Why would Fitzgerald even send Rove a letter?

[DoYouEverWonder]

Hasn't Rove's lawyer always denied that Rove was a target of the investigation or even a person of interest?

Therefore if Rove was never a target, then there wouldn't be any reason to notify him of anything.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

1. ahhhhh.

VERY good question.

Was he lying then, or lying now?

Thank you for rescuing this little tidbit from the dustbin of history. :)

[AndyA]

2. I thought that was standard protocol, but you have a good point.

If Rove wasn't a target, if he was never notified that he was, why would any notification be necessary? One would naturally assume they weren't going to be indicted unless a target letter had been received.

[hang a left]

24. Also when Rove testified for the 4th time.....

He was given "no assurances" by Fitzgerald.

[Catherine Vincent]

3. Good point!

[idgiehkt]

4. great user name to post this thread, lol. also

why send someone a letter telling them you aren't gonna do something?

Doesn't even sound characteristic of Fitzgerald

Like sending a letter to the grocery store telling them you aren't gonna shop there today.

Did Luskin send and inquiry about it to Fitzgerald?

Does Fitzgerald strategize or is he straight by the book?

[Finder]

5. Easy explanation...It was a letter in response to one sent to Fitzgerald.

[DoYouEverWonder]

6. Don't you think

that Fitzgerald would see that he was being set up to make it look like Rove was cleared, if his lawyer had initiated that sort of correspondence?

[Igel]

8. But if he's asked,

wouldn't it be simply reasonable for him to answer. It may also be protocol, since he'd been in front of the GJ a bunch of times, and such a witness may plausibly feel ... investigated, and therefore curious.

Remember: Fitzgerald is interested in the law, in conducting his investigation to ascertain what was done legally and illegally, and can punish bad acts only to the extent that there's something illegal. Otherwise, Rove, or Cooper, or anybody else ... just people.

If the paraphase of the letter is accurate, he didn't clear Rove, or say anything directly about Rove and his conduct. He merely said something about his--Fitzgerald's--own mental state, about his likely future conduct, and plausibly about his past conduct. Prosecutors do not typically 'clear' people; they merely say they are not seeking indictments bringing charges.

He is not a politician, and he doesn't give a rat's ass what we think or what we're interested in.

[DoYouEverWonder]

10. See my response below

Luskin could ask and Fitzgerald may or may not have responded but to put it in writing implies that Rove had previously been notified in writing that he was a subject and/or target. Otherwise, I would think the communication would be verbal rather then written.

[Finder]

14. True...

9-11.155 Notification to Targets when Target Status Ends

The United States Attorney has the discretion to notify an individual, who has been the target of a grand jury investigation, that the individual is no longer considered to be a target by the United States Attorney's Office. Such a notification should be provided only by the United States Attorney having cognizance over the grand jury investigation.

Discontinuation of target status may be appropriate when:

The target previously has been notified by the government that he or she was a target of the investigation; and,


The criminal investigation involving the target has been discontinued without an indictment being returned charging the target, or the government receives evidence in a continuing investigation that conclusively establishes that target status has ended as to this individual.


There may be other circumstances in which the United States Attorney may exercise discretion to provide such notification such as when government action has resulted in public knowledge of the investigation.

The United States Attorney may decline to issue such notification if the notification would adversely affect the integrity of the investigation or the grand jury process, or for other appropriate reasons. No explanation need be provided for declining such a request.

If the United States Attorney concludes that the notification is appropriate, the language of the notification may be tailored to the particular case. In a particular case, for example, the language of the notification may be drafted to preclude the target from using the notification as a "clean bill of health" or testimonial.

The delivering of such a notification to a target or the attorney for the target shall not preclude the United States Attorney's Office or the grand jury having cognizance over the investigation (or any other grand jury) from reinstituting such an investigation without notification to the target, or the attorney for the target, if, in the opinion of that or any other grand jury, or any United States Attorney's Office, circumstances warrant such a reinstitution.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/11mcrm.htm#9-11.155

[Garbo 2004]

7. Rove always was a subject of the investigation and Luskin has publicly

acknowledged that in the past. Whether or not Rove was ever formally designated as a target, he clearly wasn't off the hook and his status could change. In fact it isn't required that a subject be designated as a target or be given a target notice prior to indictment.

Given the investigation's obvious focus on Rove, it's not surprising or unusual that Fitz would tell Luskin that he had decided not to seek an indictment against Rove.

In fact, FDL's Christy ((a former fed prosecutor) at the Yearly Kos Plame panel said that Fitz wouldn't just leave Luskin/Rove hanging indefinitely and per std procedure would let Luskin know if Rove was off the hook.

[DoYouEverWonder]

9. To tell him is one thing

To actually put it in writing is another matter entirely. Especially, since this is such a high profile case.

[Garbo 2004]

15. And yet an attorney like Christy isn't questioning that Fitz would

provide a written statement. Is she saying he couldn't/wouldn't provide a statement to Luskin in writing? No. Attorneys like things in writing. What was stated was that Fitz doesn't anticipate seeking charges. As FDL and others have noted, the door isn't sealed shut forever, although further action at this time appears unlikely. http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/06/14/translation/

[DoYouEverWonder]

17. From the link you posted

she does question whether or not Luskin received anything.

