home

No Charges for Rove in PlameGate

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:
    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 is not the whole story.
    Mr. Fitzgerald's spokesman, Randall Samborn, said he would not comment on Mr. Rove's status.... In his statement Mr. Luskin said he would not address other legal questions surrounding Mr. Fitzgerald's decision.
    Luskin's failure to produce the letter is proof that Rove entanglment is more involved than he is admitting to. I agree with scribe. It is not over until the fat lady sings. NYT

    Re: No Charges for Rove in PlameGate (none / 0) (#12)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 08:48:27 AM EST
    Almost perfect wingnut wetdream:
    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.
    You forgot to add that Saddam's WMD's will be found.

    Re: No Charges for Rove in PlameGate (none / 0) (#13)
    by Sydnie on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 08:55:46 AM EST
    Wilson's attorney has made a statement too:
    Statement of Christopher Wolf, Proskauer Rose LLP, Counsel for Ambassador Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame Wilson "We have become aware of the communication between Mr. Fitzgerald and Mr. Luskin concerning Karl. Rove's status in the criminal investigation. We have no first-hand knowledge of the reason for the communication or what further developments in the criminal investigation it may signal. While it appears that Mr. Rove will not be called to answer in criminal court for his participation in the wrongful disclosure of Valerie Wilson's classified employment status at the CIA in retaliation against Joe Wilson for questioning the rationale for war in Iraq, that obviously does not end the matter. The day still may come when Mr. Rove and others are called to account in a court of law for their attacks on the Wilsons."
    Link Here to Rawstory I tend to think he went with the "5 K" option myself. He spilled his guts!

    Re: No Charges for Rove in PlameGate (none / 0) (#14)
    by Patrick on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 08:58:28 AM EST
    Did I win? You remember, the contest? I'll take the $25. Price is right $1 strategy wrks again!

    Re: No Charges for Rove in PlameGate (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 08:59:45 AM EST
    There isn't a letter. Fitzgerald notified Luskin with a phone call yesterday afternoon after he met with Judge Hogan.
    Fitzgerald met with chief U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan before he notified Rove. Hogan has been overseeing the grand juries in the CIA leak case. Fitzgerald's spokesman, Randall Samborn, declined comment. Asked if the CIA leak investigation is still continuing, Samborn said, "I'm not commenting on that as well at this time." The prosecutor called Luskin late Monday afternoon to tell him he would not be seeking charges against Rove. AP 6/13/06


    Re: No Charges for Rove in PlameGate (none / 0) (#16)
    by Sydnie on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 09:01:05 AM EST
    Truth Out / Ash has a statement up on their site now too:
    Regarding Mr. Luskin's Statement By Marc Ash, Tue Jun 13th, 2006 at 10:48:36 AM EDT :: Fitzgerald Investigation We are stunned by the magnitude of the reaction to the article we published yesterday morning. We have put our cards on the table. We invite Mr. Luskin to do the same.
    Truth out Statement (sorry about the blockquote in the last post ... don't know how I messed that up. :::blush:::: )

    Re: No Charges for Rove in PlameGate (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 09:06:59 AM EST
    Pollyusa, the David Johnston NYTimes article (linked by TL above) specifically references a letter.

    Re: No Charges for Rove in PlameGate (none / 0) (#18)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 09:20:25 AM EST
    Slightly OT but still well in the ballpark. FDL posts some quotes (emailed by emptywheel) from the right leaning NY Sun (Josh Gerstein):
    1.  We think Joe Wilson is a hero and deserving of a standing ovation.  Murray Waas too. 2.  Traditional media has dropped the ball on covering this important story, largely because they're so compromised in it. 3.  Judy Miller is "a humiliated and discredited shill." 4.  Miller, along with Steno Sue and Byron York, are journalists emblematic of the problem as we see it. 5.  Marcy Wheeler knows more about this case than any other human on the face of the planet and should be listened to at all times.
    FDL

    Re: No Charges for Rove in PlameGate (none / 0) (#19)
    by swingvote on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 09:28:01 AM EST
    You forgot to add that Saddam's WMD's will be found. Typical Wangnut BS. Can't refute the statement, have nothing intelligent to say in response to the post, throw mud instead. Hey, at least you're consistent Squeaky.

