Rove Will Escape The Noose (I think)

[MostlyLurks]

Not that it matters, that anyone asked or that it's germane to anything at all, but I worry that the glee over Rove's "impending doom" is a mistake that will let many of us down.

Rove is no dummy - his attorney has said he's not the focus of Fitzgerald's investigation. I believe that, only because it makes no sense for him to say it, from a strategic standpoint.

ASSUMPTION 1: If he knows he's going to be indicted as the central player, or suspects it, he would try to manage the damage by minimizing its importance before it happened, not by denying it as a possibility. Denying it outright does nothing to help Rove's public image if he's later indicted for treason. If that happens, the charade of "I'm not a focus" was time wasted and they have to start a new round of damage control AFTER the biggest bomb - indictment for treason - has been dropped. I say again: Rove may be a bastard but he ain't no dummy. Denying he's a focus makes no tactical sense if he knows he is.

ASSUMPTION 2: Rove probably also knows that, in addition to the central player(s) indicted by Fitzgerald, there's going to be a net cast wide for supporting players, who will be charged will lesser crimes. He'd have to assume he's going to be part of that net. If he's indicted on lesser charges, something less stigmatized than treason, he'd still be able to say, correctly, he was "not the focus" – he'd in effect be proven right and his part would be minimized because he and his supporters could rightly claim he wasn't the central figure in the indictments. The end-result of this investigation will almost certainly be an indictment for something big, akin to treason if not treason, and I think Rove knows that (has known for some time).

MY CONCLUSION: If you assume those (I know, big assumptions but bear with me) to be true, Rove's stance makes perfect sense becaue he's trying to innoculate himself against ANY charges by addressing the worst potential one. If/when he's indicted for a lesser charge, the populous at large will see it as no big deal because "At least it wasn't treason..." or "Well, he said he wasn't the focus..." and attention will shift to whomever the big players turn out to be.

THE LOGICAL EXTENSION:What I think we can infer from this is something a few DUers have wondered about: Fitzgerald is trying to track down the original leaker, the person who gave the information to Rove in the first place, because that's the person who really committed the worst crime. Rove was merely a "pawn" (though there's plenty of room to argue that he may have been both pawn and chessmaster simultaneously). I'd like to think it'll be Bolton, and certainly there are some interesting intersections between Bolton's job, his request for names and the fact that the administration has so vehemently denied requests to see those lists. It's also interesting that they have withheld executive appointment of Bolton suddenly, when they seemed so adamant about it before. My concern, however, is that it'll be a low-level flunky, some guy neither appointed by nor known to Bush – and that'll basically wash the charges right off the administration.

AND FINALLY, A TIN-FOIL HAT MOMENT: I'd be very willing to believe, should some namelss patsy take the fall, that the flunky was moved into position by highly-placed officials who "inadvertently" fed him the information, and others who allowed him to "accidentally" pass on the information. But that's speculation for another day…

Any thoughts?

Mostly

[okieinpain]

1. I figure it 's going to be powell

[Bleacher Creature]

6. I'd like to see that happen.

Powell is known for his incredible loyalty. He hitched his wagon to the GOP, and then to Bush when he honestly believed that they reflected his views, or would at least tolerate them.

I really believe that he knows that he made a mistake, but has too much of a "military mentality" to do anything major about it. If they try and make him the scapegoat, he's only got two options: (1) Suck it up, in which case he'll get what he deserves: or (2) Fight back. And while he's been effectively neutered since 2000, I for one wouldn't want to mess with him.

[okieinpain]

8. my reason for that is someone had a post in which it is said that

rove, bush, and powell where on a flight to africa, and that powell had a top secret file that had the wilson/plame info in it. after the trip is when rove started making his calls.

so I figure they will end up at powells door, and of course no one will want to accuse the great one of treason and then the whole thing will die a quite death.

:~(

[kenny blankenship]

15. WHat would be interesting is if Powell

was pressured by Chaney or Shrub to give the file over, for use in the domestic propagandizing/payback Rove was coordinating in order to start the war: a felony conspiracy against our national security laws involving the Preznit and Vice Preznit.

