To his critics, White House political maven Karl Rove has had a fairly unrestricted run since George W. Bush got in office: he engineered Bush’s victories, successfully retired some Democrats, successfully employed wedge issues and even though the 2006 elections were a bit humiliating, he hasn’t faced serious personal obstacles — or many negative consequences.
Will that be changing now? Newsweek’s investivative reporter Michael Isikoff reports that the White House is nervous because Karl could be in court, swearing on a Bible and being forced to testify:
White House anxiety is mounting over the prospect that top officials—including deputy chief of staff Karl Rove and counselor Dan Bartlett-may be forced to provide potentially awkward testimony in the perjury and obstruction trial of Lewis (Scooter) Libby.
This would be a double-whammy for the White House. Already the Libby trial is evolving as less of a legal spectacular than a political revelation, as testimony seemingly shines lights on rocks so the press and public can see what has been crawling under there, out of sight until now. MORE:
Both Rove and Bartlett have already received trial subpoenas from Libby’s defense lawyers, according to lawyers close to the case who asked not to be identified talking about sensitive matters. While that is no guarantee they will be called, the odds increased this week after Libby’s lawyer, Ted Wells, laid out a defense resting on the idea that his client, Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff, had been made a “scapegoat� to protect Rove. Cheney is expected to provide the most crucial testimony to back up Wells’s assertion, one of the lawyers close to the case said. The vice president personally penned an October 2003 note in which he wrote, “Not going to protect one staffer and sacrifice the other.� The note, read aloud in court by Wells, implied that Libby was the one being sacrificed in an effort to clear Rove of any role in leaking the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame, wife of Iraq war critic Joe Wilson. “Wow, for all the talk about this being a White House that prides itself on loyalty and discipline, you’re not seeing much of it,� the lawyer said.
Isikoff goes into more detail, but here’s the most important part of his piece:
The possibility that Rove could be called to testify would bring his own role into sharper focus—and could prove important to Libby’s lawyers for several reasons. Rove has said in secret testimony that, during a chat on July 11, 2003, Libby told him he learned about Plame’s employment at the CIA from NBC Washington bureau chief Tim Russert, a legal source who asked not to be identified talking about grand jury matters told NEWSWEEK. If Rove repeats that story on the witness stand, it could back up Libby’s core assertion that he honestly, if mistakenly, thought he had heard about Wilson’s wife from the “Meet the Press� host—even though Russert denies he knew anything about Plame, and more than a half-dozen officials (including Cheney) have said they passed along the same information to Libby earlier than that.
But the Rove account could cut in other ways. Fitzgerald would likely argue that Libby’s comment to Rove merely shows that the vice president’s top aide “was even lying inside the White House,� according to the legal source. Moreover, Rove is likely not eager to recount the story either. The reason? He would have to acknowledge that shortly after he had the chat with Libby, he went back to his office and had a phone conversation with Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper in which he also disclosed the fact that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA. The disclosure was potentially illegal since, at the time, Plame was employed in the Directorate of Operations, the agency’s covert arm. (There is no evidence that Rove or anybody else knew Plame’s status at the time—and Rove has never been charged with any crime—but the possibility that White House officials were leaking classified information in an effort to discredit Wilson is what triggered the probe in the first place.)
He also notes that former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer is set to testify next week. No one knows what’s likely to come out here, the Newsweek reporter suggests….except Fleischer has been granted immunity. Another sign that next week may not be a delightful one for the White House.
The Libby trial and Rove case need to be seen in a larger context.
This administration seems to have more chickens coming home to roost now than one of Frank Perdue’s poultry factories.
Very little that’s coming out about the adminsitration is positive and it isn’t a case of bad media. The Libby trial and Rove involvement? It entails credibility. President George Bush’s newest assertion of himself as “the decision maker”? A seemingly innocent comment, yet it solidifies a view taking hold among many Americans in both parties that the administration disparages Congressional “advise and consent” and believes it’s the “boss” and Congress is its underling.
It all comes down to issues: a growing feeling in the land that some folks in this administration don’t believe they have to face consequences (legal or in the court of public opinion) for their actions and that they can take whatever actions they want because they have offices in the White House — and can make up the rules of the game. The problem: there are other powerful offices in the United States. Offices that belong to prosecutors, members of Congress and judges. And they may have other ideas and also increasingly insist on exercising their constitutionally-bestowed powers.
Could this be yet another Libby story that doesn’t pan out? Perhaps. But, even without Rove, the trial is confirming some of the worst assumptions about some administration members — such as Vice President Dick Cheney.
The emerging narrative now includes “the architect” (Rove) who worked for “the decision-maker” (Bush) who has a no-holds-barred enforcer (Cheney) who was the boss of the guy on trial.
The danger for the White House is that, as time goes on, some may begin to ask how much “the decision maker” knew about what “the architect” and the enforcer were doing — or make assumptions due to the administration’s diminished credibility.
BUT THAT’S JUST OUR VIEW. Wonkette may be right.
Also note the comments of Talk Left, which is written by a lawyer:
I don’t see Rove as being a friendly witness to Libby, and I can’t imagine Wells would want to take him on as a hostile witness. However, Rove has had memory troubles of his own in this case. Perhaps Team Libby just wants the jury to consider that everyone has had memory problems when it comes to who told who what with respect to Valerie Plame, but only Scooter has been charged with intentionally lying. If the only evidence Libby intentionally lied is witnesses’ admittedly faulty memories, how can they find proof beyond a reasonable doubt?
On the other hand, that’s why motive is so critical in this case. While it’s not an element of any of the charged crimes — meaning it’s not something the Government is obligated to prove — it could tip the scales for the jury one way or the other on credibility.
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.