    Re: No Charges for Rove in PlameGate (none / 0) (#20)
    by swingvote on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 09:31:36 AM EST
    Luskin's failure to produce the letter is proof that Rove entanglment is more involved than he is admitting to. And there there is the typical Wangnut legal standard which holds that all conservatives are guilty until they prove themself innocent. I'm surprised you would even utter such a thing on a defense lawyer site, but I guess the blind hatred you feel toward all non-Wangnuts just gets in the way of reason. Nice quip about Sdaam and WMD though. As if that had any relevance here.

    Re: No Charges for Rove in PlameGate (none / 0) (#21)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 09:35:42 AM EST
    jp-Am I hallucinating or something here? Has justpaul actually conceded (albeit obliquely) that there were/are no WMD's in Iraq? That the call to war was a grave error based on WH propaganda? Holy Moley!!

    Re: No Charges for Rove in PlameGate (none / 0) (#22)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 09:42:34 AM EST
    Nice quip about Sdaam and WMD though. As if that had any relevance here.
    Right jp, shows that you have been following this case real closely. It has nothing to do with WMD's or Saddam. There is a parallel universe no doubt, and jp is channeling it for us.

    Re: No Charges for Rove in PlameGate (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 09:48:23 AM EST
    This thread is about Karl Rove and Plamegate. Please stay on topic.

    Re: No Charges for Rove in PlameGate (none / 0) (#24)
    by Slado on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 09:49:04 AM EST
    To see someone's personal credibility be trashed by their own readers read the comments on Sydnie's link to Mr. Ash and Truth Out. Thanks for the link Sydnie.

    Re: No Charges for Rove in PlameGate (none / 0) (#25)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 09:58:00 AM EST
    Slado-as opposed to your comments regularly bashing TL???

    Re: No Charges for Rove in PlameGate (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 10:07:22 AM EST
    Luskin's forte is spin...I don't think he can afford to lie on this. I therefore move forward in the hopes that there are further twists and turns to come in this case but that Rove's indictment will not (very unfortunately) be one of them. Hopefully, Fitzgerald has roped Rove into some sort of cooperation. Even if there are no further indictments (arrrghghg!!), I very much hope that we will all take a deep collective breath and continue with the major fights ahead. Ultimately, it's not up to Fitzgerald to bring down this criminal regime.

    Re: No Charges for Rove in PlameGate (none / 0) (#27)
    by cmpnwtr on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 10:14:40 AM EST
    There is no way to construe this other than being a failure of the criminal justice system and a failure of the Constitution's balance of powers. The public evidence thus far shows clearly a criminal enterprise to disclose the identity of a covert agent of the CIA who was involved in the vital endeavor of tracking WMD of a foreign and potentially dangerous foe. Professional collegialism aside, it is beyond me how anyone can be congratulated for having helped to make this crime beyond the accountability of the law. Fitzgerald has failed to hold thse people accountable and what we have is one lower level guy,Libby, being offered up as sacrifice for the rest of the gang. What has Fitz accomplished really? This bunch is going to keep doing what they are doing. Fitz is a farce at this juncture. I hope I may be proven wrong.

    Re: No Charges for Rove in PlameGate (none / 0) (#28)
    by Slado on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 10:16:27 AM EST
    Squeaky don't shoot the messenger. I love blogging on TL because i am exposed to thoughtful disagreement from the other side. I try not to be a "troll" and have had many of my opinions challenged by commentry from you, soccerdad etc... I apologize for gloating.

    Re: No Charges for Rove in PlameGate (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 10:20:44 AM EST
    Leopold may have been half right. Fitz did come armed with a draft indictment, to show Rove and Luskin what charges he would be bringing if Rove didn't come through with the last bits of cooperation Fitz needed. Rove finally agreed. Later, Luskin begged for something in writing so he could take Rove off the media hook. Luskin banged out a spin-release in a hurry, because he knows the full truth will be out very soon. We won't be waiting much longer, IMO.

