Timing of Announcement Rove "off indictment hook" is worrisome.

Has anyone seen a discussion of why Fitz announced to Rove's lawyer by "fax,phone or letter" on MONDAY that it was not "anticipated" that Rove would be indicted?

The timing has been bothering me, because it wedged nicely between Zarkawi's capture and Bush's surprise trip to Iraq. It was like a "tri-fecta" for Bushie.

Of all the discussions I've read here, Firedoglake and elsewhere, I haven't seen a reason for why the news was announced Monday. Doesn't the Grand Jury only meet on Wednesday's and Fridays? Could it be that the Grand Jury met on Friday but Fitz held off notifying Rove until Monday?

:shrug:

There is so much we don't know (yet)

Nothing personal but by the nature of the beast I don't trust lawyers

3 polls - no bounce. the People are over him and the Iraq war and there aint no nuthin that can turn it around.

Still below 40% but they are claiming he is moving up, turned the corner and on the rebound. Tweety was almost wetting himself over the couple of points. Trying to sway the base to return to bu$h's side.

My take is that Fitz might have notified Rove he was exonerated a month or so ago and Rove wanted to manipulate the media. He told Luskin to hold off announcing he was free and clear for a month or so until Rove could work his mojo on Iraq, thaw out Zarqawi for his photo op, and plan Bush's 5 hour Iraq trip. And, of course, Fitz was always "no comment".

You know, let the media speculate, plant a few false stories with sources, see who bites, then use it to smear the "loony left" and all that...especially the blogs.

Also, I've seen a lot of "the blogs are small potatoes" posts over the last few days. I think everyone saying that is underselling the importance of free and unfilitered information available immediately to anyone with internet access. There is a lot of unreported stuff that gets coverage on the blogs and anything Bush/Rove can do to minimise their importance is critical to suppressing news.

My job involves a lot of driving in a red state, and for opposition research I find myself listening to Rush Limbaugh a lot. He has been smearing the hell out of Dailykos over the Truthout issue...non-sequitur to people with argumentative skills but for the mouth-breathers on the right it is all the same.

quote from you:

My take is that Fitz might have notified Rove he was exonerated a month or so ago and Rove wanted to manipulate the media. He told Luskin to hold off announcing he was free and clear for a month or so until Rove could work his mojo on Iraq, thaw out Zarqawi for his photo op, and plan Bush's 5 hour Iraq trip. And, of course, Fitz was always "no comment".

You know, let the media speculate, plant a few false stories with sources, see who bites, then use it to smear the "loony left" and all that...especially the blogs.

I heard Leopold's voice on his Ed Schultz interviews..he did not sound like someone making it all up. He had sources. I think his only journalistic crime was not recognising that Rove was planting all the seeds with his sources.

It makes no sense for Leopold to lie about this. He had to recognize that there was a good possibility he would be wrong, and thus ruined. I think David Schuster had the same sources...and I think the reason the major news organisations weren't allowed to report it is that their superiors knew it was b.s. but couldn't say anything about it.

It also makes no sense for Fitz to keep Rove hanging on like that if he wasn't planning on charging him with something. If you remember the days before Libby was indicted, Rove was "in great spirits" and all that despite an official all-clear from the special prosecutor. We on the far left, myself included, thought it was odd that Rove was in great spirits without an official all-clear. I remember the pig-faced jerk walking out to his car talking about how he was going to have a great weekend.

In retrospect, I think he knew he was off the hook that day and has been playing the media ever since. Heaven help us if that is the case.

Sure would like to see that letter and when it was dated, and what it said exactly, not what was spun to me by Rove's Lawyer...

suddenly reporting more fairly ..both CNN and MSNBC's Matthews having been lockstep Repug news suddenly did a change. They had gotten so Right Wing that a Blog site went up trashing Matthews and Russert and "Media Matters" had a list of Tweety lies. Shortly after that when the news that "indictments" would be coming down it seemed as if the MSM was released from their muzzle. Folks here on DU commented about it. For about two weeks we had great coverage of Plamegate and Iraq. Then suddenly the muzzle was put back on. I felt at the time it was as if they knew that Rove wasn't going to go down..that he was off the hook.

Even when the latest with Leopold came out...I saw the MSM being very cautious, careful to point out it was coming from the Blogs.

