Rove - Where's the beef? Until we see the letter, all is speculation

[Jersey Devil]

The letter has not been made public. Why? There are no GJ secrecy rules surrounding such a letter. Showing it to the press would end all speculation. Not showing it to the press would prolong his client's exposure to news stories involving the Plame leak investigation. Why would Rove's lawyer want his client's name to continue to be associated with the Plame leak and for there to be continued speculation?

Look at the news stories this morning. Some stories say there was a Fitz letter to Rove's lawyers. Some merely say Fitz "told" Luskin that Rove would not be indicted. Which is it? Why didn't the media insist on seeing the letter or even mention in one single story that they asked to see the letter?

Something smells fishy to me.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

1. Thanks for this. You're right, the contents of a letter clearing Rove

would be trumpeted by Luskin and appear all over the MSM. It's not.

It sure seems to smack of "distraction"...maybe since the Zarquawi story has lost its legs? :shrug: MKJ

edited to add...oh yeah, BTW, gwb in Iraq...oh, brother.

[Jersey Devil]

5. Have some of the news stories now been edited to omit "a letter"?

I could have sworn that the original stories I read about 7:30-8:00 this morning almost all mentioned a letter from Fitz but in reviewing them I can't find any now that mention this letter?

[madokie]

8. I think distraction is what it is

[emulatorloo]

firedoglake worth reading - LUSKIN always OVER-Hyping for his client

Why won't fitz office comment?

Read this firedoglake entry:

http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/06/13/dodging-cipa-graymail-bulletsand-other-legal-notes/

<snip>

First, the NYTimes article from David Johnston this morning. (And a hat tip to Holden for the heads up on the article.) If Luskin is coming out and saying publicly that they got a letter from Pat Fitzgerald which says that Rove will not be charged, there are two things that I want to see and know: (1) what does the letter actually say, word for word; and (2) does it say something along the lines of "Please thank Karl for his cooperation in this matter."

<snip>

Here’s what the {NYT} article does say:

In a statement, Mr. Luskin said, "On June 12, 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove."

Well, that’s a bit of overhype, frankly. Rove was not the only person that Fitzgerald was looking at in the grand scheme of this investigation. And to spin this as the case being over is laziness on the part of David Johnston — and the media writ large, frankly — who have never dug into this case to realize that the players were larger than the Libby and Rove narrative frame that the corporate media types have conveniently used throughout the investigation. And that the be all and end all of the case was not the ultimate criminal charges, but the exposure of the smarmy underbelly of the Bush Administration and their standard MO of attacking, with a vengeance, anyone who dares to question them — even when those questions are not only appropriate but also expose them in a lie.

<snip>

[Coexist]

3. the FDL blog was really good.

No letter up yet on Fitz's website - do you think he will post it? Or will Rove's attorney release it?

[Jersey Devil]

7. We are all assuming there was a letter because the NYT said so

I have found no other news stories saying there was a letter. To the contrary, the MSNBC story says that Rove's lawyers were told in a "phone call". How do we know the NYT is right anymore than Jason Leopold?

[Coexist]

9. No, we don't know either way

I am going on what FDL is saying. Did you hear the Plame panel at Yearly Kos? They addressed this well.

[Jersey Devil]

6. Thanks, FDL has been terrific on this story (nt)

x

[enough]

2. Christy Hardin Smith has a long post this morning on Firedoglake

in which she makes the same point about the letter.

http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/06/13/dodging-cipa-graymail-bulletsand-other-legal-notes/

snip>

Rove was not the only person that Fitzgerald was looking at in the grand scheme of this investigation. And to spin this as the case being over is laziness on the part of David Johnston — and the media writ large, frankly — who have never dug into this case to realize that the players were larger than the Libby and Rove narrative frame that the corporate media types have conveniently used throughout the investigation. And that the be all and end all of the case was not the ultimate criminal charges, but the exposure of the smarmy underbelly of the Bush Administration and their standard MO of attacking, with a vengeance, anyone who dares to question them — even when those questions are not only appropriate but also expose them in a lie.

I’ve said this before, and I will say it again: unless and until I hear it from Patrick Fitzgerald, the investigation continues to be ongoing. Which means that there are still potential developments down the road, should the evidence (like handwritten marching orders on the Wilson op-ed in Dick Cheney’s handwriting) lead there.

And I’ve also said this, and it is worth a reminder: Patrick Fitzgerald and his team are career professionals. You do not charge someone with a criminal indictment merely because they are scum. You have to have the evidence to back up any charges — not just that may indicate that something may have happened, but you must have evidence that criminal conduct occurred and that you can prove it. You charge the evidence you have, you try the case you can make, and you don’t go down a road that will ultimately be a waste of the public’s money and time once you have ascertained that the case is simply not there. It doesn’t mean that you don’t think the SOB that you can’t charge isn’t a weasel or guilty as hell, it just means that you can’t prove it. (And, fwiw, those times are the worst of your career, because you truly hate to let someone go when you know in your gut they’ve done something wrong.)

Jeralyn has been saying all along that she thinks that Rove cut some sort of cooperation deal. I really want to see whatever wording was in (Luskin’s words) the letter from Fitzgerald before I get too far down this road on the what’s going on speculation.

snip>

much more

[meisje]

4. I stand with Beef!