"Okay, so this is a parsing alert.
Reading Sebastian's post helped me create a wildly improbable, but nonetheless, plausible, scenario that might help repair some of the discrepancies.
I'll say from the get-go that I believe Leopold has good sources, these sources are accurate, but I don't believe that Leopold necessarily lays it out for us as his sources did for him. That is, I think he likes to embellish a lot of the details while leaving the big picture intact.
In any case, perhaps it is possible that the previous GJ had a sealed indictment for Rove, which has yet to be revealed (and presumably includes false statements and perjury charges). When Luskin pulled his last-minute "give Fitzgerald pause" stunt by revealing info about VNovak and/or Woody, Fitz agreed not to announce any indictments of Rover at that time, until he investigated these new leads.
That's since been done. And I think Fitzgerald found more holes in the story, maybe enough now that he's considering tacking on at least one obstruction of justice charge. And he's now got enough to possibly get an indictment on that too.
So perhaps what happened this past week (maybe on Friday) is that Fitzgerald strongly hinted at the possibility of a sealed indictment already out there, and laid out a plea agreement with some of the charges in that indictment, while agreeing to drop any further prosecution along the lines of an obstruction charge. He gave Rove and Luskin a deadline to consider his offer, after which he will take his new indictment with the obstruction charge(s) to the GJ, probably tomorrow (Wed.).
Assuming Rover doesn't cop a plea then, I guess the GJ will consider the indictment tomorrow and/or Friday, and we'll probably have a presser on Friday afternoon to announce the charges.
So I guess what I'm saying, is that maybe the "already indicted" story might be true, in that Rove was indicted a long time ago, but Luskin just learned about it this past week. And maybe he and Fitzgerald didn't actually meet in person on Friday, but conferenced about the plea deal. Then Rove and Luskin met in person Friday for quite a while (hence the "15 hours" bit). I agree that the "24 hours to get your affairs in order" does sound like something out of a B movie.
In any case, I doubt we'll ever know one way or the other."
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
Rove: "already indicted"? again.
* viget tries to find a Leopold/Rove scenario that might make some sense:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
The problemo for Leopold on all this is how in the world can his sources be right about this, but only Leopold be the one with the story? This should have leaked to other outlets as well. At this late stage of events Leopold should be begging his source to confidentially let someone else in on the game. The notion that he is the only reporter with the goods, days after Rove is indicted, is not believable to me.
Maybe events will prove me wrong, but at this point I doubt it. Too bad for Leopold, but as I posted yesterday, I'm afraid his credibility with me right now is about on the level of a White House spokes person. I may really really hope a pray for good news on this front, but I do not like being fed happy talk whether by this Administration or reporters who may see things my way politically speaking.
If I'm wrong about all this I'll be the first to apologize to Leopold. Frankly I'd be thrilled if I were wrong. I would issue the apology with a beaming smile on my face. But I would apologize!
Viget,
I think you may be on to something. Conservative ex-Congressmen John LeBoutillier has also said that he thinks Rove may have been indicted last October, but the indictment may have been sealed.
It just blows my mind that Leopold would just fabricate a story like this. This scenario might help explain things.
yeah - it's certainly not very comforting that he's out there on his own
apparently he was on ed schultz backing up the story again
Miguel---
Your comment just made something click for me. In one of lukery's posts above, someone mentioned that Ash is sure that Leopold would be vindicated on the "already indicted" front because there are documents, and these documents have dates.
But, as we know from the Libby case, even if an indictment was voted on by the GJ before Oct 28, it wasn't formally filed with the clerk until the 28th, and that's the only date on the doc.
I guess it's possible that a sealed indictment could have been filed last week, too, but given that there hasn't been any Fitz sightings that we know of, that sounds somewhat suspicious.
I will point out that on October 28th, the media accounts mentioned something about a last-minute motion being made before the Libby indictment was handed up. The media was very vague on what exactly was going on. Some of us speculated that it might have been a sealed indictment(s).
I guess we'll find out soon enough. Like I said though, if no indictments or plea deals this week, then I'll never believe another word from Leopold.
Lukery, I think the idea was to discredit Leopold, ruin him for us. Luskin is told to throw out the bait Leopold took it, now we distrust him. Is it working?
Graycat
grayscat - yeah - its working - although his name wasnt great beforehand. there must be more going on than discrediting leopold.
Post a Comment