And it is important to remember that the MSM only reports that which serves some purpose for their masters.

I think the 2 weeks of aggressive reporting was useful in that it:

1. Gives the illusion of an independent media. This is important because it lets average people think they CAN get the whole story spoonfed to them.

2. Tarnishes the reputation and reliability of liberal/independent news sites in general. To the average Amurkin they're all the same.

3. It feeds into the "liberal media" myth. The RW can stir up the base by pushing this meme 24-7. Never mind the fact that this supposed "liberal media" only pushes our side of an issue when it doesn't do a damned bit of good.

I know this is a bit off-topic, but this is why Michael Moore is so reviled. He operates on his own, has a large microphone, and doesn't pull his punches. You saw how they smeared him. IMO they view the liberal blogs and sites like Dailykos, Raw Story, DU and Truthout as a similar threat to their power. It is all about suppressing the news...or tarnishing the reputation of those delivering news without corporate approval.

I'm trying to find the DU posts of those pics of Rove partying about a month ago. It was after his fifth appearance. We all thought it was odd he threw a big party after his testimony. It was a celebration of some sort.

its like the whole "trifecta" was staged, the same feeling I've gotten from this bush gang ever since the 2000 campaign...its all a big illusion, with symbols and keywords and slight of hand, all mesmerizinglly swirled around before our eyes by a lapdog media

Something indeed happened that Friday.

Very good questions, indeed. I think it is worth noting how quietly the White House is playing this. They want the benefit, but they aren't interested in discussing it.

Here's their quote but their whole post is worth the read:

My take is that Fitz might have notified Rove he was exonerated a month or so ago and Rove wanted to manipulate the media. He told Luskin to hold off announcing he was free and clear for a month or so until Rove could work his mojo on Iraq, thaw out Zarqawi for his photo op, and plan Bush's 5 hour Iraq trip. And, of course, Fitz was always "no comment".

You know, let the media speculate, plant a few false stories with sources, see who bites, then use it to smear the "loony left" and all that...especially the blogs.

news monopolies are NOT trying to convince anyone of anything, they are writing plausible narratives for the Bushites' "surprising comeback" in the fall elections, the results of which are now under the control of two corporations--Diebold and ES&S--both with very close connections to the Bush junta and far rightwing causes, and who transformed our election system in the 2002-2004 period into a NON-TRANSPARENT vote-counting system, by their insistence on the use of 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY vote tabulation software--software so secret that not even our secretaries of state are permitted to review it--with virtually no audit/recount controls. All this was a result of a coup by the two biggest crooks in the Anthrax Congress, Tom Delay and Bob Ney (abetted by Bilderberg 'Democrat' Christopher Dodd), the so-called "Help America Vote Act," a $4 billion boondoggle for Bush's buds at Diebold and ES&S that entirely corrupted our election system.

We are living in "The Matrix," friends. There is no "political debate." There is just faith-based "voting." Control of the vote tabulation feeds back into the newstream and creates a perfect loop of lying and deceit, with the "news" written now creating the lies and deceit for after November. It's a crock. We have got to throw these goddamned non-transparent, unverifiable election theft machines into 'Boston Harbor'! They ARE the method of control. They ARE the final blow against our sovereignty as a people. Without transparent, verifiable elections, we have NO POWER.

----------

(Re: the Plame case. Possibly some kind of deal was made to let Rove/Luskin mouth off in public (Fitzgerald: "No comment."), to be tucked inside a scenario written by Rove of bombing Zarqawi--whom the Bushites have had in their sights for three years, and probably had/have on the payroll--and Bush glad-handing the cannon fodder in Iraq. Possibly the deal was to give up Cheney, who has a worse approval rating than Bush and whom the Repubs would no doubt like to dump in favor of a fresh face as V-P. And this, too, will be orchestrated--maybe with a slap-on-the-wrist Congressional hearing and splendid retirement for Cheney to his new fiefdom in New Orleans. Fitzgerald is only human--"white knight" scenarios to the contrary--and could have gone along with such a deal (Rove giving up Cheney) to conclude the investigation on a successful note; OR, more likely, Gonzales interfered, in a behind-the-scenes "Saturday Night Massacre," and that's what this sealed indictment--"Sealed v. Sealed"--is all about--"Fitzgerald v. Gonzales" on Fitzgerald's special prosecutor powers, headed for a Bush-appointed Supreme Court.)

of the announcement was left up to them to reveal because Fitz had already made a deal with Rove for the "bigger fish."


