Sunday, May 21, 2006

Truthout Believes Rove Is Cooperating

Via Talk Left, Marc Ash Truthout says Truthout has three independent sources who confirm Karl Rove's attorneys were handed an indictment either late May 12 or early May 13 during a long meeting at the law offices of Patton Boggs, the law firm representing Karl Rove in the case. Ash also says two network news organizations had camera crews outside the offices of Patton Boggs (probably ABC News and MSNBC.) Finally Ash says he believes Rove is now cooperating in the case:

Further - and again this is "What We Believe" - Rove may be turning state's evidence. We suspect that the scope of Fitzgerald's investigation may have broadened - clearly to Cheney - and according to one "off the record source" to individuals and events not directly related to the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame. We believe that the indictment which does exist against Karl Rove is sealed. Finally, we believe that there is currently a great deal of activity in the Plame investigation.

Mark Corallo, Rove's spokeperson, told Talk Left that Ash's claims are false, said Rove has not been indicted nor told he is a target in the case, and said there has been no talk of deals between Fitzgerald's team and Rove's team since the case started.

So it goes. Lots of rumors, lots of denials, but nothing concrete from Mr. Fitzgerald, which is really all that matters now.

Although I do have to say that I am starting to think Rove is cooperating with the special prosecutor in the case. The buzz around the case had been that a Rove indictment was imminent, then suddenly the buzz died. Now maybe the buzz died organically for lack of any concrete news in the case. But maybe the buzz died because Rove dealt and he's telling people behind the scenes he's off the hook (though he's not telling people why he's off the hook.)

This is just speculation. But hell, that's all we have in this case right now, so I guess my speculation is as good as, say, Wayne Madsen's.

Comments: just gets murkier and murkier doesn't it?

But something is gonna happen, Fitz is too meticulous.His past cases took years to fruition. By then, these asshats will be out of office, and perhaps no pardons :P
It is amazing how long this has gone without some kind of official moderating statement, or at least a call for one.
But Fitz puts me in mind of the head of Australia's inquiry into the Oil for Food rort. Commission Cole has consistently been called on to respond to media speculation by upset defence lawyers. Ignoring the pleas, he simply says, "I have no control over or interest in what the media report. I am too busy conducting an inquiry."
In the Australian situation it has been easy to join the dots and 'wild speculation' has generally been on the money. It seems a little more difficult with this one.
They say that anyone who can easily tolerate ambiguity has good mental health. Well, this is driving me absolutely NUTZ. But it just occurred to me that if Rove's mouthpiece is issuing flat denials, then Jason MUST be right!
dusty, I agree something is going to happen. But it just may not be on the timetable may of us were hoping for (i.e., Rove's indictment being announced this month), which will certainly disappoint me. But as you note, maybe by that time Bush will be gone and Libby, Rove et al. won't receive any pardons. That would be pretty cool too.

cartledge, Fitz will never make a moderating statement because the media is clamoring for one. And in this day and age of so many prosecutors playing to the media, that's kind of nice.

john, this case is driving me crazy too. After Friday came and went without an indictment announcement, I am starting to think we're not going to get one any time soon. So now I'm telling myself, in the long run when Cheney goes down in this case and Rove is exposed as the rat who brought him down, it will be even better. That's my mantra, anyway.
It is not the media noise so much as the Administration. But of course now there is talk that they are acting quietly, behind 'sealed' court hearings, to head off the inevitable.
It would not do for them to be open and transparent. That might set a terrible precedent for future amins.
cartledge, I remember the Starr prosecution (geez - it seems like eons ago, but it was less than 10 yrs ago!) and how they were leaking stuff left and right. of course the media lapped it up. Unfortunately not all of it was accurate, not all of it was fair, and frankly, the prosecutor shouldn't be leaking stuff to the press in the first place. Try the case in court, not the press.

Fitzgerald, on the other hand, really does seem to be a model of decorum and ethics. He's a Regis High School grad, I attended Xavier High School, a brother school to Regis - the Jesuits were big on teaching decorum and ethics in the 70's and 80's - treat people fairly, honestly and gentlemanly, so I wouldn't be surprised to find he learned some of that from high school and some from his parents,

Regardless of where he learned to be ethical and fair, he strikes me as the kind of public servant we need to have more of. I guess that was what I was trying to say in comment to you. It didn't come across, though.
Never mind, I always get argumentaive on a slow news day :)
You're right to be ocnerned about secret court dealings and sealed documents. I guarantee that if Fizt decides not to indict Rove, there'll be a huge uproar. From what I know of Fitz, I do trust him to makre the right decision on this - but as you note, in general the gov't deciding in secret on these kinds of proceedings leads to abuses.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?