August 21, 2006

Just when it seemed Rove's status in the CIA leak case had gone the way of Florida's 2000 election results and bin Laden's whereabouts, Jason Leopold provides us with an updated refresher.

For those of you following this case, the only information the public has gained in the past several months, technically since Libby was indicted, has come from Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin of "my innocent client paid me in gold bricks" fame, and Robert Novak, of "publish the CIA identity" fame. Like we should trust either one of these guys.

Of course, Plame and her husband, Joe Wilson, have filed a lawsuit against Rove, Cheney, Libby, and unnamed others, but that is somewhat of a side issue, though the overlap will make for fascinating revelations. The latest on the lawsuit includes the fact that Plame/Wilson have added another attorney to their team who has pointed out that Cheney may have a hard time using Constitutional immunity to wiggle out of the suit, as they plan to use the Supreme Court decision against Clinton in the Paula Jones case. Poetic (in)justice, eh (I never thought that ruling made any sense)? And then there's the fact that Cheney has lawyered up, likely his best move since resigning from Halliburton.

To refresh everyone's memory on the most recent activities, Luskin's announcement came after his receipt of a letter from Fitzgerald, the federal prosecutor dogging the case. Up to that point, everyone was certain Rove was toast, and Jason Leopold even reported that he had been indicted, but the indictment was placed under seal as Sealed v. Sealed, evidently a most unusual event. The timing of that filing coincided with the framework Leopold reported, but no indictment was ever announced. He suffered a great deal of animosity from the public, including liberal bloggers, but Truthout stuck to the story.

Now, three months later, and still no change, so Leopold has produced this update. Not much more of interest there, except to point out the fact that the complaint, 06 cr 128, remains in place, which several attorneys Leopold contacted find fairly to highly unusual. Moreover,

These experts said the length of time the indictment has been under seal suggests that the defendant named in the complaint is cooperating with an ongoing investigation and may have accepted a plea agreement.

Former federal prosecutor Laurie Levenson said it's very likely that the indictment was sealed in the first place because the "defendant is cooperating with an investigation and the government wants to keep that person's identity secret" to protect the integrity of the investigation.