Kind of goes along with Poster #5's thoughts.

That is quite possibly the key to understanding what happened with Leopold/TO--if Limbaugh is on it, then it's more likely they got deliberately burned--that Limbaugh is completing the strategy of the burn. There is still the possibility that their sources were right, or mostly right, and that Gonzales squashed a Rove indictment ("Sealed v. Sealed"). But we shouldn't underestimate the new political power of the blogosphere, and the fascists' hatred of free and open discussion, unfettered news analysis and access to information that is not under war profiteering corporate news monopoly control. We should not be surprised at all at a CBS-type burn of the blogs. I've suspected as much just from the stealth posters here at DU (hazard of an open forum) whose sole purpose over the last several weeks has been to discredit Leopold/TO. Questioning their story is one thing--but what we've seen is a horrorfest of single-minded vituperation and abuse, very, very, very similar to Limbaugh-Hannity type gang rape assaults on a long list of Leftists and Democrats. The chief characteristic of these assaults is to take one factoid--true, half-true, 100% untrue, it doesn't matter--and hammer it like a nail into peoples' heads, over and over and over again. I've seen hit and run posts here like "Leopold lied!"--completely oblivious to both the known facts and the most likely reasons for why the story MAY HAVE BEEN wrong. It's mob psychology. They might as well be yelling "Get the Nigger!" to a lynch mob. It's that ugly and that disgusting. Reasonable discussion and analysis of events, and of the Bush junta M.O.'s, becomes very difficult when the witchburners are out in force.

Anyway, thanks again, Sir Jeffrey! And I think we had better give some thought to this particular Bush junta M.O.-- that the Limbaughs, Hannitys and Roves are NOT reacting to events, they are creating them--and then inventing their reaction.

But I have to admit it gets painful at times.

What's really disturbing is the daily assault of news, where it's almost impossible to keep up with string of scandal revelations and the push back and then counter assault.

I think it's a battle. Books critical of Bushies come out weekly but on their tail are books supporting Bush or in the case of the Coulter type books there are distracting books or events which ridicule the Left.

It's a constant battle and it's wearing folks down. But, there is tremendous pushback from the Left "establishment" too. Some of it good like the CIA/Military and Pundits who've turned against the Bushies...some not so good like Lieberman, Schumer and Hillary...Biden..

The American public who can't keep up with all this is being assaulted and it's hard to know if they will just "tune out" at some point, with information overload and become weary of the constant spin and counterspin of both sides when in fact it's the Repugs waging a giant PsyOps War against the People.

It gets overwhelming but we here on the Netroots are the only ones who can sort it out, it seems...

abou trying to contact Rove, not finding him, finding him, etc. It was overkill and took up half the announcement content. Makes the word concoction pop into the mind.

since he was supposedly cleared by Fitzgerald. This isn't over for Rove by a long shot.

if anyone is interested


http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/index.html

those who have been here through all this time might feel...that he could have been co-opted or blocked. But, his track record with other investigations would seem to show that we should have some faith in his abilities.

Plus...when Bush was asked about Rove at his Iraq Press Conference he had to "spit out" that Fitzgerald had conducted the investigation "thoroughly " (I don't have his exact quote) but he flubbed over it as if it was very hard for him to find a way to give Fitz a fair appraisal. He had one of his dark Chimp looks that he gets when he's caught in a lie. (Just my observation...for whatever it's worth) In other words I got the impression that Chimp couldn't bear to utter Fitz's name because it was so distasteful to him...

...and if he were reined in and told to keep his mouth shut or else...

not just perjury and obstruction, but also participating in the main crime and conspiracy (both on the main crime and on coverups). Fitzgerald has Rove on perjury, just on the known facts. And the likeliest scenario is that Rove has ratted on someone(s) and made some sort of deal with Fitzgerald to control the newsstream for a while. I tend to think there is a serious fissure between the Cheney/Libby faction and the Bush/Rove faction--which started developing way back behind the scenes during Katrina (and maybe before, when the Cheney/Libby crowd failed to get those WMDs planted in Iraq)--and/or, that we are seeing an orchestrated creation of fall guys (first Libby, then Cheney) that will in some way keep the Bushites' claws on the levers of US power. As I understand it, Luskin is keeping that letter close to his chest. It could be a "depending on your cooperation" letter (Fitzgerald to Rove). No press conference, because the wording of the letter would reveal that Rove has cut a deal, or remains in legal jeopardy--and if they hold a press conference, they are going to inevitably be asked about the letter, why they won't release it, and also why Fitz has made no statement.

