his statement Mr. Luskin said he would not address other legal questions surrounding Mr. Fitzgerald's decision. He added, "In deference to the pending case, we will not make any further public statements about the subject matter of the investigation. We believe that the Special Counsel's decision should put an end to the baseless speculation about Mr. Rove's conduct."

Kudos to Mr. Luskin who did a heckeva job for Karl Rove.

Update: Here is the official press release (received by e-mail from Rove spokesperson Mark Corallo):

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Mark Corallo

June 13, 2006 Corallo Media Strategies, LLC

STATEMENT OF ROBERT LUSKIN,
ATTORNEY FOR KARL ROVE

Washington, DC--Robert Luskin, Attorney for Karl Rove today released the following statement:

"On June 12, 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove.

"In deference to the pending case, we will not make any further public statements about the subject matter of the investigation. We believe that the Special Counsel's decision should put an end to the baseless speculation about Mr. Rove's conduct."

Mark Corallo
Corallo Media Strategies, LLC

Mr. Corallo added the following:

Jeralyn - it's over. You might want to tell Marc Ash and Jason Leopold that they are free to leave the "lockdown" on the 4th floor of Patton Boggs anytime they wish. Frankly, we suspected they were just there for the free donuts all along...

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

< Net Neutrality | EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    No Charges for Rove in PlameGate | 42 comments (42 topical)
    Re: No Charges for Rove in PlameGate (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 07:51:18 AM EST
    What do you figure is the likelihood that Rove has struck an immunity deal? "Not anticipating" filing charges could easily mean that it's contingent on testifying?

    Re: No Charges for Rove in PlameGate (none / 0) (#2)
    by cmpnwtr on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 07:55:23 AM EST
    A questioner at the Yearly Kos gathering during the Plamegate panel indicated he had little hope that the Bush regime would ever be held accountable or held to limits by the courts or the Congress. Ambassador Wilson responded that we still have a constitution and we are still a nation of laws and not of people and he believed justice would be done. Ambassador Wilson is deluded, as are most wealthy people. Those who are without power know that the powerful will go free to commmit their crimes and the weak and the poor will be crushed. That's America! Rove is free,and you and I can be held without trial, without evidence if Bush says we might be a terrorist.

    Re: No Charges for Rove in PlameGate (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 07:57:32 AM EST
    Or why not read it as Fitzgerald, after a full investigation, has determined he lacks the evidence to files charges? I'm afraid wild speculation is getting out of hand in this case. For evidence, peruse through the archives of not only this site but other, even more left-leaning sites like Think Progress, dailyKos, etc too see how silly the "Indictment Coming Today!" headlines look in light of today's news. Patience, it turns out, is a virtue.

    Re: No Charges for Rove in PlameGate (none / 0) (#4)
    by scribe on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 08:01:05 AM EST
    Ehhhh. I dunno if it's that clear, yet. (1) Let us see the letter, Gold Bars. We'll judge for ourselves on just how "in the clear" your client is. (2) I think the developing consensus (which I agree with) is that Rover has rolled on (pick 'em) Scooter, Deadeye, and, maybe Addington and this "letter" from Fitz might say something about "if you fail to cooperate, the indictment we've filed will be prosecuted". In so many words, Rover's made a very good cooperation agreement for himself, giving up significant information and/or personages, but he has a significant downside, should he welsh. (FWIW, Leopold and Ash are standing by their stories on Rover being indicted, which remain consistent with a cooperation agreement. In short, if there had been no indictment, they'd have to burn their sources, and they haven't even begun to do that yet.) (3) True, Gold Bars worked a very good result for his client, and deserves some kudos for his lawyerly skill, but Rover ain't out of the woods, yet. (4) I bet June 16 in the indictment pool. I think my pick on the date was closest....

    Re: No Charges for Rove in PlameGate (none / 0) (#5)
    by Sydnie on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 08:22:31 AM EST
    TPM has this up this morning:
    But Truthout.org -- the one publication to report, repeatedly, that Rove was definitely going to be indicted -- isn't buying it. I reached Truthout editor Marc Ash on his cel phone this morning. "I wasn't aware that he had said that," he said of Luskin's announcement, but insisted that Truthout was "absolutely" standing by its earlier reporting. "We've done a lot of work on this story, we've talked to a lot of people," he said, "and some of the people who provided information for the story are absolutely in a position to know." So if Truthout's reporting -- by correspondent Jason Leopold -- is correct, is Ruskin lying? "Robert Luskin's allegations are in the best interest of his client, not necessarily the press," Ash said. "I think that the information he is providing is directly contradicted by the information we have."
    Link here This story just gets stranger and stranger.

    Re: No Charges for Rove in PlameGate (none / 0) (#6)
    by ltgesq on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 08:24:39 AM EST
    I would bet my house on there being an indictment or charging information drafted, and an filed sealed agreement to waive the statute of limitations, in return for which rove is to provide "truthful" testimoney in the remainder of the case. lawering is one thing, but having something the prosecutor wants is what gets you a good deal. I don't know whether there was a filing of an indictment under seal, but i would bet that that marathon session that everyone denies happened was where they hashed out the agreement. Luskin would make a proffer offer, and it would have had to have been really juicy for this to happen.

    Re: No Charges for Rove in PlameGate (none / 0) (#7)
    by Slado on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 08:36:52 AM EST
    Fitzmas is over. The left only makes themselves look as silly as they look when it comes to 2004 election conspiracy theories when they hope beyond hope that something bad will happen to Mr. Rove IE Bush. It's not going to happen. Move on.

    Re: No Charges for Rove in PlameGate (none / 0) (#8)
    by scribe on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 08:38:18 AM EST
    Ltgesq: Seems like we're on the same page; in addition to his being a turdblossom, we're now likely to have revealed to us that Rover's a rat.

    Re: No Charges for Rove in PlameGate (none / 0) (#9)
    by cynicalgirl on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 08:39:12 AM EST
    Do you think this means he's going to rat out Dick Cheney?

    Re: No Charges for Rove in PlameGate (none / 0) (#10)
    by swingvote on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 08:40:44 AM EST
    The fact that Truthout will not admit it made up most of what it claimed to be reporting and got it wrong does not mean that Luskin is not also playing with the truth as much as he can. Only time will tell, but it looks very doubtful that Fitzmas day is ever going to come. Libby will probably get off, and no one will ever be indicted on a charge of having outed Plame.

    Re: No Charges for Rove in PlameGate (none / 0) (#11)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 08:44:23 AM EST
    Two key statements indicate this