Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

April 26, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

PLAME UPDATE....Karl Rove testified today for the fifth time before the grand jury investigating the Valerie Plame case, and it appears that his testimony revolved around former Time magazine reporter Viveca Novak (no relation to Robert Novak). Here's a recap:

  1. Rove originally testified that he had never spoken to Time reporter Matt Cooper about Plame.

  2. Later, Rove admitted that he had, in fact, spoken to Cooper. His excuse for his earlier testimony was that he had had a simple memory lapse and had forgotten about the conversation.

  3. However, prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald (or so it was rumored) didn't buy the "I forgot" story and was ready to indict Rove for perjury. But then he held off. This was apparently due to a last-minute conversation he had with Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin.

  4. What Luskin told Fitzgerald was that Rove really had forgotten about his conversation with Cooper and what jarred Rove's memory was a conversation Luskin had with Novak, who told him offhandedly that Cooper had spoken to Rove and everyone in the Time newsroom knew it. Luskin immediately went to Rove, initiated a massive search of Rove's email, and eventually discovered that, yes, Rove really had spoken to Cooper. That was what caused Rove to go back to the grand jury and correct his testimony.

  5. But is that really true? The reason nobody knew about the phone call in the first place is that it wasn't entered in Rove's phone log, and Raw Story claims that Rove's secretary has testified that Rove specifically told her not to log it. Needless to say, that's mighty incriminating behavior. However, no other news account that I know of has confirmed this.

So: did Rove really forget? Or did he lie and then correct his testimony only when he knew he was about to get caught?

Perhaps the best clue is whether Fitzgerald asked Rove to testify (which Fitzgerald might do just to clear up some loose ends) or whether Rove volunteered to testify (which Rove wouldn't do except as a last ditch effort to keep from being indicted). So far, reports are distinctly mixed on this point.

It's all still rumors so far, though. Stay tuned.

UPDATE: Luskin released this statement after Rove's testimony:

In connection with this appearance, the Special Counsel has advised Mr. Rove that he is not a target of the investigation. Mr. Fitzgerald has affirmed that he has made no decision concerning charges.

That's pretty weaselly language, so it's hard to know what to make of it. Luskin doesn't say that Rove isn't a target, only that he's not a target "in connection with this appearance." As for bringing charges, there's no telling what "no decision" means. Maybe he's waiting to see if Rove cooperates in testimony against someone else. Maybe that's just boilerplate stuff that prosecutors say until the day they hand down an indictment. Who knows?

Kevin Drum 5:29 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (124)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

drip drip drip drip drip drip drip
drip drip drip
drip

drip

drip


drip

drip

drip

Posted by: HRlaughed on April 26, 2006 at 5:35 PM | PERMALINK

Frog march, frog march, frog march ...

Posted by: bushburner on April 26, 2006 at 5:36 PM | PERMALINK

U.S. seeks to keep evidence from 9/11 families

Why does the Bush administration hate the families of the 9/11 victims?

Why does the Bush administration keep lying to the courts about 9/11 evidence?

Do they have something to hide?

Posted by: Advocate for God on April 26, 2006 at 5:39 PM | PERMALINK

While none of us really knows what was in the grand jury testimony, I can't see any way in which the "I forgot" story is defensible. Rove knows all his calls are logged; he knows that he can find out who he talked to and when. If he was asked if he had talked to Cooper about this on such and such a date, at best he could have said, "I don't know, but I can find out."

But a blanket "I forgot" is at least misleading, if not a lie, even apart from Rove's famously prodigious memory. It's like being asked if you wrote a check to the RNC on December 4th, 2005. You can claim you forgot, but everyone knows you can easily find out by checking your bank statements.

Posted by: Boots Day on April 26, 2006 at 5:39 PM | PERMALINK

Time for a preemptive pardon.

Posted by: Ross Best on April 26, 2006 at 5:39 PM | PERMALINK

Jason Leopold claims that Fitzgerald has already sent Rove a "target letter" indicating that Rove faces imminent indictment.

Once again Jason Leopold is wrong.

"Rove's lawyer issued a statement saying Rove's appearance was scheduled at Fitzgerald's request. "In connection with this appearance, the Special Counsel has advised Mr. Rove that he is not a target of the investigation" and that no decision had been made concerning charges, Luskin said."

Posted by: Al on April 26, 2006 at 5:40 PM | PERMALINK

When was the last time the administration received some really good news?

Posted by: Ron Byers on April 26, 2006 at 5:41 PM | PERMALINK

His excuse for his earlier testimony was that he had had a simple memory lapse and had forgotten about the conversation

Rove must suffer from Ronald-Reagan-Iran-Contra Syndrome (RRICS).

Funny how many conservatives suffer from this.

Must be transmitted through partisanship.

Or carried by crooked lobbyists?

Posted by: Advocate for God on April 26, 2006 at 5:42 PM | PERMALINK

Isn't Rove also famous for his photographic memory?

I mean, if you're the kind of guy who doesn't forget unimportant things, it's a little suspicious to think you'd forget something that was, at the time, VERY important.

This defense doesn't make sense.

Posted by: theorajones on April 26, 2006 at 5:43 PM | PERMALINK

Al: Once again Jason Leopold is wrong.

Yeah. Rove's lawyer is the most credible source here.

Why is it that conservatives think lawyers are lying, scheming scum in every instance except when defending conservative alleged criminals?