I've seen newstream items on this Rove thing to the effect that the investigation is "winding down" and plainly stating or implying that it's over--as if a Rove indictment had been the main goal of the investigation. Spin. Rovian spin. It is possible that Gonzales has now done (or attempted) his "Saturday Night Massacre" (removal of Fitzgerald, or curtailing of this authority) and that it's over BECAUSE of that. But that doesn't mean that Cheney and a number of other people* shouldn't be in jail! They committed a major crime, amounting to treason--and engaged in a widespread conspiracy to do so, and to cover it up. That seems obvious from just the known facts--and god knows what else was going on. Barring a behind the scenes "Saturday Night Massacre," I simply don't see Fitzgerald "winding down" this investigation. I believe what he said in the Libby press conference, that what is at issue is a grave matter of national security--and I don't think he will settle for more lies and obstruction. If nothing else, he will issue a Grand Jury report replete with a number of "unindicted co-conspirators," possibly as high up as Bush, but at the least excoriating Bush for PERMITTING his people to assault our own covert agents and their covert WMD counter-proliferation network around the world.

------------

*(--and that "number of other people" should include Rumsfeld, in my opinion the mastermind of the Plame/Brewster-Jennings outings and possibly of the coverup as well. In the Rumsfeld/mastermind scenario, Rove is set up to take the blame for the outings (which had other purposes--disabling our "eyes and ears" on WMDs around the world) because of Rove's reputation for dirty politics; they created a plausible story that it was political revenge, and failed to inform him--or disinformed him--about the legality of what he was doing, giving Plame's identity to Novak; thus, Rove has reason to be pissed off at that faction--call it the war manufacturing faction, as opposed to the Rovian war-spin faction--and threw a shit-fit (a la the Wilson story about a dustup between Libby and Rove, early on) about going down for the Rumsfeldians. He refused to take the fall, demanded a "sacrifice" on their part, and got Libby. His deal with Fitzgerald could be to give Libby up on the main crime. Fitzgerald may feel he can get at the higher ups that way.) (The main crime--outing and thus endangering covert CIA agents--requires proof of intent and knowledge of the agents' status. Libby's filings in the perjury/obstruction case against him are PRIMARILY concerned with the MAIN CRIME, to an almost ludicrous degree. He is clearly vulnerable on it. This may be what Rove ultimately gave Fitzgerald, after months of Fitzgerald twisting Rove's arm on a potential perjury charge--further evidence against Libby (and possibly Cheney) on the main crime.) (But, in the "Saturday Night Massacre" scenario, this may be what Gonzales acted to PREVENT Rove from having to give to Fitzgerald--thus leaving Fitzgerald with few options except to issue a report; leaving him with no clear avenue to the main perps; leaving him, that is, with nothing but lies, obstruction and power-plays against the truth.)

anticipate seeking an indictment against Rove. That's not a declaration of innocence or a declaration that Rove was "cleared" of any wrongdoing.

And one would speculate that Rove and his lawyer would be somewhat reticent to push the envelope on what Fitz specifically told them, although it appears that Corallo in his comments to the media has gone a bit beyond what Luskin himself would say. Luskin issued a press release. The RW noise machine no doubt will try to paint Rove as "cleared" innocent, etc, but apparently that's not something even Luskin claims, and one imagines he would be wise not to do so.

DOA apparently. The MSM seemed to agree that Karl is off and so it's business as usual. They didn't even need to spend any time analyzing it... I think Tweety spent a few minutes with Schuster talking about it, but that was all.

...Scream as innocent Americans are killed in the next terror attack...

...Cringe as the media warns of terror attacks coming from every imaginable source...

...Cheer as the Administration quickly fingers its next Axis of Evil member...

...Wave Goodbye to any semblance of your old civil rights...