Would Powell just fork over the information to Karl-Heinz and Scooter-boy on his own? I'm going to take a wild guess and say Powell probably doesn't like Ol' Turdblossom too much.

[okieinpain]

17. that would be interesting. andrea mitchell was on imus and actually

used the "impeach" word when asked what would happen if bush ends up involved.

[kenny blankenship]

18. Can't see how they could avoid it then

if the circumstances were like that. If the Preznit being involved in a conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act doesn't qualify as a "high crime", then the term is practically without a meaning, as would be the impeachment clause. What's left that could be impeachable? A President giving vital military secrets to a hostile power? Why have an impeachment clause in your constitution if it only applies to possibilities that are so implausible as to be impossible. Same goes for Chaney. If he had anything to do with getting this information from Powell to his boys Scooter or Hannah, the Repo Congress would have to impeach and try him to avoid being tossed out.

No wonder Chaney had his pacemaker checked out recently.

[okieinpain]

20. by the way where is chaney. I have seen any post or quotes attributed

to him lately.

[kenny blankenship]

22. Yeah, he's been real quiet

but I heard he was spotted recently in London After Midnight

[MostlyLurks]

12. Powell is best case scenario for them, IMO

I hope it's not Powell for several reasons:

1. He's already gone from the admin, so there would be little reason to keep the story hot. Additionally, Bush could clain he drummed Powell out for exactly this reason. Even if Powell denied it, it would be a "he said she said" situation, and the pundits would latch onto Bush's version and beat it into people as the holy truth.

2. Powell is the "one of these things is not like the other" member of the admin and if it's him, the pundits would fix on the fact that he often went contrary to the Pres. That might actually work in favor of the administration's image in that they'd be able to say the Pres trusted an outside advisor and got burned, so it's *good* that he only ever recruits his cronies.

3. Powell is the definitive good soldier and I, for one, think he'd take his fall with "honor", twisted as it may be. I don't think he's the type to write a tell-all or engage in any sort of retaliation.

4. Powell is still a very respected figure in American culture and I think he'd get a pass in the public eye for this, especially if it's merely a situation where he had a folder and left it in public view when he shouldn't have, or some other variation on the "he gave out the information through negligence, not malice".

5. Powell is not directly linked to the Republican political machine. A Republican he may be, but he can't be directly tied to the infrastructure of the party, nor is he a political advisor to party personnel, etc. In that regard, he's not a general, he's a soldier and his downfall would be about as damaging to the top-level personnel as Lynddie England's was to Rummy et al.

My two cents.

Mostly

[okieinpain]

21. and a very good two cents it is. just look at the wilson lied drumbeat

the repugs have going now. they are looking for anything, and them coming up with a sucide soldier is not out of the question.

[fertilizeonarbusto]

2. It doesn't matter

"Karl Rove" is a known quantity to Americans in general now, not just political junkies-and he's known as a hatchet man and corrupt sleazeball. This administration's credibility had been steadily going downhill. It's collapsed now and nothing can rescue it. Not only that, the RW noise-machine's defense of the obviously indefensible Rove exposes them for the biased whores they are.
Sorry, even if he gets away, we are winning this one. Keep pushing.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

5. I agree

The damage here is not just the potential indictments, it's the public perception of this administration as corrupt. Finally.

[MostlyLurks]

11. Do we know that that's coming through?

Have there been any non-online, non-voluntary-participation polls re: this issue or that would indicate the traction of this story in the public mind?

I sometimes think that DU is its own insular little world, and what we know has little to do with what the world-at-large sees, just as FR is not a valid indicator of public perception either.

Mostly

[toddaa]

3. I agree with everything but the conclusion

I don't think a low level guy is going to take fall. Scooter Libby, and possibly Cheney, is Fitzgerald's target. You're right, however. Rove is a media distraction. Too easy. The fact that Miller's still in jail suggests that Fitzgerald is after someone else. I believe Novak's original column specified two anonymous sources. It's the second one Fitzgerald's after.

