Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Question For Robert Luskin/Karl Rove
OK, let's say I take Robert Luskin's statement today that Karl Rove was informed by special prosecutor Fitzgerald yesterday that he will NOT be indicted in the CIA leak case at face value. I can believe that Fitzgerald decided not to indict Rove for any number of reasons. Perhaps Fitzgerald decided he didn't have enough evidence to indict, or perhaps he wasn't sure if he had enough evidence to get a conviction in court, or perhaps he even decided that Rove was being truthful when he said he couldn't remember talking to Time's Matt Cooper about Joseph Wilson's wife.
Any of those reasons could be the case. If so, then why shouldn't Robert Luskin answer some variation of the following question:
"Did Rove get a deal from the special prosecutor in order to avoid indictment?"
I haven't seen that question asked yet by anybody in the traditional media (and Jim VandeHei at the Washington Post apparently got a brief interview with Luskin this morning over the phone) and I haven't heard that question answered to my satisfaction yet.
Of course it is absolutely possible that Karl Rove avoided indictment in the case. But given the track record of both Rove and Luskin for honesty and forthrightness, we ought to be a bit careful before we accept Luskin's statement that Rove is free and clear in the case.
Agian, you'll note in Luskin's statement that he says he won't answer any specific questions about the investigation:
Why won't Luskin make any more public statements about the subject matter of the investigation? If Rove is free and clear and Luksin wants the "baseless speculation about Mr. Rove's conduct" to cease, he could give us a little more detail about the investigation, specifically whether or not Rove got a deal to avoid indictment in order to ensure he cooperation against others involved in the investigation.
UPDATE: I see that Firedoglake is also speculating along the same lines as I am. Via Crest, here's Christy at Firedoglake on whether Luskin got a letter stating that Rove is free of indictment worries and what exactly the letter said:
Any of those reasons could be the case. If so, then why shouldn't Robert Luskin answer some variation of the following question:
"Did Rove get a deal from the special prosecutor in order to avoid indictment?"
I haven't seen that question asked yet by anybody in the traditional media (and Jim VandeHei at the Washington Post apparently got a brief interview with Luskin this morning over the phone) and I haven't heard that question answered to my satisfaction yet.
Of course it is absolutely possible that Karl Rove avoided indictment in the case. But given the track record of both Rove and Luskin for honesty and forthrightness, we ought to be a bit careful before we accept Luskin's statement that Rove is free and clear in the case.
Agian, you'll note in Luskin's statement that he says he won't answer any specific questions about the investigation:
"In deference to the pending case, we will not make any further public statements about the subject matter of the investigation," Luskin said in the statement. "We believe that the Special Counsel's decision should put an end to the baseless speculation about Mr. Rove's conduct."
Why won't Luskin make any more public statements about the subject matter of the investigation? If Rove is free and clear and Luksin wants the "baseless speculation about Mr. Rove's conduct" to cease, he could give us a little more detail about the investigation, specifically whether or not Rove got a deal to avoid indictment in order to ensure he cooperation against others involved in the investigation.
UPDATE: I see that Firedoglake is also speculating along the same lines as I am. Via Crest, here's Christy at Firedoglake on whether Luskin got a letter stating that Rove is free of indictment worries and what exactly the letter said:
If Luskin is coming out and saying publicly that they got a letter from Pat Fitzgerald which says that Rove will not be charged, there are two things that I want to see and know: (1) what does the letter actually say, word for word; and (2) does it say something along the lines of "Please thank Karl for his cooperation in this matter."Too many unanswered questions here. Rove and the White House got what they want, which is an overhyped story that Rove is free and clear in the CIA leak case. But I still want to know why if that's the case that Rove's side won't answer basic questions about the investigation, especially since they seem so concerned about clearing up all this "baseless speculation."