(coming soon to a corporate state near you.)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1390723

They will throw everything they have at the Netroots. Netroots will get it from both sides, unfortunately. It's already begun with the Lieberman /Schumer stuff.

We have to hope we can get through it.

Whatever gets announced, and when it's announced, is all up to the PR of the White House, to their advantage.

If its bad, it's not discussed. If it's good news, it's spun to be very good news. Sometimes, the news is 'enhanced'...Was Rove really cleared as the media is spinning it, or is it that Fitz is not yet charging Rove depending on unexpected developments.

It's all spin, spin that we should barely listen to.

mechanism--their creation of NON-TRANSPARENT vote counting, and their theft of our right to vote--while we still have a chance to change it, at the state/local level. Who knows how long that window of opportunity will last?

The corporate/fascist/Bush interlocking newsstream manipulation is the RESULT of our loss of sovereignty as a people. This loss has been occurring (and planned) over a long period of time, and includes drenching our campaign system with money, which goes right into the pockets of the corporate news monopolies (for TV ads), and loss of our control over our public airwaves. But it has been CAPPED by the worst assault on our sovereignty yet: secret corporate vote tabulation! TRADE SECRET code in the new electronic voting systems. This is NEW. And this is LETHAL. And we MUST stop it.

There is NOTHING we can do about loss of public control over our public airwaves, or anything else, without the right to vote!

In this sense, yes, I agree that we should IGNORE the spin, and concentrate on POWER, and how it is transferred (and stolen), and on the actual mechanism of voting. How to get our actual power back.

I also think that the SPUN NEWS is not intended to convince us, but rather to DEMORALIZE us. And if we would only keep this in mind--in the forefront of consciousness--then we could monitor whatever crap it is putting out without being infected by that sick feeling that "the country" has gone, a) "nuts, and b) "rightwing/fascist." It's demonstrably not true, yet how many believe that (that OTHER Americans have gone bonkers)? Too many. And it makes them (us) sick. It's truly difficult to deal with 24/7 brainwashing. But think of it this way: It's a left-handed compliment. Why would they go to such trouble to brainwash the American people--to convince the 70% of Americans who oppose the Iraq war and despise Bush that they have no power to change things--and, further, go to such trouble to steal away our right to vote, if they weren't mightily impressed with the potential of this great progressive American majority to overthrow them--to dismantle their shitbag corporations and seize their assets for the public good, and to dismantle their war machine, and cut it back to a true defensive posture?

Consider yourself COMPLIMENTED. Know that we can never win in the SPUN NEWS. And act to seize back our POWER--our sovereignty--and its main mechanism: transparent, verifiable elections!

You write so much better than I. The spin is demoralizing, that's why we shouldn't listen to it. It is such brainwashing, the more they spin, the more people don't have to think. But Democrats do think and analyze, we know it is BS. More Dems are feeling empowered, and speaking out. We need to bind together - there is power in numbers!

(and voting - those electronic voting machines are frightening that they produce such unverifiable results)

Fitz has his own evidence that he generated. The GJ just reviews the evidence that Fitz presents. If Fitz feels he dos not have a case, he does not have to go back to the GJ.

and yet the news was released within the timing of Zarqawi demise and Bush's triumphant (Ha!) trip to Iraq for max propaganda value?

Or, did something happen at last Friday's Grand Jury meeting where Fitz decided to notify Rove he was off the hook.

Some posters on this thread have made an interesting case that Rove has known for awhile because of his behavior and the M$M's behavior in reporting.

I think it's important to know...because we've not seen a copy of the "letter, phone, fax" and so how do we know what the truth of it is. Our tax money is paying for this investigation...and it would be good to know more than we do. Are we paying for propaganda or the truth? Why is Rove not indicted and when did he know it? :shrug:

It's peculiar to me that Fitz would "Fax" Rove's lawyer, though. It seems kind of "informal" just to fax. Almost as if Rove's lawyer had lost an original letter and so called Fit's office and said: "Hey Fitz, could you get one of the paralegals to fax me a copy of that letter you sent awhile back...we can't seem to find it in our files." So, Fitz's office faxes the copy of the letter, and the "fax" is dated June 12 thereby giving Rove cover to say he had been told an "indictment isn't anticipated." :shrug:


from TIME Mag....
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1203504,...

