WTF?

Isikoff confuses with Karl Rove: Last-Minute Evidence

Special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's decision not to indict deputy White House chief of staff Karl Rove in the CIA leak case followed a flurry of last-minute negotiations between the prosecutor and Rove's defense lawyer, Robert Luskin. On Tuesday afternoon, Fitzgerald and the chief FBI agent on the case, Jack Eckenrode, visited the offices of the D.C. law firm where Luskin works to meet with the defense lawyer. Two sources close to Rove who asked not to be identified because the probe is ongoing said Luskin presented evidence that gave the prosecutor "pause." One small item was a July 11, 2003, e-mail Rove sent to former press aide Adam Levine saying Levine could come up to his office to discuss a personnel issue. The e-mail was at 11:17 a.m., minutes after Rove had gotten off the phone with Matt Cooper—the same conversation (in which White House critic Joe Wilson's wife's work for the CIA was discussed) that Rove originally failed to disclose to the grand jury. Levine, with whom Rove often discussed his talks with reporters, did immediately go up to see Rove. But as Levine told the FBI last week, Rove never said anything about Cooper. The Levine talk was arguably helpful to one of Luskin's arguments: that, as a senior White House official, Rove dealt with a wide range of matters and might not remember every conversation he has had with journalists.

Huh?

I can certainly understand the abstract argument that evidence that a guy tends to forget things supports an argument that he forgot something. But how does the fact that Rove declined to tell one of lackeys about the breach he committed only minutes before support a claim of amnesia? Isn't it at least equally supportive of an inference of knowledge of the impropriety of his actions?

Oh, and how far has the bar been lowered if avoiding indictment is considered a victory on the current White House scale?

I plead nolo comprende.

Update: This time Lady Jane agrees.