[GreenPartyVoter]

4. Jack Ruby Jr might get him though

[mckara]

7. At This Point...

We don't know what the special prosecutor possesses for evidence, or what has been presented to the grand jury. When they make their decision to indict or not to indict, then we can speculate on Rove's future.
Personally, I think the special prosecutor has enough to indict, then will find out if Rove perjured himself before the grand jury when he testified before them three times.
He's such a slime bucket, I wager that he'll be convinced for lying.

[Walt Starr]

9. The reason your assumptions are false

Patrick Fitzgerald. Your assumptions are based upon Rove having an "in" to the actual investigation.

Fitzgerald runs too tight a ship for that and holds his cards very close to his chest. He's proven this modus operandi in the past, too. All Rove knows is what he did and who the players are. He THINKS he has innoculated himself with the ability to parse definitions so he can skate. He's also forgotten about the Espionage Act of 1917 and the implications of that act upon what he and those he directed did.

Furthermore, I believe Rove has underestimated the effect what he did would have upon our overall national security. He honestly believed what he was doing was for the greater good and the effects were very detrimental to our anti-terror efforts where WMD are concerned.

Rove is no mastermind genius. He's a thug who's been willing to walk the line of the law for political expediency. Furthermore, he has had no moral qualms in crossing the line of what is and is legal when he saw political benefits. This works well on a state level for a long time, but when playing with foreign policy on a national level it's a dangerous game and you will more than likely burn yourself, and the entire nation, in your actions when you toss morality overboard for political expediency.

[MostlyLurks]

10. Your Assumptions About My Assumptions Assume Things...

Walt,

I understand where you're coming from and I know that my post is based on some things that can't be known (it's a known unknown, as opposed to the unknown unknowns, the known knowns and the unknown knowns) at this stage, such as whether Rove actually has heard from Fitzgerald or anybody in the investigation about his place in it.

I agree that his contentions that he's not a central focus are suspect on the face and furthermore that he could be saying that only because he doesn't know anything and feels it immpertinent to stay completely quiet. So there is an "ASSUMPTION 0" at the core of my suspicion that I should have delineated.

Frankly, I hope I'm in the wrong here - Rove's indictment, let alone a conviction, would certainly shake up politics-as-usual and might have a ripple effect for the next decade. But we've seen so many significant scandals in this administration, and they seem to have some sort of Matrix-like ability to see-and-avoid that it has become de rigueur to assume they'll be able to slither their way out.

Peace.

Mostly.

[PurityOfEssence]

13. By George, I think you've got it

Just as gangster movies are appealing to the law-abiding Caspar Milquetoasts of life, goons like Rove are thought of as geniuses by many. No, he's simply a criminal against the basic covenants of civilization, and his tactics are a bit rare as a result. The arrogance of the shake-down artist will get him in the end.

You're probably right that Rove's ruthlessness led him into doing this to put a shot across the bow of everyone in the Intelligence Community so they wouldn't even THINK of doing something akin to what Wilson did. (This is a point often lost: it's not so much revenge against Wilson, it's a warning to others; Wilson has it right, and says this all the time. Were it mere revenge, it would be dismissed as implausible, or recklessly petty, but as a warning, it makes perfect sense and makes one disgusted with the person doing it.) You're also probably right in saying that he didn't think through the consequences. He's a barroom brawler, not a chess player, and beyond the immediate advantage, he's in unfamiliar territory.

Like a drug addict who needs more of a hit to even get off, the successful thug thinks less and less of what are serious acts of societal abuse and amps up the brutality with nary a thought. He's gotten away with so much, he thought he could smash his way through this one too. It's like a line in a Hitler documentary I saw (wish I could credit the writer) "he was so hot at the dice table for so long that he just didn't think he could lose".