"Luskin had just received a fax from Patrick Fitzgerald, the special counsel in the case, saying that he was formally notifying Luskin that absent any unexpected developments, he does not anticipate seeking any criminal charges against Rove."

other and with the Bush junta on the Iraq war, on the 2004 election (doctoring their consortium exit polls to match the results of Diebold/ES&S's secret vote tabulation), and are likely conspiring now, writing the narrative of the Bushites' "surprising comeback" in November. My NYT-owned local craprag was just disgusting with the pro-Bush/rah-rah war headline manipulation yesterday. I felt like I was in Stalinist Russia and had woken up to "Pravda." And so, it would not suprise me in the least to find that, a) they all knew Rove made a deal (or that Gonzales had intervened), way back a month ago, and are letting Rove play the newsstream; and/or, b) they also participated in a burn of the blogosphere.

Knowing what I know about what they did on election night 2004, I would put nothing at all past them. And I think it's a good guess that there was manipulation on the date of the letter*--giving them time to get all the other arrangements in place (Zarqawi, Bush glad-handing the cannon fodder), and to set up Leopold/TO's sources (if that was part of it).

But I'm intrigued by a couple of things--especially given the known evidence of Rove perjury in this case. One is, "absent any inexpected developments." This is the first I've seen of the actual wording. I presume that the letter is still in Luskin's safe. I also presume that, if there was anything wrong in whatever wording that Luskin would release, we would then hear from Fitzgerald. (He may be letting Rove have the newsstream for a while, but I don't think he would let them lie about the wording of a letter of his.) So, in a case that is known for "unexpected developments," Fitz is saying he "doesn't anticipate" charges against Rove. This is very careful wording. And with Fitz saying "no comment" about it, it seems to me to point to considerable behind the scenes developments and machinations. Primarily, it smells like Rove cut a deal (and maybe is playing out some scenario of giving up Libby on the main crime, or giving up Cheney, who will be slapped on the wrist by Congress, retire with splendid riches, and that will be that.) It just doesn't feel like Rove is off the hook. One "unexpected development" could be that Rove gets caught lying again--and Fitz could have that all lined up with other witnesses ready to pounce. Maybe HE's the one who's playing Rove, not the other way around. Another could be any number of perps/witnesses cracking over the course of further investigation and prep for Libby's trial, including Libby himself. In any case, the letter wording we know about sure sounds like a warning--an "unless you cooperate as promised" kind of warning, and NOT an exoneration. Fitz "doesn't anticipate" charging Rove, but he doesn't say Rove did not commit a crime. He "doesn't anticipate" charging Rove, but he doesn't say that he won't name Rove as an unindicted co-conspirator. All in all, it seems to me that Fitz has left a whole lot of room for "unexpected developments."

--------

*(But a fax date stamp wouldn't change the date of the letter. Luskin may have worded his public statements so that he could refer to the fax date, not the letter date. I haven't reviewed his statements carefully enough to guess at that. Also, if there was such manipulation, it could have been of Fitzgerald--that is, some kind of powerplay deal by Rove, with one of his negotiating points being to get to choose the date of the letter. Wouldn't put it past him. And this is very high stakes stuff. Normally, a prosecutor might balk at crap like that, but this is Rove, Bush's brain, until recently 2nd only to the Prez. And god knows what may have been going on behind the scenes with a person of his power, and his powers of deceit.)

He had "just received a fax" but he had NOT "just received" the letter. Sounds like the letter was recent, but was it? Maybe it was just FAXED recently. Clever (if true). Was it just Rove's good luck that Patrick Fitzgerald played into his "kill more Arabs" miraculous election "comeback" narrative? Or did Rove/Luskin arrange it this way? And if so, why would Fitz play this game? (There are possible good reasons that he might.)

