The Parallels Between Rove and Libby

The question of the hour is whether or not Karl Rove will be indicted. I don't know the answer to that question, but I've got a hunch why Fitzgerald suspects that Rove committed perjury.

Scooter Libby's story was, essentially, that when he spoke to reporters about Plame, he was merely passing along gossip he'd heard from other reporters. Based on the indictment and accompanying press release, it's clear that Fitzgerald thinks this story is complete bullsh*t, that it was nothing more than an elaborate cover story designed to obscure Libby's true role in this affair.

So why has Fitzgerald been so skeptical of Rove's story? Probably because it is almost identical to Libby's. Like Libby, Rove claimed that when he spoke to reporters he was merely passing along gossip he'd heard from other journalists or from cocktail party chatter. That similarity alone would be enough to make any prosecutor suspicious. But add to that the fact that Rove's description of his conversation with Bob Novak is very similar to Libby's description of his conversations with both Cooper and Russert. In all three cases, the journalist (supposedly) already knew about Plame. And Rove's description of his conversation with Novak is almost word-for-word identical to Libby's description of his conversation with Cooper. If Fitzgerald concluded that Libby was lying through his teeth about these conversations, it would only be natural for him to suspect that Rove was too. Such suspicions would only be heightened by Rove's somewhat inexplicable failure to mention his conversation with Cooper in his initial FBI interview and grand jury appearance.

So why has Fitzgerald seemingly had a harder time making a case against Rove? Well, the charges against Libby are all based on his conversations with three reporters: Judith Miller, Tim Russert, and Matt Cooper. In all three cases, Fitzgerald was able to secure testimony from the reporters that contradicted Libby's testimony in some material way. Rove appears to have had relevant conversations with only two reporters: Matt Cooper and Bob Novak. With respect to Cooper, Rove simply failed to mention the conversation. From a prosecutor's standpoint, it's much harder to prove that someone intentially withheld information than it is to expose an elaborate lie. Rove's failure to mention the Cooper conversation might be enough for an additional count in an otherwise strong indictment, but it's probably not enough, in and of itself, to anchor an indictment against Rove.

So what about Rove's conversation with Novak? By all accounts, Novak's testimony to investigators tracks very closely with Rove's. There is very little inconsistency. I strongly suspect, however, that Fitzgerald believes that Rove and Novak coordinated their stories. Why do I think this? Well, before there was ever any hint of a criminal investigation, Newsday printed the following:

Novak, in an interview, said his sources had come
to him with the information. "I didn't dig it out, it
was given to me," he said. "They thought it was
significant, they gave me the name and I used it."

Shortly after the investigation began, however, in October 2003, Novak offered a very different account, one almost identical to the story Rove would eventually tell prosecutors:

During a long conversation with a senior
administration official, I asked why Wilson was
assigned the mission to Niger. He said Wilson
had been sent by the CIA's counterproliferation
section at the suggestion of one of its employees,
his wife. It was an offhand revelation from this
official, who is no partisan gunslinger. When I
called another official for confirmation, he said:
"Oh, you know about it." The published report
that somebody in the White House failed to
plant this story with six reporters and finally
found me as a willing pawn is simply untrue.

For more insight into Novak's conflicting public statements, read this interesting article by Jack Shafer at Slate. So what changed between July and October of 2003? Murray Waas tells us this:

Also of interest to investigators have been a
series of telephone contacts between Novak
and Rove, and other White House officials, in
the days just after press reports first disclosed
the existence of a federal criminal investigation
as to who leaked Plame's identity. Investigators
have been concerned that Novak and his sources
might have conceived or co-ordinated a cover
story to disguise the nature of their
conversations. That concern was a reason--
although only one of many-- that led prosecutors
to press for the testimony of Cooper and Miller,
sources said.

In light of all this, I think it's entirely possible that Fitzgerald suspects that Rove and Novak conspired to obstruct his investigation. Given the brazenness of Libby's apparent lies, you can't blame Fitzgerald for being dubious of Rove's almost identical story. But Fitzgerald has a major problem here. Let's assume both Rove and Novak are lying. How can Fitzgerald prove that? When both parties to a conversation decide to lie about it, there's not much a prosecutor can do. In Libby's case, Fitzgerald can rely on the testimony of the three reporters he spoke to. In Rove's case, he can't. This may well be the dilemma that Fitzgerald is facing. He suspects that Rove has perjured himself and obstructed justice, but he doesn't have the witnesses to prove it.