    Re: No Charges for Rove in PlameGate (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 10:28:20 AM EST
    The free donuts zinger at Leopold and Ash is priceless. Still laughing as I type. Think Leopold will be delivering papers instead of writing in them now?

    Re: No Charges for Rove in PlameGate (none / 0) (#31)
    by dutchfox on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 12:45:08 PM EST
    Just checked the Truthout site; there's no story on that site about the Rove decision.

    Re: No Charges for Rove in PlameGate (none / 0) (#32)
    by dutchfox on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 12:47:03 PM EST
    Schultz says Leopold is standing by his story (after interviewing him).

    Re: No Charges for Rove in PlameGate (none / 0) (#33)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 01:08:48 PM EST
    Slado, It's the top of the ninth, and you're up by a run.

    Re: No Charges for Rove in PlameGate (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 02:59:52 PM EST
    So, a big, long, expensive grand jury investigation could charge no one with a crime (was there actually a crime committed, then?). Although there are no charges in reference to any actual crimes, poor Libby is charged with a murky perjury charge though THERE IS NO PROSECUTABLE CRIME AS YET. It remains to be seen whether Libby will even be convicted of perjury. Of course, if you supported the House's impeachment (i.e. indictment) of Clinton for perjury charges then you are entitled to root for Libby's indictment.

    Re: No Charges for Rove in PlameGate (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 06:52:15 PM EST
    Kudos to Mr. Luskin who did a heckeva job for Karl Rove.
    This is why regular people hate lawyers. This isn't an abstract intellectual exercise or a game of 'gotcha!' This is about what lots and lots of people think is important: truth and justice. History, I think, will be on that side too.

    Re: No Charges for Rove in PlameGate (none / 0) (#36)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 07:31:46 PM EST
    dsimas: This is why regular people hate lawyers. Except when they need them. I'd hire Luskin in a blink if I was in a serious bind that I thought he could get me out of, wouldn't you?

    Re: No Charges for Rove in PlameGate (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 09:44:37 PM EST
    I'd hire Luskin in a blink if I was in a serious bind that I thought he could get me out of, wouldn't you?
    Well that's not exactly what I'm talking about. If someone actually does something serious should they be ever be able to 'get out' of it?

    Re: No Charges for Rove in PlameGate (none / 0) (#38)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 09:50:45 PM EST
    It only peripherally has to do with lawyers. Its all about power.

    Re: No Charges for Rove in PlameGate (none / 0) (#39)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 10:01:59 PM EST
    Josh Marshall summarizes nicely:
    ...He just lied. From admissions from Rove, filings in the Libby case, and uncontradicted reportage, we know as clearly as we ever can that Rove did do each of those things. So he did do what he was suspected of and he did lie about it.
    Digby too. He clearly did what we all know he did; no reasonable person could dispute that. Should he get off just because he has an expensive lawyer who can game the system? Should that be applauded?

    Re: No Charges for Rove in PlameGate (none / 0) (#40)
    by Edger on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 01:56:53 AM EST
    Should that be applauded? I haven't seen any applauding of rove wriggling out of the corner going on here.

    Re: No Charges for Rove in PlameGate (none / 0) (#41)
    by Che's Lounge on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 07:06:14 AM EST
    Would anyone here want their lawyer to break the law if it would be the only way to get them out of a jam? Your ethics question for today. There is no correct answer, OK?

    Re: No Charges for Rove in PlameGate (none / 0) (#42)
    by Edger on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 07:16:22 AM EST
    Interesting question to ponder, Che. I think most, myself included btw, would be happy if their lawyer got them acquitted of a charge, or arranged for a charge to be dropped or not laid in the first place. A defense lawyer is not usually paid on the basis of winning, but on billable hours, correct? There is usually no financial motivation for a defense lawyer to break the law to help a client, except in high profile cases and/or as a career/reputation building move. It a lawyer breaks the law to save a client it is his/her own ethical responsibility, I think. Thoughts?