I just thought of another possibility. The Zarqawi thing sure seemed designed as cover for something. A Busby victory in SD? A Rove indictment? That's what it felt like. Diebold took care of SD. So I'm thinking of the possibility that Fitz kept Rove on the hotseat to the very last minute, angling for something--a particular name or doc. They bombed Zarqawi (killing some incidental women and children), hoping the headlines would stretch into the next week, and added in Bush's gift of his presence to the cannon fodder in Iraq, just in case; and probably kept Bush up at night, waiting to time the trip to trump the Fitz bombshell. And Rove went to Plan B--giving Fitz whatever it was he was angling for. (Plan A, sacrifice Libby. Plan B? Cheney?) Consequently, Fitz doesn't give a damn about the letter or the Rove/Luskin games with the newsstream. He doesn't have any immediate plans to charge Rove because he's finally got the bigger fish on the hook, and Rove (it is arguable, just on the face of it) was a secondary player in the conspiracy to destroy our CIA WMD counter-proliferation capability.

as good as mine...Something was up with this "seeming Trifecta" to give Bush the Max exposure to start this week off. They had a bombing Stock Market and couldn't be sure how this week would go....they had A LOT on their plates to cover for.

And...we know how much they like to "Psych Out" the American People they are supposed to be "governing."

I still stick with my thinking that Rove got the notice he was "free and clear" from Fitz some time ago...but prentended to lose the "official letter" from Fitz and so Luskin called up Fitz's office and said..."We lost the damned thing and we want to make an announcement that "Rove is Clear" so can you send us a Fax or something. The differing accounts of whether it was a phone call, Fax or Letter are interesting. I go with Time Mag who said it was a FAX which is just something I don't think Fitz would do ...because it doesn't seem professional just to send a Fax to a guy who has been on the Hot Seat for over a year. :shrug:

But...what you say might be the truth of it. I'm just figuring that our good DU Minds can come up with closer to the "truth" than the MSM is telling us right now.

:-)'s

I think the fax was more of an "ok" from Fitz in response to Luskin wanting to put out the info. Either having no letter yet in hand, but assurance that Rove had satisfied Fitz' questions one way or another, or finally getting the go ahead to publish the info, Fitz gave Luskin a statement he could live with, confirming that KKKarl was off the hook on the OOJ and perjury charges, but better keep his butt clean. Perhaps there is a hard copy of the letter to come. Regardless, Luskin only released the initial "Huzzah!", sort of sweeping the rest under the rug.

I have no doubt Luskin/Rove chose the moment to release the news. And the outlets they chose (has Jim VandeHei fallen out of favor?).

As to the attempt to smear the blogs, the NYT mentioned Truthout in the 6/14 follow up to the "Rove's FREE!" story. I did a cursory search of the NYT and no other occurence of "truthout" was returned. Maybe someone else knows of one, but I didn't find it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/14/washington/14leak.html?_r=1&hp&ex=1150257600&en=99280a6365028303&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=slogin

<snip>

Associates said Mr. Rove seemed to loosen up in recent weeks, apparently as he and his lawyer had grown more confident that no indictment would come, and even as liberal bloggers and other commentators had predicted an imminent indictment, most recently in May, based on a report on Truthout.org.

Truthout has stood by that report, which said Mr. Rove was under a secret indictment. In a posting Tuesday it suggested that Mr. Rove was cooperating with the prosecution, which, it noted, had not commented publicly on Mr. Rove's legal status.

<snip>

a speech. He had a couple of other functions that week. It was the first time I'd really seen him...C-Span covered his Hill appearance and an appearance before AEI or some other Think Tank Group in the same time period. Rove has always been "behind the curtain" for most of the public and so it was interesting they put him out there smiling, thin and trim and seemingly very jovial.

So...I understand what you say...but I still think a "Fax" as Time said it was is a very casual way for a "buttoned up guy" like Fitz seems to be from all accounts in his style to let Rove know he was off the hook.

I think Rove knew weeks ago if not a few months. Shortly after Libby was indicted and when the MSM turned on the Left once again and stopped reporting truth... And, yes...wasn't it just after Libby's indictment that Jim VandeHei disappeared and was replaced weeks later by David Schuster? Schuster seemed to be following the "blogs" in his reporting more than Vandehei and there were a couple of times I thought he had plagerized Jason Leopold. :D Anyway, most of us thought he had the same sources as Murray Waas...but to me...it seemed he copied both Waas and Leopold when Rove heated up again last month.

So much goes on it's hard to keep timelines totally accurate in ones mind without "benchmarks" to go by...

No more Luskin's go to guy. Wha' happen??

I just replied to one of your posts in H2O Man's thread.

Yes, dear KKKarl was the man about town that week, wasn't he? Curiouser and curiouser.

:kick: