(WaPo)Fitz has affirmed that he has made no decision concerning charges

[kpete]

(I am so confused...Kpete)

Rove Testifies for 5th Time in CIA Leak Case

By William Branigin and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, April 26, 2006; 5:09 PM

Top presidential adviser Karl Rove testified today before a federal grand jury investigating the 2003 leak of a CIA operative's identity, appearing "voluntarily and unconditionally" at the request of the chief federal prosecutor, Rove's attorney said.

In a statement issued upon the conclusion of Rove's testimony at the federal courthouse in Washington, attorney Robert D. Luskin said the special counsel in the case, U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald, had advised Rove that he was "not a target of the investigation." However, Luskin said Fitzgerald has not made any decision about charges.

Rove, President Bush's chief political strategist, went before the grand jury to answer questions about discussions his attorney had with Time magazine reporter Viveca Novak, a source close to Rove said earlier. Novak testified last year that she alerted Luskin in early 2004 that Rove had leaked information to her colleague, Matthew Cooper, about CIA operative Valerie Plame.

Luskin said his client testified "to explore matters raised since Mr. Rove's last appearance in October 2005." The attorney added, "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. At the request of the special counsel, Mr. Rove will not discuss the substance of this testimony."

more at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/26/AR2006042600849_pf.html

[LSparkle]

1. More spin from Luskin ...

and he knows Fitz won't leak what he's planning. I take all of this with a BIG grain of salt.

[Halliburton]

5. Luskin's statement is pure spin

he's been saying that Rove's not a target for months now. Of course he won't be a target if Fitzgerald hasn't made any decisions.

[HereSince1628]

2. Reading inside the room left in the parsing...

it seems there is room for the possibility that Rove's testimony _today_ wasn't about Rove but someone (more than one?)else.

This sort of leaves opent the possibility that _everyone_ is right.

The burning issue is did the WAPO explain the significance of Rove taking a cab back from the GJ meeting?

[LSparkle]

9. I thought KKKarl had a driver but Fitz took a cab

(I originally thought Rove took a cab but another post disputed this -- ??)

[H2O Man]

3. Where does it say that?

Are you making reference to Luskin saying Fitzgerald affirmed this? Or that the reporters said he did? There is a significant difference.

[VolcanoJen]

6. Luskin released a statement after testimony had concluded.

Those words are taken from Luskin's statement.

[electropop]

20. Did Luskin say that Fitzgerald told Rove he could take a cab,

or did Rove's driver tell Fitz to ask Luskin about Cooper's second hand report about Judy Miller's testimony, or...

My brain hurts.

:dunce:

[AlCzervik]

4. we'll know when Fitzgerald tells us.

[dogday]

7. Read this...

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/04/26/rove3/index.html


Update: Truthout is reporting that sources "knowledgeable about the probe" are saying that Fitzgerald has notified Luskin in a letter that his client is, in fact, a target of the investigation. At the federal courthouse in Washington, a spokesman for Rove just told Salon's Michael Scherer that the report is "utterly false."

[kpete]

10. so - let me see...

who do we believe....the ones who ALWAYS lie, or....?

[dogday]

14. Good question kpete

I think there is something going one.. That Rove had to testify or receive a subpeona... There might be something to the letter...

[stop the bleeding]

31. Technically they are right if this is what happened - see here:

If Luskin received the letter and not Rove, then technically Luskin got the letter. I know it is a technical tid bit, but at this point I wouldn't put anything past a lawyer - especially this one in this high stakes game.

Also I have been thinking about this side as well, if there was no letter then why even respond, I mean who is Jason Leopold in the grand scheme of things in DC and the MSM?

I personally like JL's reporting, but for people like Rove and Luskin to even respond about this speaks volumes to me.

just thinking....

[demobabe]

33. If a lawyer receives a letter for a client

Then the client has received the letter. The client would be served.

This is legal territory with very specific legal definitions. If the lawyer says Rove is not a 'target' then a letter stating such has not been received. This of course doesn't mean Rove is not a target, just that they're proceeding methodically and right now only call him a 'source.'

Rove WILL be indicted - it's just a matter of time. And no, I don't have any 'reliable source' for that - I'm basing my belief on the fact he's been called in to the Grand Jury five times and it is clear he lied to the FBI about Matt Cooper.

Re: Jason Leopold, here is the WaPo article on him: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18624-2005Mar8.html

[alcibiades_mystery]

13. NO! RAW STORY IS NEVER UTTERLY FALSE!!!!

:rofl:

When desire masquerades as analysis...

[IndyOp]

16. Salon says he may be a 'subject' instead of target...

"Target" is a term of legal significance here. The U.S. Attorneys' Manual defines a "target" as someone "to whom the prosecutor or the grand jury has substantial evidence linking him or her to the commission of a crime and who, in the judgment of the prosecutor, is a putative defendant." If Rove isn't a "target," what is he? Scooter Libby's lawyers have said that Rove is a "subject," and Luskin has all but confirmed as much in the past. A "subject," the U.S. Attorneys' Manual says, is a person "whose conduct is within the scope of the grand jury's investigation."

<snip>

Update: Truthout is reporting that sources "knowledgeable about the probe" are saying that Fitzgerald has notified Luskin in a letter that his client is, in fact, a target of the investigation. At the federal courthouse in Washington, a spokesman for Rove just told Salon's Michael Scherer that the report is "utterly false."