Posted by: Advocate for God on April 26, 2006 at 5:44 PM | PERMALINK

On behalf of all the liberals, and, indeed, all the citizens of this great country, I remorsefully and profusely apologize to Mr. Rove for forcing him to go through this humliating excercise.

Posted by: whittington on April 26, 2006 at 5:45 PM | PERMALINK

You cannot be a Karl Rove in DC forever. It's an old town of institution and tradition. Every so often, a gang of sorts cruises in town and they think they are going to be on top forever. They get lost, blinded, drunk, whatever and DC will do that to anyone regardless of party.

Rove is getting his due, his payback. He thought he could behave in whatever manner without any fear of it coming back to him.

Read his bio someday if you can. Even the short wikipedia bio is worth it. You'll understand him much better. Not saying I have any sympathy for him, because I have none.

Posted by: Plastic Turkey on April 26, 2006 at 5:48 PM | PERMALINK

Advocate for God wrote: "Why does the Bush administration hate the families of the 9/11 victims?"

What was the original "Why do(es) ... hate ... ?" question that has been endlessly parodied of late?

Posted by: Joel Rubinstein on April 26, 2006 at 5:48 PM | PERMALINK
Yeah. Rove's lawyer is the most credible source here.

Rove's lawyer is probably a moderately credible source on whether or not Rove has received a target letter.

He's not, of course, any more credible a source than Rove himself on any of the facts relevant to what is being investigated.

So, if Luskin said what he said, it is probably true that Rove hasn't received a target letter, but that doesn't mean one should rule out the thought that perhaps Fitzgerald has communicated that Rove is far more likely to receive a target letter if he doesn't convincingly clear up some discrepancies in his past testimony, and between that testimony and other information in Fitzgerald's hands.

Posted by: cmdicely on April 26, 2006 at 5:49 PM | PERMALINK

All you commie losers will bow down to Al and me eventually!

Posted by: Freedom Phukher on April 26, 2006 at 5:50 PM | PERMALINK

You know what I find incredible? This passage from how Luskin supposedly found out that Rove had talked to Cooper:

according to Luskin, my remark led him to do an intensive search for evidence that Rove and Matt had talked. That's how Luskin says he found the e-mail Rove wrote to Stephen Hadley at the National Security Council right after his conversation with Matt, saying that Matt had called about welfare reform but then switched to the subject of Iraq's alleged attempt to buy uranium yellowcake in Niger. According to Luskin, he turned the e-mail over to Fitzgerald when he found it, leading Rove to acknowledge before the grand jury in October 2004 that he had indeed spoken with Cooper.

Are we really going to believe that Luskin and/or Rove made no attempt to look at ALL of his email at the critical period in question, to determine who Rove was talking to at the time? How many emails could that possibly be? And he couldn't do a search on "Cooper" or "Matt" or "Time"?

I mean, the guy has at stake many years in prison, and they can't charge anybody to read through his email for a few weeks?

Does any of that make any sense?

Posted by: frankly0 on April 26, 2006 at 5:53 PM | PERMALINK

Advocate for God,
Why is it that conservatives think lawyers are lying, scheming scum in every instance except when defending conservative alleged criminals?

Should be "Why is it that conservatives think lawyers are lying, scheming scum in every instance except when defending lying, scheming scum."

Posted by: bushburner on April 26, 2006 at 6:00 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin Drum has now posted on Karl Rove more than one thousand times.

Award ceremony tonite. Everybody who attends gets a tinfoil helmet and a MoveOn.Org bumper sticker.

Posted by: Frequency Kenneth on April 26, 2006 at 6:00 PM | PERMALINK

Frequency nailed it.

Posted by: lib on April 26, 2006 at 6:01 PM | PERMALINK

The idea that Rove would forget that he participated in a coordinated attack against Joe Wilson is absurd and I will lose respect for Fitzgerald if he buys a story like that.

I'm not saying if he should or should not indict him. But Rove is lying about this.

Posted by: little ole jim from red country on April 26, 2006 at 6:03 PM | PERMALINK

Karl Rove testified today for the fifth time before the grand jury

I bet this time he told the truth.

Posted by: ckelly on April 26, 2006 at 6:03 PM | PERMALINK

You mean this time he really, really, really, really told the truth.

Posted by: bushburner on April 26, 2006 at 6:05 PM | PERMALINK

Or

Why is it that conservatives think lawyers are lying, scheming scum in every instance except when defending conservative [lying, scheming scum]?


Posted by: ckelly on April 26, 2006 at 6:06 PM | PERMALINK

"Frequency nailed it."

"it" meaning his thumb?

Posted by: Mysticdog on April 26, 2006 at 6:06 PM | PERMALINK

Martha Stewart went to JAIL for talking to her secretary about thinking about deleting a call record (or maybe it was email, I forget).

That Rove is not in jail right now getting assraped is a fucking travesty of justice.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on April 26, 2006 at 6:06 PM | PERMALINK

Read his bio someday if you can. Even the short wikipedia bio is worth it. You'll understand him much better

Yeah, yeah, he never got laid. We all discussed this in a post some time back. Hell, I'll buy him a hooker myself if he'll stop wrecking the country.

Posted by: ckelly on April 26, 2006 at 6:08 PM | PERMALINK

They would have him in jail being assraped now but they can't spare him. He is busy assraping us.