As others have said, this is very good for us, barring any complete exoneration. We can show the Corporate Media's complicity in keeping it quiet and the selfish ruthlessness of this administration as it destroys our ability to monitor the oh-so-important WMDs in the world JUST FOR POLITICAL ADVANTAGE OF THE MOMENT.

With every passing justification for "outing" an operative who's doing some of the most serious intelligence work we have, we can look Congressional Republicans in the eye next election and ask them why they're pro-treason. Why are they pro-terrorist? Is keeping former diplomats in check worth exposing our civilians to nuclear attack? Isn't loyalty supposed to be to the Constitution and the country before it is to a junta of greedy, super-rich madmen? I've gotten surprising mileage with some reactionary blockheads by saying: "That's the difference between you and me; your loyalty is to the Republican Party, mine's to the United States."

But I digress.

This thread was started in good faith, and the OP has some valid points and may be correct, but I think you're the one who got it right.

[Stirk]

14. Karl Rove is not a genius.

I've seen nothing to suggest that he's even particularly clever.

He has risen to the top of his field because he's always willing to stoop lower than the next guy. Like Robert Bork, John Negroponte, John Poindexter, and a thousand others, he's proven himself to be a useful crook who will do anything to service his employers.

That's what he is. He's also going down.

[MostlyLurks]

16. I don't think my scenario requires a genius.

I'll grant that my tin-foil hat conclusion IS the stuff of genius i.e. setting up a patsy, feeding him/her information and then ensuring that information finds its way back to the same people ultimately responsible for feeding it to him/her in the 1st place. No doubt, that's a work of Machia...Mechaive...evil genius.

But that's not a prime component of my argument. The "I'm not a focus" idea is pointless if one is bound be indicted for the main crime (treason).

On the other hand, if you know you're not going to be indicted as the big fish but there's a chance you're going to be part of a larger net, there are three approaches you can take prior to the event:

1. Admit your position openly and honestly. BWAHAHAHA. I don't think we need to even contemplate that one.

2. Deny everything. This is a stupid position to take because it's an all or nothing gambit: if you avoid indictment, you come out smellng like a rose but if you are indicted for anything at all, you're not only a crook, you're a liar.

3. Deny significant involvement while admitting to lesser "crimes". This is the "best of both worlds" position. If he's not indicted at all, he's proven completely right: he was not a focus, thus he gets the same benefits as if he had denied everything. He washes his hands, says "I told you so" for a couple of months and it's business-as-usual. On the other hand, if the indictments come down and he gets tapped for some smaller crime, as he thought he might, he has innoculated himself because he already copped to some level of involvement but he was "honest" about his position as it related to the hierarchy of indictments.

If we stand back, "I'm not a focus" is definately more like 3 than 2 because it's clearly not as concrete as "I am not involved" or "I am innocent".

All it takes to see those three responses is simple linear thinking, nothing close to genius level.

Keep in mind that I'm not saying he planned it this way from the start, simultaneously devising his "I'm not a focus" argument while talking to Matt Cooper. Not at all. As Walt Starr said above, I think this was something he thought would be swept under the rug and now, as it begins to get away from him, he's trying to position himself strategically as best he can. Additionally, it's all predicated on the fact that he actually knows he's not at the center of the investigation, and that's certainly not a guarantee. He might be saying "I'm not a focus" when he doesn't know diddly poop about the investigation.

Mostly.

[Tommymac]

19. If this were being totally

fought in the political arena and the Court of PublicOopinion, I'd say your point may have some validity.

But this battle is in a Court of Law.

Yur initial assumption about the 'validity' of Rove's attorney's statement is all wrong IMHO. Rove's lawyer can say anything he wants - indeed it is SOP to deny your client is the target of an investigation...to protect him from public repercussions as long as possible. In this instance you cited he was speaking mainly to the RW base IMHO...to keep them mollified and united.

No, Rove is going to go down, one way or another. His day to day political capital is already worthless...see the actions of the WH press core the last few days to understand that. And a political advisor who cannot spend his political capital is worthless.