Opinions, Context & Ideas from the TPM Editors TPM Editor's Blog

A bit more parsing

A bit more parsing of Ronald "GB" Luskin's remarks on whether Karl Rove is a 'target' of the Fitzgerald investigation -- under the known bamboozler's standard of 'strict scrutiny' (KB-triple-S) noted below.

First off, is it a legal requirement that you get a 'target letter' before you get indicted? Many press outlets are claiming that it is. For instance, CNN says, "Rove would first have to receive what is known as a target letter if he is about to be indicted."

As near as I can tell, though, that is simply false. There's no legal requirement that you get a letter before you get indicted. Standard procedure, yes. A requirement, no.

As for parsing of Luskin's remarks and the significance of a letter (see below), several sources confirm that for a known bamboozler like Luskin, his statements are basically meaningless. Notification that you're a target can be oral. And the letter probably wouldn't be sent to Rove himself but rather to Luskin. So even if Fitzgerald sent a letter Karl Rove wouldn't have received it. Suffice it say that Luskin's statement gives him plenty of wiggle room.

As for what this all means, basically what we have here is Rove's attempt to go in and make his own case directly to the grand jury, going over Fitzgerald's head, as it were. My sources tell me that such a strategy is the equivalent of a Hail Mary pass, the sort of choice that only makes sense as one source told me, in situations "where the indictment is as bad as the conviction" -- something that certainly applies to Rove.

The crafty ways of

The crafty ways of our man, Robert "Gold Bars" Luskin, lawyer for tadpole-on-deck Karl Rove.

As we noted a short time ago, the AP is now reporting that Karl Rove has availed himself of a last-minute and seemingly last ditch effort to avoid indictment.

Yesterday Luskin cut some blood loose in the water when he refused to deny that Rove had received a 'target letter'. In the past, Luskin had quite volubly insisted that Patrick Fitzgerald had assured him that Rove was not a target. But no more.

Today he told the AP: "I can say categorically that Karl has not received a target letter from the special counsel. The special counsel has confirmed that he has not made any charging decisions in respect to Karl."

Here Luskin appears to be availing himself of the transitive property of hyper-parsification. To any reasonable person Luskin's statement should settle the matter of whether Rove is a target. But Luskin's own record of slithery parsification forces us to assume that these words are carefully chosen to conceal rather than elucidate. If you come from the con interp world, think of this as the journalists' version of 'strict scrutiny' which is called for in the case of a bamboozler like Luskin.

With that in mind, Luskin's second sentence means nothing. Being a target may mean you're likely to get indicted. But it doesn't mean that the prosecutor has decided that in fact you will be indicted. So that's just a showy statement that means nothing. Then there's the matter of the letter. Karl hasn't gotten one. Luskin earlier approach was to say that Fitzgerald had assured him that Rove was 'not a target'. Now we're hung up on the letter.

Can you be notified that you're a target in any way beside a letter? I really don't know. But it's hard to see where a prosecutor wouldn't cross every t and dot every i in a case of such import.

Karl plays for time.

Karl plays for time. AP: "Federal prosecutors have accepted an offer from presidential adviser Karl Rove to give 11th hour testimony in the case of a CIA officer's leaked identity but have warned they cannot guarantee he won't be indicted, according to people directly familiar with the investigation. The persons, who spoke only on condition of anonymity because of grand jury secrecy, said Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has not made any decision yet on whether to file criminal charges against the longtime confidant of President Bush or others."

More Grade A Freeh

More Grade A Freeh Bashing: Advance word on Arch-Failure Louis Freeh's new book apparently has Freeh complaining that it was hard for him to get anything done because Bill Clinton, the president and his nominal boss, was such a source of scandal and bad acts.

Drudge quotes him saying: "The problem was with Bill Clinton -- the scandals and the rumored scandals, the incubating ones and the dying ones never ended. Whatever moral compass the president was consulting was leading him in the wrong direction. His closets were full of skeletons just waiting to burst out."

Aren't there some logical problems with this excuse making?

How is it that Bill Clinton was such a bad actor that Freeh couldn't get anything else done because he had to spend so much investigating him and yet Freeh never caught him doing anything? Which of Clinton's associates did Freeh indict?

Think about it. Either Freeh is just as big a buck-passer and liar as we think or he is a self-confessed incompetent. It's genuinely funny.

Even if you want to consider Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky as a legitimate legal bad act, Freeh didn't have anything to do with catching him on that one. Give the credit where it's due: that was the work of Republican political operatives.

Can't Freeh keep himself busy as chief bill collector for the credit card companies?

Reuters Top officials who

Reuters: "Top officials who managed U.S. reconstruction projects in Iraq have been hired by some of the same big companies that received those contracts and which are now involved in a rush of deals to rebuild after Hurricane Katrina."

So Arch-Failure Louis Freeh

So Arch-Failure Louis Freeh is coming out with a book, apparently aimed largely at attacking Bill Clinton. I assume we're going to get a lot of stories about how Freeh was perhaps the worst manager the FBI ever had? Didn't believe in using computers to aid crime fighting? Was a complete zero in fighting terrorism?

Who cares about Bill Clinton. Let Freeh attack him all he wants. Truly, who cares? But Freeh is a walking glass house. Please everyone collect your rocks.

Andrew Sullivan has the

Andrew Sullivan has the full round-up on last night's Senate vote banning the US military from using torture (torture or quasi-torture, call it what you want) anywhere in the world. Now he's posted the names of the nine senators who weren't willing to vote against torture.

Someone whod like to

Someone who'd like to testify at Harriet Miers confirmtion hearings?

Late Update: Apologies, the server linked to here seems overwhelmed and for the moment isn't working.

Is RoBold the snitch

Is RoBold the snitch?

Ever since Travis County DA Ronnie Earle indicted Tom DeLay on the initial charge of conspiracy, and especially since he heaped on two more indictments based on "additional information" he received last weekend, DeLay watchers have been reading the tea leaves trying discern who might have agreed to testify against Mr. Big.

In today's Roll Call, there's an article (sub.req.) by John Bresnahan, devoted almost entirely to the voluble denials from DeLay's alleged co-conspirators Jim Ellis John Colyandro, each insisting that they haven't cut a deal.

But sticking out like a sore thumb in Bresnahan's piece is the second graf which reads ...

A lawyer for a third DeLay associate who also is under indictment in the Texas probe, Warren RoBold, did not return calls seeking comment on whether he is cooperating with Earle’s investigation.

RoBold isn't quite the insider that Ellis and Colyandro are. So perhaps he's decided it's time to cut his losses, turn the tables and nail the hammer?

Not a sexy topic

Not a sexy topic, but way more important than you might think: the decline of Congressional oversight. It's one of Congress's key roles in our system of checks and balances. But it's a role that has largely been abdicated by the Republican Congress. During the 1990s, the sort of meticulous but often unsexy work of oversight of the executive branch departments and agencies was pushed aside to make way for high-octane but mostly nonsensical scandal investigations. Under Bush, it's been shunted aside even more because serious oversight sounds too much like criticism, which must of course be avoided at all costs. The Post has a nice, though too brief, piece on the subject.