Posted by: bushburner on April 26, 2006 at 6:09 PM | PERMALINK

The Jason Leopold article that "Al" referred to above is here:

Target Letter Drives Rove Back to Grand Jury
By Jason Leopold
TruthOut.org
April 26, 2006

Excerpt:

Karl Rove's appearance before a grand jury in the CIA leak case Wednesday comes on the heels of a "target letter" sent to his attorney recently by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, signaling that the Deputy White House Chief of Staff may face imminent indictment, sources that are knowledgeable about the probe said Wednesday.

It's unclear when Fitzgerald sent the target letter to Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin. Sources close to the two-year-old leak investigation said when Rove's attorney received the letter Rove volunteered to appear before the grand jury for an unprecedented fifth time to explain why he did not previously disclose conversations he had with the media about covert CIA operative Valerie Plame and her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who criticized the Bush administration's use of pre-war Iraq intelligence.

A federal grand jury target letter is sent to a person in a criminal investigation who is likely to be indicted. In a prepared statement Wednesday, Luskin said Fitzgerald indicated that Rove is not a "target" of the investigation. A "target" of a grand jury investigation is a person who a prosecutor has substantial evidence to link to a crime.

Last week, Rove was stripped of some of his policy duties in a White House shakeup orchestrated by incoming Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten. The White House insisted that Rove was not demoted, but insiders said the executive branch is bracing for a possible indictment against Rove.

Interestingly, the paragraph that "Al" quoted does not appear in the article on the WRAL.com website that he linked to.

The following paragraph does appear, and notably it does not quote Rove's attorney Luskin as saying "the Special Counsel has advised Mr. Rove that he is not a target of the investigation". Indeed, there is nothing in the article that "Al" linked to that contradicts Jason Leopold's article:

Rove "testified voluntarily and unconditionally at the request of Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald to explore a matter raised since Mr. Rove's last appearance," Luskin said in a statement. "Mr. Fitzgerald has affirmed that he has made no decision concerning charges."

Ribbit. Ribbit.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on April 26, 2006 at 6:10 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin Drum has now posted on Karl Rove more than one thousand times.

Golly, almost as many times as Rove has testified to a grand jury.

Posted by: ckelly on April 26, 2006 at 6:11 PM | PERMALINK

"it" meaning his thumb?
Posted by: Mysticdog on April 26, 2006 at 6:06 PM | PERMALINK

His mom.

Posted by: Frequently Wrong on April 26, 2006 at 6:11 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin Drum has now posted on Karl Rove more than one thousand times.

This is a political blog. Karl Rove is one of the two or three most important political figures in the country.

What else are we supposed to be talking about?

Posted by: Boots Day on April 26, 2006 at 6:12 PM | PERMALINK

I think that Rove is one of the best political minds of this or any generation. Its just unfortunate that he had to be turned to the dark side. As for the rest, why is everyone SO AMAZED that a career politician might have lied? I'd be more surprised if he told the truth when asked for it!

Posted by: smday on April 26, 2006 at 6:13 PM | PERMALINK

Viveca Novak (no relation to Robert Novak)

O r Ly? I thought they were both ethically challenged journalistic jerks?

Posted by: jerry on April 26, 2006 at 6:16 PM | PERMALINK

What else are we supposed to be talking about?
How much our ass hurts ... oh wait that is talking about Karl again.

Posted by: bushburner on April 26, 2006 at 6:17 PM | PERMALINK

Posted by: Frequency Kenneth

Such an odd handle. Sort of a sexual motif?

What is lacking in proficiency is made up for with Frequency?

???

Posted by: obscure on April 26, 2006 at 6:17 PM | PERMALINK

mmmm, I smell popcorn.

Posted by: shortstop on April 26, 2006 at 6:18 PM | PERMALINK

obscure: It's a reference to an REM song title, "What's the Frequency, Kenneth?"

Posted by: shortstop on April 26, 2006 at 6:19 PM | PERMALINK

What else are we supposed to be talking about?

Why, anything.

Except criticizing the worst administration--by a long shot--in US history.

Posted by: obscure on April 26, 2006 at 6:19 PM | PERMALINK

shortstop: which is a reference to a line in a science fiction book by, I think, Spider Robinson.

which is pretty obsscure ...

Posted by: kenga on April 26, 2006 at 6:22 PM | PERMALINK

shortstop,

I like my gloss better.

(REM used to be cool, anyway...)

Posted by: obscure on April 26, 2006 at 6:22 PM | PERMALINK

"What's the frequency, Kenneth?" is what Dan Rather claims the two goons who beat him up kept asking him.

Posted by: Boots Day on April 26, 2006 at 6:27 PM | PERMALINK

obscure, I like yours better, too.

Actually, I just looked it up to see what that song title was based upon. Apparently some NYC mugger once threw Dan Rather to the ground shouting, "What's the frequency, Kenneth?" Turned out the guy was a psycho (and murderer) who thought that the media was beaming signals into his head and that if he could just find the correct frequency, he could stop the madness.

So I'm pretty sure Frequency Kenneth thinks he's slamming Dan Rather with this handle, but I'd say the real message here is that he's fucking bats.

Posted by: shortstop on April 26, 2006 at 6:27 PM | PERMALINK

obscure,
No, really, this is better!

http://www.ape-o-naut.org/innuendo/

gives you some insight into our "friend".

Posted by: kenga on April 26, 2006 at 6:27 PM | PERMALINK

Anyone who feels like Rove is defying the people is free to stop rowing Rove's boat.

Posted by: rtdrury on April 26, 2006 at 6:27 PM | PERMALINK

Right on, kenga!

