June 13, 2006
Is Rove Free?

Greetings from the hills of Appalachia! I’m safely ensconced in the house I grew up in, posting through the magic of 56K dialup, still a little behind on the editing chores, sitting in the bedroom that was mine from age 8 to 18. My grandmother, who’ll be 101 next month, is sleeping downstairs. Should be a very interesting summer.

Everyone’s probably disappointed, as I am, to hear that Fitz does not plan to indict Rove. Could it be, though, that Karl got off because he coöperated?

I start from three premises:

  • Fitzgerald has not been bought or intimidated
  • Fitz’s real target is Cheney
  • Rove and Cheney lead opposing camps of the Bush coalition

The two camps, which we might call the political and the imperial, are not completely distinct; they share some aims, and perhaps some people as well. One belief they shared is that they could use the other camp’s abilities to further their own projects. That was true for a while, but the magic fades, especially when it was just prestidigitation, and a feeble attempt at that.

In addition to the stresses brought on by the results of policy made illegitimately and often illegally, the personal relationship between Rove and Cheney is nothing like that between Rove and Bush. There might be some level below which Rove would not go, but I doubt it. My guess is that avoiding serious jail time would be a strong incentive to rat out a Vice President who’s already your major competitor for the Presidential ear.

We know Fitzgerald has always indicted Official A. Could the Jason Leopold report of Rove’s imminent indictment conceivably have been a leak from Fitz’s office? There’ve been precious few of those during the investigation, meriting admiration from both sides. But suppose Fitz was letting Rove know that he had enough to indict, and would do so unless he got the coöperation he was demanding. Rove would get the message, but Leopold’s background would provide deniability for the prosecutor’s office.

It seems pretty clear from the media reports (which I trust implicitly) that Cheney was the real director of the get-Joe-Wilson campaign. If Fitz could nail him using information from Karl, I would consider that an acceptable trade-off.

This also fits the pattern of the CIA leaking information as part of its war with this White House. I expect the agency is particularly unhappy with Cheney, given his role in bypassing the intelligence community and cherry-picking its product in the lead-up to war, then blaming the agency for the administration’s lies.

Webding3.jpg

Posted by Chuck Dupree at June 13, 2006 02:27 PM
Email this entry to:


Your email address:


Message (optional):


Comments

Hey Chuck! You were missed at the last BARBARian gathering, but glad to hear you're firmly ensconced in familial surroundings. (Go grandma!)

And re: Rove being let off the hook, this BETTER mean that a) he cut a deal in order to b) get Cheney.

Otherwise, we'll probably never get to the bottom of this.

Posted by: mags on June 13, 2006 3:29 PM

of course, any number of crowing cocks in wingnuttia have taken this opportunity to proclaim that THIS PROVES ROVE IS INNOCENT!

and he didn't even need johnny cochran to get there.

these are the same people who, of course, still loudly proclaim the previous administration to be guilty of rape and murder...

please dear god just tell me we don't have to put up with hearing Unka Karl on his own talk radio show five years from now.

Posted by: r@d@r on June 13, 2006 5:26 PM

My head spins from the unending twists and turns in this case. Is Fitz a plant? Did he give up Rove to get Cheney? Who is involved in the rather unique sealed v sealed criminal indictment? Is it US v Rove, as a mechanism for Fitz to ensure Rove's cooperation? Rove won't be charged (again), because he has already been charged?

Fitz has not commented on the claims made on Rove's behalf. So far it is only Luskin, Rove's atty. It is unlikely he invented this without some basis in truth, he would certainly risk his license. Whole thing is more than peculiar.

Posted by: m on June 13, 2006 8:30 PM

My 2. I trust Fitz's integrity. He did what he could.

But...Rove may not be off the hook.

Posted by: spiiderweb on June 14, 2006 8:40 AM

Welcome home, Chuck.

Posted by: wayne on June 14, 2006 12:43 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?