What we know: Rove was named as "Official A". "Official A" in any indictment is almost always indicted at some point. Rove had to testify no less than five times, the last time of which, his attorney Robert Luskin ASKED that he be allowed to testify one more time. That could only have meant that an indictment was in fact imminent. It IS possible, that a sealed indictment was handed down at some point, the purpose being to create a legal hammer out of the public eye which would compell Roves testimony about something important. More on that later... Today, we have a claim that Rove will not face indictment. The source of that claim has to be considered. The source is Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin. Does this mean it's not true? No. But as Roves attorney, his sole task is to protect his client, not to provide anyone else with information he does not have to divulge. Now, so far, I've presented only the facts. Now I'll tell you what I believe this means: Fitzgerald GOT SOMETHING IMPORTANT FROM ROVE. No, we don't know what it is. But given the duration of Fitz' investigation of Rove, and the number of times Rove appeared before the grand jury, and given the fact that Rove REQUESTED that he be allowed to testify a 5th time, COMMON SENSE tells me that Fitzgerald did indeed work his way up the chain of perps to the bigger fish through Rove. That'd be Cheney himself. Attorney Robert Luskin is NOT going to announce that his just client stuck a legal knife in Dick Cheney's back in exchange for Fitz dropping the charges. And IF there WAS a sealed indictment, you will never know about it. That's why they call it sealed. DUH. As I said, I certainly COULD end up being wrong about all of this. But if I am, it won't be on account of any failed reasoning. I have said all along, as has everyone else with a brain, that I knew that Fitzgerald was going to start at the bottom, and work his way to the top. I still believe that because the ONLY source to the contrary is Rove's attorney. And If you believe HIM, I suggest you get out there and start assisting in the search for Nicole Simpson's "real killers". Finally, we have the apparent box in which Jason Leopold now resides. On account of nothing more than the vehemence with which Truthout has stood by him, I am inclined to speculate as to the reasons he may be right, rather than wrong; IF there were a sealed indictment, anyone who leaked it's contents could be subject to criminal prosecution. It seems rather reasonable to me, that an organization such as Truthout, and even an individual reporter, would certainly NOT rat out a source who was in fact correct, but who'd be in legal jeopardy if they did, unless they were very, very certain of their actions. This is COSTING Truthout and Leopold big time. It's costing much more than a mea-culpa. One has to ask then what the UNSEEN price must be, for them to remain so commited. I do not believe this is Rathergate II. I could be wrong. But I doubt it.

by Esbe (50 articles, 0 quicklinks, 17 diaries, 85 comments) on Tuesday, Jun 13, 2006 at 5:00:20 PM

  (0+)

I read truthout all the time. It is about 99% accurate and considering its resources it is amazing. Now, OK, maybe Leopold was factually wrong about the fact of the Rove indictment. But I do not think we, on our side should join the chorus of the 'formal thinkers'. We have to understand that in the normal world such person like Rove would be in jail long ago and no matter is he swirled out now he still belongs there. So I would prefer the heading: Rove not indicted yet. Next time!

by Mark Sashine (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4101 comments [131 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jun 13, 2006 at 7:44:20 PM

  (0+)