Posted by: shortstop on April 26, 2006 at 6:28 PM | PERMALINK

And Boots, too!

rtdrury: Anyone who feels like Rove is defying the people is free to stop rowing Rove's boat.

Okay, but what is this in reference to?

Posted by: shortstop on April 26, 2006 at 6:30 PM | PERMALINK

shortstop, you got it first!
Got any jujubes?

Posted by: kenga on April 26, 2006 at 6:32 PM | PERMALINK

kenga: Here you go, babe. Don't take all the red ones.

Posted by: shortstop on April 26, 2006 at 6:33 PM | PERMALINK
That's pretty weaselly language, so it's hard to know what to make of it. Luskin doesn't say that Rove isn't a target, only that he's not a target "in connection with this appearance."

Didn't you have to diagram sentences in high school. "In connection with this appearance" explains the context of Rove being informed that he is not a target. What he is not a target of is "the investigation", not merely something limited to this particular appearance. It is a real strain to make this weaselly.

Now, its quite possible that there is more that Luskin isn't telling us -- its, after all, not his job to fully inform the public so it would be foolish to expect him to gratuitously do so. But there is no reason to look at what was said as particularly weaselly in the way you bizarrely have read it.

Posted by: cmdicely on April 26, 2006 at 6:36 PM | PERMALINK


There isn't any doubt that Rove is completely dishonest and probably traitorous. And I have no doubt either that Fitzgerald could indict and obtain a felony conviction against Bush's favorite worshipper. But I do have doubts regarding Fitzgerald's commitment to justice. I believe he is much less non-partisan than people think, given that he has failed to bring wrong-doers to justice in the past. If you don't mind having your excitement tempered over the prospect of seeing Rove properly punished, see this pessimistic analysis of the Plame matter.


Posted by: jayarbee on April 26, 2006 at 6:39 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely:

Rove's lawyer is probably a moderately credible source on whether or not Rove has received a target letter.

I'm not sure about that, unless you're qualify it by saying he's also moderately incredible too.
I mean, is he under oath?
He could very well be arguing in the court of public opinion well before any actual trial jury is seated.
No?

Posted by: kenga on April 26, 2006 at 6:41 PM | PERMALINK


CMDICELY: "In connection with this appearance" explains the context of Rove being informed that he is not a target. What he is not a target of is "the investigation", not merely something limited to this particular appearance. It is a real strain to make this weaselly.
Except that as it was explained earlier on CNN by Jeffrey Toobin, witnesses have three categories. The first is plain and simple: witness. The second: subject. And the third: target. According to Toobin, targets are generally named just before indictment; but subjects are what pre-targets are called. Not all subjects are indicted, of course. But Rove is a subject, and declaring that he is not a target is a bit weaselly because he is clearly trying to give the impression that it never even occured to anyone investigating the matter that he might ever be charged.


Posted by: jayarbee on April 26, 2006 at 6:51 PM | PERMALINK

"Karl Rove appeared today before the Grand Jury investigating the disclosure of a CIA agent's identity. He testified voluntarily and unconditionally at the request of Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald to explore a matter raised since Mr. Rove's last appearance in October 2005," Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, said in a written statement.

Both the Wasington Post and Raw Story assertions are equally credible (or not). From Luskin:

He [Rove] testified voluntarily and unconditionally at the request of Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald to explore a matter raised since Mr. Rove's last appearance in October 2005
Both Viveca Novak and Susan Ralston testified after Rove's last appearance; not sure who, if anyone else.

Posted by: has407 on April 26, 2006 at 6:51 PM | PERMALINK

and Raw Story claims that Rove's secretary has testified that Rove specifically told her not to log it.

if that is actually true, and if that's the only source then I have to wonder, but if true then it sure looks bad for him.

Posted by: Ringo on April 26, 2006 at 6:53 PM | PERMALINK

obscure: It's a reference to an REM song title, "What's the Frequency, Kenneth?"

Still more obscure: it's what a hoodlum said to Dan Rather while mugging him. That's what REM was alluding to.

Posted by: dj moonbat on April 26, 2006 at 6:58 PM | PERMALINK

Brian Williams just spent 5 minutes plugging the new film about 9/11.

Posted by: jkk on April 26, 2006 at 7:07 PM | PERMALINK

Karl Rove smells like pork rinds and peppermint Altoids! He cheats at Yahtzee and he has an outie belly button! He's got the name of a character from Star Wars and two white hairs sticking out of his left nostril!

I hate that guy.

Posted by: enozinho on April 26, 2006 at 7:08 PM | PERMALINK

Cmdicely suggests Kevin is still at the high school level of understanding sentence structure, but the real point is that Luskin's law school training has taken sentence structure to a much higher art form - and one designed to deceive. Contrar - Kevin's grammactical skills are beyond mine or cmdicely's, which is why he is so adept in spotting the weasly words of Robert "Gold Bar" Luskin. It's big league time here and high schoolers like cmdicely should leave this stuff to the experts!

Posted by: pgl on April 26, 2006 at 7:15 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely is going to make a fine lawyer!

Posted by: Tilli (Mojave Desert) on April 26, 2006 at 7:18 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely -

I read that sentence the same way you do, not weaselly in the way in which Kevin thinks it is.

Posted by: Ugh on April 26, 2006 at 7:19 PM | PERMALINK

I don't have time to read all the comments, but it's worth noting that Fitzgerald won't "hand down an indictment"; he will announce it if the grand jury hands up an indictment, which he may or may not ask it to do.