============================

When this administration says somethings is "utterly false" -- usually that means it is exactly true...

So I am going with Truthout at this moment in time.

Indictments are usually handed down in the morning -- tomorrow, Friday, next week...

[WiseButAngrySara]

27. My understanding is as follows: (Please correct if I'm wrong) Rove

received a 'target letter', but until Fitz is certain that he has enough to indict Rove, he will be referred to as 'subject'...but receiving a 'target' letter is quite close to being a 'target'; just semantics. His appearance today should provide Fitz and the Grand Jury enough evidence to indict him, at which time he can be referred to as a 'target?' I'm confused.

[IndyOp]

30. Laurence O'Donnell was just on AAR - he said we'll know in 24 hours...

Not whether Rove will be indicted or not, but whether he is right now a 'subject' or a 'target' --

O'Donnell said to expect about 1 indictment per month until next January - when Libby goes on trial.

Very interesting.

[WiseButAngrySara]

32. Very interesting, indeed! 8-9 indictments? All by Fitz re: Plame? ..n/t

[BuyingThyme]

34. I already heard that song.

[Maddy McCall]

8. Fitz didn't "affirm" it. Luskin did.

[faithnotgreed]

12. well said maddy

thats the whole non-story spin right there

[alcibiades_mystery]

15. Who said he is a target?

Only Jason leopold...:eyes:

[Media_Lies_Daily]

36. Who said Rove is not a target? Rove's attorney....

...I seem to recall that the same game was being played by Libby's attorney right up to the day he was indicted.

[alcibiades_mystery]

37. Oh, somebody is definitely wrong

No question. We just don't know who that somebody is.

[usregimechange]

11. He is not the target but he is a target. sexual relations w/ that woman..

[Me.]

19. Exactly

He may not be a target ....for OOJ. He is likely a target for perjury.

*shadow government*

[lillilbigone]

17. The educational system in this country is so fucked up

that people don't even know how to read a news story and determine who said what.


Sad.

[stillcool]

21. My perception is that many many....

people do not read the 'article' at all...but reply in response to the header..or they comprehend what they want to...

Few of us can easily surrender our belief that society must somehow make sense. The thought that the state has lost its mind and is punishing so many innocent people is intolerable. And so the evidence has to be internally denied.”– Arthur Miller, playwright

[kpete]

22. Well said, and Hi....

[stillcool]

24. hey my friend....

kicking ass and taking names?...:toast:

[Catrina]

18. I wonder when Luskin made that statement. Rove might have been told

he was a target because Fitz couldn't get him to talk. Then, Fitz might have sent him a target letter just so Rove could understand he wasn't fooling around. After that, Luskin may have contacted Fitz and told him his client was ready to talk. Fitz may not have been after Rove at all today. He may have been after the main leakers and possibly succeeded in getting Rove to testify to the GJ that Bush and/or Cheney was/were the leakers. If so, then Luskin feels certain that Rove has 'cleared things up'. Just guessing, but Luskin doesn't say he never got a target letter.

[robertpaulsen]

23. Things are still good.

Luskin said his client testified "to explore matters raised since Mr. Rove's last appearance in October 2005."


Hmmm...matters raised since October 2005. Wouldn't be about those 250 e-mails from Cheney's office, would it? :)

[emulatorloo]

25. Hey Luskin -The grand jury votes to indict and bring charges, not Fitz

So I see thru your spin, Mr. Luskin

[annabanana]

26. How about "target = Cheney" . .

So Rove is "not a target of the investigation."

However, Luskin said Fitzgerald has not made any decision about charges. (Perjury +/or obstruction) and generally impeding the above investigation.

[WiseButAngrySara]

28. He isn't a target UNTIL Fitz makes a decision, he's still a subject until

that time. And maybe this is why Rove's atty. is stating that he didn't receive a 'target letter'; he received a 'subject letter'?

[Tiggeroshii]

29. Yeah, it really is just spin

...nothing in the article quotes Fitz directly as saying he has made no decision to indict. It's all Luskin trying to control the playing field. We'll know when we know, apparently

[Media_Lies_Daily]

35. Where is Fitz personally quoted in this or any other article....

...about this particular issue?

Do yourself a favor...keep your eye on the ball...don't be distracted by anything that comes from the Rove camp.

[foreverdem]

39. Fitz doesn't comment

Fitz had been so closed mouthed (and rightfully so) up until now, I can't see him issuing any kind of statement or making any comment on what his intentions are concerning Rove.

[npincus]

38. so, Luskin's statement would negate the "target letter"

Either Leopold's source was right, Rove did receive a 'target letter' and Luskin is lying... OR.. Leopold got it wrong and Luskin's statement "Fitzgerald advised Rove that he was not a target of the investigation" is correct. Were a target letter issued, this would be an outright misstatement (a.k.a. lie), and provocation to a prosecutor which not in the best interest of his client. But what IF, Rove directed Luskin to make this statement to give the WH political cover, buy some time until he figures out a strategy to minimize political damage to Bush & co. Perhaps he is planing his resignation, when and how.

I'm inclined to believe Leopold. However, Luskin's statement is an obvious contadiction.

Oye vey. This is confusing. I'm keeping the champagne in the fridge for now.