The Real News About Rove
Various media sources are reporting this morning that Karl Rove has been cleared in the Valerie Plame investigation. This is sloppy reporting, and the actual state of things may be nothing of the kind.
First, the source is Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, who obviously has an interest in having the press 'clear' his client. No reporter has heard anything directly from Patrick Fitzgerald, and Luskin has not released the letter he says he has from Fitzgerald.
Second, with a lawyer, and particularly Robert Luskin, it is very important to pay attention to the exact wording. According to the New York Times,
For example, perhaps Karl has been granted immunity conditional on his testimony against Libby, or others yet to be charged. Should Karl's testimony violate the condtions of the deal, he might be charged. Yet, at this point, Fitzgerald would not 'anticipate' seeking charges.
In such a case, a clever and media-saavy lawyer like Luskin might have said exactly what he said in his statement, which is factually true, but will lead unskeptical reporters astray.
And astray they have gone. The reporter writing the New York Times story goes so far as to interpret this statement as "effectively ending the nearly three-year criminal investigation that had at times focused intensely on Mr. Rove." The reporter, who has no idea what or who Fitzgerald may still be investigating, not only buys the suggestion that Karl is scot-free, but thinks that Fitzgerald is packing his bags. I'm sure Dick Cheney wishes it were so.
But if I were Cheney, or others around the Plame leak, I might be wondering whether Luskin's message is, in fact, not that Fitzgerald has decided Rove is innocent, but that Karl's offered to spill his guts to save his own skin.
I'm staying tuned. I don't think anything is over yet.
First, the source is Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, who obviously has an interest in having the press 'clear' his client. No reporter has heard anything directly from Patrick Fitzgerald, and Luskin has not released the letter he says he has from Fitzgerald.
Second, with a lawyer, and particularly Robert Luskin, it is very important to pay attention to the exact wording. According to the New York Times,
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."What many media sources seem to miss is that "does not anticipate seeking charges" may not actually mean Karl has been cleared. "Does not anticipate" does not mean "will not be".
For example, perhaps Karl has been granted immunity conditional on his testimony against Libby, or others yet to be charged. Should Karl's testimony violate the condtions of the deal, he might be charged. Yet, at this point, Fitzgerald would not 'anticipate' seeking charges.
In such a case, a clever and media-saavy lawyer like Luskin might have said exactly what he said in his statement, which is factually true, but will lead unskeptical reporters astray.
And astray they have gone. The reporter writing the New York Times story goes so far as to interpret this statement as "effectively ending the nearly three-year criminal investigation that had at times focused intensely on Mr. Rove." The reporter, who has no idea what or who Fitzgerald may still be investigating, not only buys the suggestion that Karl is scot-free, but thinks that Fitzgerald is packing his bags. I'm sure Dick Cheney wishes it were so.
But if I were Cheney, or others around the Plame leak, I might be wondering whether Luskin's message is, in fact, not that Fitzgerald has decided Rove is innocent, but that Karl's offered to spill his guts to save his own skin.
I'm staying tuned. I don't think anything is over yet.
posted by Paul at 11:19 AM |
|
email this