Posted by: the spook on April 26, 2006 at 7:20 PM | PERMALINK

I have said all along that Rove faked the e-mail to Hadley to buy time or exhonerate himself. That whole episode is classic obstruction of justice, perjury and fraud. Maybe he was trying to balance the other counts of the treason indictment. What a schmoe. Bush's other brain runs on pure evil I think.

Posted by: Sparko on April 26, 2006 at 7:24 PM | PERMALINK

Sparko: Bush's other brain runs on pure evil I think.

Pure evil...and pure unrefined oil from the Alaskan wilderness, my friend!

Posted by: shortstop on April 26, 2006 at 7:28 PM | PERMALINK

If (when?) Rove gets indicted, be prepared for the wingnuts proclaiming that Bush was the true political genius and Rove simply an implementer.

Posted by: Ugh on April 26, 2006 at 7:33 PM | PERMALINK

I read that sentence the same way you do, not weaselly in the way in which Kevin thinks it is.

Yes, you are supposed to read it that way. But when Rove gets frog-marched Luskin will tell you, "Oh no, I just meant he wasn't a subject in connection with that appearance!"

These guys aren't trying to communicate clearly with you, they are trying to use words to create an impression without tying themselves into any particular meaning. See "All The President's Men", "Non-denial denial."

Posted by: jimBOB on April 26, 2006 at 7:36 PM | PERMALINK

I wish we had an experienced criminal lawyer around here. I think Luskin probably is misleading, wanting to generate the quote in the media that "In connection with is appearance, the Special Counsel has advised Mr. Rove that he is not a target of the investigation." But apparently, that fact means far less than it implies, because Rove would not become a target until near the time of an indictment.

I also find the second sentence interesting, because it seems unnecessary. Perhaps Luskin did not want to anger Fitzpatrick or wanted to maintain his own integrity, so he threw in the second sentence to maintain credibility in a future claim that he was not trying to mislead anyone.

Posted by: brian on April 26, 2006 at 7:47 PM | PERMALINK

jimBOB -

You will likely find that my comments here, as well as cmdicely's (though I should not speak for him) are unlikely to disagree with your worldview (unless you read my early comments when I was a right-wing troll later straightened out by hilzoy and katherine). Kevin seems to think that the "weaselly" language is "in connection with this appearance," which I think is clearly wrong. There might be other weaselly language in connection with that portion of the statement but that's not what Kevin was referring to.

In any event, if Rove is indicted (inshallah), the only thing you'll here from Luskin is "No comment" or, more likely, "I no longer represent Mr. Rove."

Posted by: Ugh on April 26, 2006 at 7:53 PM | PERMALINK

FQ: Kevin Drum has now posted on Karl Rove more than one thousand times.

Shorter Frequency Kenneth: stop paying attention to this, damnit! STOP IT BEFORE YOU NOTICE SOMETHING INCRIMINATING!

Posted by: Stefan on April 26, 2006 at 8:00 PM | PERMALINK

Ugh,

I agree completely with your 7:53pm post.

Posted by: cmdicely on April 26, 2006 at 8:08 PM | PERMALINK
I also find the second sentence interesting, because it seems unnecessary. Perhaps Luskin did not want to anger Fitzpatrick or wanted to maintain his own integrity, so he threw in the second sentence to maintain credibility in a future claim that he was not trying to mislead anyone.

The second section is actually more potentially weaselly than the one Kevin gloms onto. If Fitz had made a decision to charge Rove, he would be a target. So what him saying that he hadn't made a decision means, in the context of him not having named Rove a target, is to make clear that the door for charges is still open.

Luskin tries to use it here to increase the impact of Rove not getting a target letter, when it seems really to do the opposite.

Posted by: cmdicely on April 26, 2006 at 8:12 PM | PERMALINK

Also refers to that strange thing that happened to Dan Rather a few years back, when he was assaulted by a madman on the street who kep't repeating the phrase "what's the frequency, Kenneth?" over and over. That was the inspiration for the REM song, but I didn't know it had a literary antecedent.

Posted by: in search of tossed limes on April 26, 2006 at 8:13 PM | PERMALINK

Crap, someone already mentioned that! Apologies.

Posted by: in search of tossed limes on April 26, 2006 at 8:15 PM | PERMALINK

I agree that sentence is exactly as cmdicely describes it, yet am I too jaded when I say I think it's possible a Republican lawyer might write it like that so that in the future he could say that reading it wrong was what he had actually meant, and sorry, I didn't mean to confuse anyone?

Posted by: cld on April 26, 2006 at 8:34 PM | PERMALINK

Weaselly or not, the sentence is meaningless given the one following it. Rove is "not a target" but "no decison concerning charges" has been made. The first sentence suggests that Rove is not in danger of indictment, the second says that he may or may not be.

This is just a roundabout way of saying "no comment."

Posted by: moderleft on April 26, 2006 at 8:55 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, Frequency Kenneth, tell your friend Karl to keep both his chins up.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on April 26, 2006 at 9:26 PM | PERMALINK

Luskin apparently made similar comments last Wednesday, Apr 19(see here):

"Mr. Rove is still a subject of the investigation," Luskin said. ... "Mr. Fitzgerald hasn't made any decision on the charges and I can't speculate what the outcome will be," Luskin said.
Luskin didn't say much more today, other than that Rove hasn't moved from subject to target. (However, I haven't found a primary source for Luskin's interview last week.)

In that light, Luskin's statement today is neither weaselly or incongruous, and most likely was intended to make it clear that Rove's position has not changed since last week.

