This just in from the 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.
What this means is Rove's lawyer, Bob Luskin, believes his client is defintely going to be indicted. So, Luskin is sending Rove back into the grand jury to try to get around the prosecutor and sell his innocence directly to the grand jurors. Legal defense work doesn't get more desperate than this. The prosecutor is happy to let Rove go under oath again--without his lawyer in the room--and try to wiggle out of the case. The prosecutor has every right to expect that Rove's final under-oath grilling will either add a count or two to the indictment or force Rove to flip and testify against someone else.
Also from the AP story, this Luskin quote:
"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."
I love Luskin. I really do. He is the best legal curve ball pitcher in Washington. How is the AP reporter supposed to know that prosecutors do not have to send target letters to targets? Mafia lawyers are not sitting around waiting for target letters.
Fitzgerald could have told Luskin verbally that Rove is a target. And because Fitzgerald is not subpoening Rove to testify, he has no obligation to send him a target letter.
If Fitzgerald told Luskin that the grand jury was very likely to indict Rove, Luskin can very honestly say, "The special counsel has confirmed that he has not made any charging decisions in respect to Karl."
As usual, Luskin has said nothing that is inconsitent with Rove being indicted. But it usually takes the MSM a news cycle or two to figure that out.
Read my initial Palmegate: the Next Step post here