Okay, so I’m reading the Time article on the Rove development (thanks to jbalazs for the heads up), and a couple of things jump out at me. First of all, now Luskin is saying that he received a FAX from Fitzgerald. So, we’ve heard phone call (in the television reporting), letter (NYTimes) and now FAX from Time Magazine’s Mike Allen.

She continues to comment on the situation but that is after she has raised the questions regarding Luskins version of events, which seems to float around a bit.

[Garbo 2004]

20. "Is Fitzgerald likely to charge Rove at this point? No, or he wouldn't

have sent the fax." Also from Christy at that FDL link.

[DoYouEverWonder]

21. Isn't unusual for a prosecutor

to fax such a document, especially in a high profile case dealing with sensitive information? I would imagine secrecy and security would be a major concerns and faxes are not a secure method of transmitting sensitive information.

[Igel]

25. I don't think quibbling over the

letter/fax distinction is worthwhile at all. Even the phone call/letter business doesn't bother me much.

When my wife was offered a teaching job, the dean called her to find out if she wanted it, and *then* faxed the letter to her. With an official physical copy to follow. They needed her response post haste, and an original signature, so she composed it, faxed it, and mailed it. This was standard for that office. If I were Luskin and had asked for such a thing, or knew it was coming in a day or two, I'd want it faxed and expect an official copy, just as my wfie's dean did.

Or perhaps because Rove isn't a low-ranked munchkin, but a high-ranking munchkin, he gets special courtesy. But that's different from special consideration under the law.

Even the post saying that a letter is ok when a target is no longer considered a target includes a bit saying that if the investigation's become public, such a letter is appropriate, albeit entirely discretionary. It doesn't bind Fitz's hands, took him 20 seconds to sign, and may have gotten Luskin off his back.

[stop the bleeding]

11. Until I see something more concrete

on this matter I am staying mum. I understand your points DYEW, and our collective frustration on this matter, but until I see something in a court filing or a document with equal weight to a filing I will have to keep my ideas to myself.

I have really been struggling lately to find any amount of fortitude to go on fighting shrub and company, so I am retreating into myself for some deep thinking about this and the American Chaos in general.

Peace :)

[DoYouEverWonder]

12. I don't blame you

but please come back soon. We knew it would get worse before it would get better and it will never get better if we give up.

[babsbunny]

22. I love what you said!

I agree, and am feeling the EXACT SAME WAY!

[truedelphi]

23. Gawd Do I know the feeling

I have done that myself and eventually break back out.

But it is difficult to continue. Sometimes I remind myself of an evening in August 1974 when friends asked me over to watch yet another of Trickie Dick's press conferences (I was always invited cuz of instigating thingds like the annual Tricia Nixon b-day p
Counldn't handle doing that scene one more time. Walked along the shoreline of Lake Michigan all alone.

Suddenly from the apartments and townhouses along the Lake, there were cries and jubilant screams to rival any Chicago baseball winning game.

I got the chills- then realized I had missed a historic moment and that The Long Nightmare was over.

The dude had resigned.

I keep waiting for as similar evening to come about.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

26. Exactly how I feel

I know I'm a fighter, and I feel it's my responsibility to teach my kids that no matter how many times you get beat down, you never ever stop fighting.

But like you, I'm having a crisis of faith.

I'm not a defeatist, on the contrary, I'm an idealist, but it's getting tiring.

[midnight]

27. I loved reading your statement about no matter how many times

you get beat down. It is alright to have a crisis of faith. It will pass and then remember, never ever ever ever-give up....

[RevolutionStartsNow]

28. Thanks for the reminder...

I could never really check out and not care about what's happening to our country. Liberal is not my political persuasion, it's who I am, and it's in everything I do.
Ultimately, I don't need to "win", I just need to be true to my values and teach my kids to do the same.

[EC]

13. I think there will be a few surprises once the trial starts,

remember in Watergate, the juiciest bits came out after the trial started, like the tape....

[DoYouEverWonder]

16. The information about the taping system

became public during the Senate hearings into the matter, when a lower level employee admitted to the committee that Nixon had a system set up in the Oval Office and that all conversations had been recorded. Senate hearings are not the same has a trial.

[KittyWampus]

18. To answer a question Luskin asked.

[sheelz]

19. Ask Leopold...

Target Letter Drives Rove Back to Grand Jury
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Report

Wednesday 26 April 2006

Karl Rove's appearance before a grand jury in the CIA leak case Wednesday comes on the heels of a "target letter" sent to his attorney recently by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, signaling that the Deputy White House Chief of Staff may face imminent indictment, sources that are knowledgeable about the probe said Wednesday.