Posted by: has407 on April 26, 2006 at 9:30 PM | PERMALINK

This Fitzmas there'll be a pony under the tree for sure!

Geez, people. Sometimes I wonder how many of you are still going to have functioning minds by January of 2009.

I know one or two conservatives who never climbed out of their Clinton obsessions. You can still set them foaming for a solid half hour by mentioning the words "Vince Foster" or "MINA." It ain't pretty. There's probably some leftists who have yet to get over Nixon.

Posted by: tbrosz on April 26, 2006 at 9:40 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely, I have a really basic question:

Can someone refuse to testify to a grand jury?

Posted by: Tilli (Mojave Desert) on April 26, 2006 at 9:41 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz, why don't you think it's kind of interesting that Rove testified for a fifth time?

Posted by: Tilli (Mojave Desert) on April 26, 2006 at 9:43 PM | PERMALINK

Well, perhaps you can keep this one for next Fitzmas/Fitzween...you need your distractions.,

Posted by: McA on April 26, 2006 at 9:48 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz, the Vince Foster stuff never meant anything, but the damage Rove and company are doing to our democracy is huge and it is NOW. Take off your partisan blinkers and get some sense of proportion.

Posted by: Kenji on April 26, 2006 at 9:54 PM | PERMALINK

This Fitzmas there'll be a pony under the tree for sure!

As I've noted before, tbrosz, better to hope that wrongdoers in government be held accountable than to celebrate their avoiding accountability. shame on you.

Geez, people. Sometimes I wonder how many of you are still going to have functioning minds by January of 2009.

Says the man whose mind function seems only capable of concocting an ever-more-desperate series of straw men and assorted intellectual dishonesty to carry the Bush Administration's water.

I know one or two conservatives who never climbed out of their Clinton obsessions. You can still set them foaming for a solid half hour by mentioning the words "Vince Foster" or "MINA." It ain't pretty. There's probably some leftists who have yet to get over Nixon.

Hell, tbrosz, you haven't gotten over FDR, let alone those who opposed the Vietnam War.

Really lame performance, tbrosz. Your parodists do a better job. Shame on you.

Posted by: Gregory on April 26, 2006 at 10:10 PM | PERMALINK

No Rummy Left Behind,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/stevebell/0,,1756700,00.html

Posted by: cld on April 26, 2006 at 10:12 PM | PERMALINK

Kenga,

Wow. Thanks for the link.

Kenji- Take off your partisan blinkers and get some sense of proportion.

Now there's an optimist.

Posted by: obscure on April 26, 2006 at 10:15 PM | PERMALINK

These filthy, lying Bushies!

What the Dems should be demanding, is the transcripts from when the filthy liar, Dick Cheney met with the CEOs of the big oil companies and colluded to raise oil prices, to the usurious levels we are paying today!

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on April 26, 2006 at 10:21 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, that's it Stephen, collusion. The high gas prices have nothing to do with the volatile ME, left environmentalists demands of no drilling in the Pacific or in ANWR, high taxes on gas, or the lack of any new refineries in the last decade or two. It's those lying Bushies! Your head is firmly planted.

Posted by: Jay on April 26, 2006 at 10:32 PM | PERMALINK

the volatile ME

And Bush/Cheney have had nothing to do with that...

Posted by: xyz on April 26, 2006 at 10:36 PM | PERMALINK

It is amazing to look at all the bitter quotes left from Democrats in this thread.

Talk about bitter losers!

Posted by: Frequency Kenneth on April 26, 2006 at 10:38 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, the ME was completely peaceful prior to 2001. Re-read the line about the head being firmly planted.

Posted by: Jay on April 26, 2006 at 10:40 PM | PERMALINK

I think we are running out of stuff to talk about.

We are all pretty much convinced lil George is a drunken idiot, but beyond that, we just circulate the same old crap.

Posted by: Matt on April 26, 2006 at 10:41 PM | PERMALINK

Matt, you guys have been doing that now for five years, why stop now?

Posted by: Jay on April 26, 2006 at 10:42 PM | PERMALINK

Can someone refuse to testify to a grand jury?

They can assert a variety of legal privileges to avoid answering questions, most notably the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

Posted by: cmdicely on April 26, 2006 at 10:42 PM | PERMALINK

A CIA employee and a self-admitted contributor to Democrat Presidential campaigns has been fired for revealing sensitive national secrets in a time of war and you guys are still worried about the a CIA desk jocky's name being revealed, which was followed by a nice pictoral expose in Vanity Fair. Shouldn't you be spending time coming up with another losing platform for the '08 election?

Posted by: Jay on April 26, 2006 at 10:46 PM | PERMALINK

a self-admitted contributor to Democrat Presidential campaigns

The horror! The horror!

I love, by the way, the way Jay calls running a secret torture gulag "sensitive national secrets in a time of war."

Posted by: Gregory on April 26, 2006 at 10:48 PM | PERMALINK

So Karl went to the grand jury. If Fitzgerald was going to indict Rove for leaking Plame's name, why hasn't he done so before now? Novak publically stated that Fitzgerald knows who gave Novak Plame's name. So is Fitzgerald going after Rove for another "process" offense? Saying different things on the same subject to investigators or the grand jury?
Bill Keller of the Times came out today with an e-mail on teh leak cases . It seems he wants journalists to have immunity from prosecution for reporting national security secrets. He didn't seem this concerned when the Times pushed for the current investigation in the Plame affair. Then Judy Miller went to jail for a while and other reporters had to testify before the grand jury. Now his paper and the Post have printed stories based on classified information. He doesn't want subpeonas coming to Risen and others to explain who leaked this information to the Times. You can't have your cake and it it too.

