Karl Rove is the Subject of this Blog Post
posted by Dave Hoffman
Robert Luskin, Karl Rove’s lawyer, released the following statement after Rove’s appearance today before the Plame grand jury:
Karl Rove appeared today before the grand jury investigating the disclosure of a CIA agent’s identity. He testified voluntarily and unconditionally at the request of special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald to explore a matter raised since Mr. Rove’s last appearance in October 2005. 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 decisions regarding charges. At the request of the special counsel, Mr. Rove will not discuss the substance of his testimony. (H/T: The Corner)
This isn’t the first time that Luskin has made this claim. But the news media still aren’t really digging into what this means.
Being “not a target” is a good thing for Rove. But it would be better if he were “not a subject” of the grand jury’s inquiry either, and the failure of the Special Prosecutor to say so means that KR remains in some (unknown) amount of legal jeopardy. The distinction between these two concepts has been usefully discussed on Talkleft: for a recent post see here. Before today’s appearance, there was a rumor that Fitzgerald sent Rove a target letter. Either that rumor was false, or Luskin will some day have some explaining to do. I’m betting on the former. Because it would be frankly shocking were Rove to have testified before the Grand Jury after receiving a target letter. I’m not saying it couldn’t have happened under some immunity agreement that hasn’t surfaced, but it is exceedingly unlikely.
April 26, 2006 at 11:07 pm
Posted in: Criminal Law
Print This Post
Responses (2)
Martin Morgan - April 27, 2006 at 9:44 am
You bolded the wrong part of the quote. The key phrase is “In connection with this appearance”. Meaning -in this appearance- I want you to testify about crimes of which you may have knowledge but are not the perpetrator/target.
You’ll see todays Wapo story (sourced from Rove’s people) says Rove testified “almost exclusively” about the Cooper conversation.
Now “almost exclusively” is a nonsensical statement. So what was Rove talking about to the GJ besides the Cooper conversation? That’s the key to this riddle.
Martin Morgan - April 27, 2006 at 9:48 am
Should have gone to TalkLeft first-she rightly notes that 250 pages of Cheney office e-mail have been turned over since Rove’s last GJ appearance. Is Fitz getting Rove to spill his guts about that for a plea?
Leave a Reply