ARC's 1st Law: As a "progressive" online discussion grows longer, the probability of a nefarious reference to Karl Rove approaches one

Monday, December 12, 2005

Left is still holding out for a Merry Fitzmas...

Viveca Novak has now penned an article for Time detailing her deposition with Fitz on the Luskin conversations. More on her article in another post.

Jeralyn Merrit over at TalkLeft isn't as blinded as some on the left, but she tries to keep hope alive!

Bottom line: Karl Rove's chances of escaping a charge of perjury before the grand jury increase. But, I believe he's still on the hook for lying to federal investigators before the grand jury was convened in October, 2003 when he failed to tell them about his July 8, telephone conference with reporter Bob Novak when he reportedly said, after Novak told him all about Wilson's wife, "I heard that too."
Sorry, Fitz isn't going to indict on that for one simple reason. Based on Jeralyn's reasoning, he could have already. Because of the fact that he didn't indict Rove when he indicted Libby, he must feel that that case is too weak to bring to trial. And if you honestly look at it, its obvious that it is extremely weak. It's believed that Rove said to investigators that he wasn't Bob Novak's source. What we know is that Rove was one of his sources, but his entire contribution was "I heard that too". Now granted, I'm not a journalist, but "I heard that too" is not a confirmation of anything other than rumors are flying around the always gossippy beltway. Rove's defense would simply be, I can't believe that nutball Bob Novak took that as a confirmation of his story, hence I didn't think I was one of his sources. Case closed, thanks for playing.

But if Jeralyn is holding out hope, the Kossacks (specifically Armando) are in full denial:
Jeralyn says that Rove's chance of escaping a perjury count increase as a result of V. Novak's testimony. But that's not new. Luskin has had to explain why Rove didn't disclose his conversation with Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper. The defense is clear. He forgot it. Only when Rove was shown his e-mail to Steven Hadley of July 11, 2003 did he remember the conversation. The questions are and have been throughout (1) why didn't the White House and Rove turn over the Steven Hadley e-mail immediately? and (2) why did it take so long to find it?
Who says they didn't turn it over immediately when they found it? Is Armando accusing Luskin of obstruction of justice? What reason would they have to delay turning it over? If they found it, its possible that Fitz already had it, or that he would learn of it through other means (Hadley testimony for example). And the email was if anything exculpatory for the narrative Fitz was operating under in the case.

As to the length of time, obviously Luskin provided a reason to Fitz for why they found it when they did, and Fitz accepted that reason, because he didn't indict Rove and decided to check out Viveca's side of the story. If the timing of the email was the issue Fitz had enough to indict already.

I guess I see Jeralyn's point that any story is better than no story, but THIS story is so full of holes and BS that I simply don't see how this helps Rove.

My take is that Luskin is so bereft of defenses that this defense strikes me as the mother of all Hail Mary passes.

Of course he doesn't see, because the left is convinced of Rove's guilt, and anything that is excuplatory for Rove causes them to search for metaphor's further implicate Rove of course!

Previous post on the delusion of the left can be found here.
Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: Brian