Posted by: Meatss on April 26, 2006 at 10:55 PM | PERMALINK

Look, oil is finite. $1.50/gallon gasoline is not coming back.

Posted by: troglodyte on April 26, 2006 at 10:56 PM | PERMALINK

Look, oil is finite. $1.50/gallon gasoline is not coming back.

Posted by: troglodyte on April 26, 2006 at 10:56 PM | PERMALINK

And that's a bad thing with enviromental effects?

Posted by: McA on April 26, 2006 at 10:58 PM | PERMALINK

as long as we're going down the frequency kenneth rathole, harper's had an investigation years after rather was attacked. turns out the late author donald barthelme used the phrase "what's the frequency" in a story which had a character named kenneth in it. barthelme and rather were both jornalists in houston at the same time.

Posted by: benjoya on April 26, 2006 at 11:23 PM | PERMALINK

Ron Byers from 5:41

You mean other than 4.9 or 5% GDP growth in the first quarter?

Posted by: Birkel on April 26, 2006 at 11:28 PM | PERMALINK

You mean other than 4.9 or 5% GDP growth in the first quarter?

I'm still excited about that!

Posted by: obscure on April 26, 2006 at 11:32 PM | PERMALINK

Glad to hear it, obscure.

And consumer confidence is at a four year high.

Posted by: Birkel on April 26, 2006 at 11:39 PM | PERMALINK

You mean other than 4.9 or 5% GDP growth in the first quarter?

When did they release Q1 data? I don't see it on the BEA site.

Posted by: BB on April 26, 2006 at 11:41 PM | PERMALINK

"The Conference Board derived its index from responses received through April 18, which was before gasoline prices surged to new highs."

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8H77E2GC.htm

Posted by: BB on April 26, 2006 at 11:45 PM | PERMALINK

On behalf of all the liberals, and, indeed, all the citizens of this great country, I remorsefully and profusely apologize to Mr. Rove for forcing him to go through this humliating excercise.
Posted by: whittington on April 26, 2006 at 5:45 PM | PERMALINK

Ms Piggy Could stand to lose a few pounds. As far as being Apologetic for what a 'Politician', Republican or Democrat, such as Rove does, do you have your dick in the peanut butter?

Its a Feckin Lyin Ass Politician...Sheesh.
Do you Really think only Neo-Cons are more moral? Or are Really more moral because of their Choice of Politicial Party? See here;
FW's chairman was none other than Donald Rumsfeld.

The "missing link" between the "Democratic" DLC and the now "Republican" CDM/CPD/CFW neo-cons, is the Social Democrats-USA, (SDUSA), whose chairman, Penn Kemble, was the Executive Director of the Coalition for a Democratic Majority in 1972, until he brought in Richard Perle's underling Stephen Bryen to take his place. Bryen, who created the hawkish Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) in the early 1980s, when he served as Perle's aide at the Department of Defense, is another leading member of the neo-conservative gang that wants to go to war against the entire Arab world in the name of anti-terrorism. Providing daily coordination between Perle and Bryen would be Joshua Muravchik, a fixture at nearly every American Enterprise Institute event--but also a leader of SDUSA since its creation.

The DLC and SDUSA both maintain extremely close links to Tony Blair's British "New Labour" party faction, and in parallel, are out to recreate a new version of the Coalition for a Democratic Majority in time for the 2004 elections. The battle cry for this effort is to follow the "strong defense" lead of the original CDM's heroes: the late Dem Senators Henry "Scoop" Jackson, and Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

The CDM's two leading lights in Congress were the Democratic Senators Jackson and Moynihan. The Cold Warrior and fanatically pro-Israel
Jackson remains the model for the DLC crowd today. Former DLC president Joe Lieberman declares he is proud to be identified as a
"'Scoop' Jackson Democrat." It was these two Senators' offices that housed the Straussians behind the no-exit Iraq War.
http://forums.alternet.org/guest/motet?show+-ui13dz+-il... -
Yahhh Thats what I thought. DiemonTHuglicansJinsas
The Religious War "Triad"

Posted by: Mach Tuck on April 26, 2006 at 11:48 PM | PERMALINK

Dan Rather really was beaten by two guys who kept saying, "What's the frequency, Kenneth?" Rather was widely mocked as loony for thinking they said that. It was a national joke, and clung to Rather thereafter. A few years later, someone in jail admitted that he and another hood beat Rather. They were loan shark enforcers who mistook Rather for a man they were to rough up for failing to keep up the requisite frequency of payments.

Posted by: putnam on April 26, 2006 at 11:50 PM | PERMALINK

Where's the Q1 GDP data, Birkel?

Posted by: BB on April 26, 2006 at 11:53 PM | PERMALINK

So I guess you just made those numbers up, Birkel.

Why'd you do that, Birkel?

Posted by: BB on April 27, 2006 at 12:06 AM | PERMALINK

The Wash. Post quotes one of Rove's friends tonight as saying that he's "not sure whether or not he will be indicted": http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/26/AR2006042600849.html

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw on April 27, 2006 at 12:43 AM | PERMALINK

I think we need to stop calling it the Plame Case and call it the Scooter Libby Case.