It's unclear when Fitzgerald sent the target letter to Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin. Sources close to the two-year-old leak investigation said when Rove's attorney received the letter Rove volunteered to appear before the grand jury for an unprecedented fifth time to explain why he did not previously disclose conversations he had with the media about covert CIA operative Valerie Plame and her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who criticized the Bush administration's use of pre-war Iraq intelligence.

http://www.truthout.org/fitzgeraldcalling.shtml

[LaPera]

29. Meet the new US Supreme Court Justice nominee - Patrick J. Fitzgerald

:shrug:

[rman]

30. To confirm the deal they struck?

Rove talks, Fitz drops the indictment.

(And Rove's lawyer lied - not much of a surprise, especially since that statement was not under oath or something)

[truedelphi]

31. David Corn's article snippet in "The Nation"

The following is the last half of Corn's recent article:

Two days after Rove spoke to Novak and gave the columnist the confirmation he needed to proceed with a piece that would out Valerie Wilson as an undercover CIA officer working on weapons of mass destruction, Rove spoke to Matt Cooper of Time. According to an email Cooper wrote immediately after this conversation, Rove told him that Joe Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and had sent Wilson to Niger. This conversation occurred three days before the Novak article appeared.

So Rove spoke to two reporters about Valerie Wilson. Her employment status at the CIA was classified. Rove was not merely gossiping, he was disseminating secret information, whether he realized it or not.

After the leak appeared in Novak's column on July 14, 2003, Scott McClellan, who had just taken over as White House press secretary, said of the leak, "That is not the way this President or this White House operates."

He was wrong. It was precisely how the White House had operated. Scooter Libby--
according to Fitzgerald's legal filings, Cooper's account, and the account of New York Times reporter Judy Miller--had also discussed Valerie Wilson's CIA connection with Cooper and Miller before the Novak column was published.

After the news broke in late September 2003 that the CIA had asked the Justice Department to launch a criminal investigation of the leak, McClellan declared that he had spoken to Rove and that "he was not involved" in the leak. McClellan also asserted that the vice president's office had not leaked the information about Valerie Wilson. He noted, "If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration." Bush affirmed that Rove was uninvolved and said, "If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action."

Rove--with or without the knowledge of the president and other White House aides--kept his leading role in the leak a secret for almost two years. In the summer of 2005, Newsweek revealed the Cooper email. And Fitzgerald's indictment of Libby months later disclosed that Rove had told Libby that he had spoken to Novak about Joe Wilson's wife.

The White House responded to these revelations by stonewalling, claiming that it could not answer any questions about Rove and the leak while a criminal investigation was underway. And it maintained that it could not even explain its previous--and false-- statements about Rove and Libby.

McClellan's promise,made on behalf of the president, that anyone involved in the leak would be booted from the administration--was not honored. Nor was Bush's statement that action would be taken against anyone who leaked classified information. The evidence was clear. Rove had conveyed classified information about Valerie Wilson to two reporters as
part of a White House effort to undercut Joe Wilson.

Fitzgerald had a high burden of proof in the Rove case. To win a prosecution under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act--which makes it a felony to disclose identifying information about a covert officer--Fitzgerald would have had to prove that Rove definitely knew that Valerie Wilson was not just a CIA employee but an undercover CIA employee. If Rove could raise doubt about his state of knowledge on that point, he would be able to mount an effective defense. Fitzgerald had kept Rove in the crosshairs for so long because he suspected that Rove had lied to FBI agents and his grand jury when Rove said at first that he had not spoken with Cooper about Valerie Wilson. It was only after a Rove email emerged--under somewhat puzzling circumstances--
that noted that he had talked to Cooper that Rove acknowledged that he had a conversation with Cooper (though he still said he did not recall it).

Fitzgerald spent over a year-and-a-half trying to determine if he could prosecute Rove for perjury or obstruction of justice, as Rove's lawyer tried mightily to explain the delay in producing that one email. In the end, Fitzgerald concluded his case was not strong enough. Given his pursuit of Libby and the time he kept Rove hanging, it's reasonable to assume that Fitzgerald rendered a good-faith judgment based on the law and the facts he had in hand.

Which brings us back to the Democrats' early mistake. From the start, they called for a special counsel, as if that would get to the bottom of the controversy. But Fitzgerald's mission was to investigate possible crimes and then mount prosecutions if he had the evidence to do so. His job was not to be a fact-finder for the public. He is not compelled to release any report detailing what he discovered about the leak and the White House role.
Independent counsels in the past were required to write public reports. But the law establishing independent counsels expired years ago, with the consent of Democrats angry at Kenneth Starr. A special counsel has no obligation to report on what he or she discovered. Congress was the body that should have investigated the leak--not as a criminal matter but as an issue of White House conduct--and it did not. Senior congressional Democrats did not push that point when they had the chance.

That means now that the whole story of the leak has yet to be disclosed. And it may never be--in an official sense. (Stay tuned for a book I am writing that will be out in the fall.) But several essentials are well-established: Rove leaked classified information that may have harmed national security; the White House said he hadn't and that leakers would be fired; Rove remains at the president's side today.

Not all wrongdoing--not all lying--in Washington is illegal. Rove escaped prosecution. But the episode has revealed the way the Bush White House really operates.