|
...toward the Bush Titanic. That's what that little tidbit of an email feels like to me. Most see the tiny tip and think nothing of it. Experienced hands, however, sense the bulk beneath the surface, and I will go with their instincts on this one.
I think people have misinterpreted a number of things Fitzgerald said. One was that the bulk of the GJ's work is over. Implication (some people are taking): that Libby is the only result of that work. I suspect that Fitzgerald, however, has a back pocket full of sealed indictments--which are top secret in any GJ proceeding (nobody would have a clue, not perps' lawyers, not WH, not press). There is also his failure to state that all others are off the hook; in fact, the opposite is true; Rove, at least, is still under investigation; and Fitzgerald stated that the investigation is still open; that he still has a GJ he can use; that he still wants to know WHY this happened (motive, direction, orders from above?), and he just lets that thing about Cheney telling Libby (of Plame's status) sit there in the Libby indictment, speaking for itself (WHY did Cheney TELL Libby ABOUT Plame?).
The Libby indictment--for all its careful legal framing--does in fact point to a conspiracy, with Cheney (at least) at the top of the chain, and with Libby--through his perjury, obstruction and misdirection--blocking Fitzgerald's view of the Cheney's INTENT in giving this information to Libby.
If he has Rove on outing Plame (but can't prove knowledge/intent, which the law requires), and can't prove a Cheney/Libby & others (?) conspiracy, because Libby blockaded the investigation (caused them to fail to ask the right questions, or fail to follow up the right leads--i.e, the ones leading to Cheney or others), but maybe has Rove on perjury or obstruction, then he may well be in a chess game with Rove and his lawyers on how serious that perjury or obstruction charge is (that's what Rove's last minute 4 hours of testimony was likely about), and he wants something from Rove--and it is most certainly not this lame email that Rove's lawyer disclosed. Rove, of course, wants to reduce Fitzgerald's power to compel disclosure of something, and has been trying to chip away at the perjury/obstruction charges to that end (this email may have more to do with that than we can perceive from the outside).
But I think there was more to Rove's last minute disclosures than this--much more. And it probably has to do with Fitzgerald being able to prove conspiracy--someone else involved--and with intent. Maybe why it gave Fitzgerald "pause" (as reported) is that it had to do with someone intending to ensnare Rove in a plot to commit a crime, in which case it could be some laterally positioned enemy of Rove's (as someone here suggests, Karen Hughes). This WOULD cause Fitzgerald to hold back a Rove indictment. What if Rove has made a case that he was a VICTIM of the conspiracy (by giving up one of the names? --someone who wanted to destroy him).
That would give Fitzgerald something to work with, to get around Libby's obstruction.
I do think that Rove was something of a pawn in Cheney/Rumsfeld/Bolton/Libby's war on the CIA (and particularly on its honest information gathering and counter-proliferation capability). He probably didn't know that disclosing Plame's identity was a crime (--although you'd sure think that anyone working in the WH with even minimal patriotism, or even just a concern for his own skin, would be a bit worried, and check into the matter!).
Or maybe someone MISLED him about it being a crime (and that's what he has, at last, disclosed--an action that would point clearly at intent and conspiracy, on the part of whoever may have misled him).
I know it's hilariously funny to think of Rove as a victim--but he certainly wouldn't be above playing one, to save his skin, especially if he could do payback to a political enemy. And Fitzgerald--remember-- is NOT out to "get" Rove; the purpose of his investigation is to find out not just how this was done, and by whom, but WHY, because WHY is the critical national security issue. (He went into detail on this at press conference: was it maliciousness? was it recklessness? was it deliberate undermining of nat'l security? (--or some such wording)). He might play along with Rove's victim game to get at that answer. And, from all reports, he is a very good strategist in just this sort of game.
(I just had a stray thought--Myers!) (Could this be why Fitz visited Bush's attorney? --can't recall the date of Myers' withdrawal from the Sup Ct nomination--but it was right in the middle of all this.)
Anyway, I think we should be very, very cautious about interpreting Fitzgerald's Libby indictment press conference. His comment about the war was, I believe, that THIS indictment was not about the war; it was about nat'l security, and Libby throwing sand in his eyes to obscure that issue. I don't think it was "this investigation" (was not about the war). But even it was, he HAS TO BE non-partisan, and the war is a highly partisan issue, in the sense of rousing anti-Bush sentiment. It was also quite proper for him to take the stance that it's not UP TO HIM, what the country thinks about the war or what it does about it. That is an issue for the people (theoretically) to decide. He stressed again and again that he is a prosecutor, and is strictly focused on his mandate to pursue this crime. And with regard to the Libby indictment, his point was that he could not get AT intent, because of the obstruction. The obstruction has to be removed before he can get at intent (at which point the subject of how the war came about may well be within his purview--he didn't say this latter thing, but I think it's pretty clear).
Right now, he has the closest people to Bush and Cheney on a tight leash, one of them facing a trial, the other still under investigation. (And McNulty has Larry Franklin turning state's evidence on the AIPAC case--related to Plame by the Niger forgeries.) It is entirely premature to assume that Fitzgerald is not going to crack this case. There was nothing in the substance of his press conference that supports that. And did he look like a man who had been defeated, or expects defeat? He did not.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