Posted by: aaron on April 27, 2006 at 1:19 AM | PERMALINK

I think it's still called the Plame case because nobody has been charged with illegally releasing her name, whether it was illegal to do so or not. Mr. Libbey is charged with lying to a grand jury and obstruction. It's a result of the investigation of the Plame case, but not a direct result of her name being released.

Posted by: Meatss on April 27, 2006 at 1:39 AM | PERMALINK

I realize I'm late to the dance, but in reviewing comments, I believe one important point is missing.

But first, I hope someone is taking notes in the whole Plame story. I don't care for special prosecutors; they are way over used. However, Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation is one for the books. I would like to see a comparison between his method of investigation and that of Ken Starr's Whitewater witch hunt. (How do you investigate investment irregularities for years and end up with unrelated infidelities?)

Fitzgerald's investigation is how they should be done. At least I guess that is how they should be done since there are so few leaks from the inside. Starr's investigation leaked like a sieve, but only negative information about Clinton leaked. Only after it was reported to Congress, where positive points known. Why were none of them ever leaked?

Anyway back to the investigation at hand, the no target comment is important to any future defense. Rove can go in there and spill his guts. If he is later charged with anything directly related to the Plame leak, his lawyer can claim that if he had known he was a target, he would have advised his client to not self incriminate by speaking so openly and friendly. His client was misled and trapped by prosecutors misrepresenting their intentions.

I'm no lawyer nor do I play one on TV, by if Fitz goes after Rove later, I would want to know exactly when and what changed his opinion and anything said after that, and before Rove was told he was a target, cannot be used against him. I would want it known now that my client is acting differently than if he was being considered in any way for possible legal action in the future. the target, no target comments are pre-trial tactical maneuvering just in case there is one.

Posted by: scout29c on April 27, 2006 at 8:25 AM | PERMALINK

Rove must suffer from Ronald-Reagan-Iran-Contra Syndrome (RRICS).

Funny how many conservatives suffer from this.

Must be transmitted through partisanship.

Or carried by crooked lobbyists?

You mean like Hillary Clinton's unending streak of "I don't recall"s and "I don't remember"s in the Whitewater investigation?

Posted by: Miguel on April 27, 2006 at 9:50 AM | PERMALINK

"The high gas prices have nothing to do with the volatile ME, left environmentalists demands of no drilling in the Pacific or in ANWR..." (Sarcasm implied)

Yeah, those damn conservationists, forcing us to drive our SUVs!

Posted by: Kenji on April 27, 2006 at 11:13 AM | PERMALINK

scout29c: [T]he no target comment is important to any future defense. Rove can go in there and spill his guts. If he is later charged with anything directly related to the Plame leak, his lawyer can claim that if he had known he was a target, he would have advised his client to not self incriminate by speaking so openly and friendly. His client was misled and trapped by prosecutors misrepresenting their intentions.

It's up to a potential witness to assert his 5th Amendment rights. Besides, it seems incredibly unlikely that in private, Fitz's team is telling Rove he's not a subject of the investigation, or that they've ruled out charges.

Posted by: dj moonbat on April 27, 2006 at 11:13 AM | PERMALINK

frankly0:

I'm late to this...but I'm confused as to your earlier remarks concerning Rove's e-mail.
I conduct e-discovery on a regular basis..you're correct that sometimes it is done by filtering search terms...sometimes not. A witness to a GJ investigation may very well not run a comprehensive search but rather just look over subject headers.

Regardless, your point that he should have searched for Matt, Cooper, or Time is inapposite.
Why? Um, because how would he have known to look for those names unless he remembered the conversation? A filter search would have been run for Plame or Valerie (which if not specifically mentioned in the e-mail wouldn't show up)...

Posted by: Nathan on April 27, 2006 at 11:16 AM | PERMALINK

"You mean like Hillary Clinton's unending streak of "I don't recall"s and "I don't remember"s in the Whitewater investigation?"

No, I mean like Bush's dick in your mouth.

Posted by: brewmn on April 27, 2006 at 11:57 AM | PERMALINK

Miguel,
You're forgetting, that was Hillary reading the transcript of Reagan's testimony in the Iran-Contra investigation.

Posted by: kenga on April 27, 2006 at 1:08 PM | PERMALINK

Raw Story claims that Rove's secretary has testified that Rove specifically told her not to log it.


remember.....

rove's secretary mentioned above was susan ralston..

she got the job after working for...

wait for it..

jack abramoff....

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on April 27, 2006 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINK

singer,actor,pic

map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map

Posted by: 4534534 on April 27, 2006 at 1:52 PM | PERMALINK

How come Clinton didn't get two or three chances to clear up his (I forgot) I guess Fitz is just a better man then Ken(The Perv) Starr.

Posted by: Booo on April 27, 2006 at 2:10 PM | PERMALINK

I guess I'm wrong and stand corrected.

I always thought that "Frequency Kenneth" was a particular style and make of tinfoil hat.

Posted by: Cal Gal on April 27, 2006 at 3:13 PM | PERMALINK

I think you're all missing an important factoid.

Last sentence in the NY Times article about Rove's fifth appearance:

"Mr. Novak has testified to the grand jury since Mr. Rove's last appearance in October 2005."

It's Novak's testimony that Rove is trying to refute.

Posted by: Cal Gal on April 27, 2006 at 3:20 PM | PERMALINK

Cal Gal -- That's one I didn't notice. IIRC, that makes at least three people who testified after Rove last October: Bob Novak, Viveca Novak and Susan Ralston.

Posted by: has407 on April 27, 2006 at 5:51 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly