Suppose someone robs a bank and runs into a good friend

[Kingofalldems]

as he was making his escape. He doesn't tell said friend about the robbery. This would give a prosecutor pause to indict him? I don't think so. Same thing goes for the Rove email. I am totally baffled by this. What gives?

[electropop]

1. Rove is so accustomed to selling pretzel logic to a gullible media

that he thinks Fitz is just as stoopid. Not so easy. He just handed Fitz another piece of rope, I'm sure. Fitz uses every single tidbit he has and builds the whole picture.

[alcibiades_mystery]

2. What gives is this

Fitzgerald apparently feels the need to investigate all the information he is given. If Rove's potential defense is that he merely forgot his conversation with Cooper, the email to the press aide might buttress that. So, Fitzgerald now has to investigate whether Rove ALWAYS or USUALLY brought up press contacts with this aide, if only to knock down that buttress. He surely has other information that caused him to want to indict, just as he had quite a good deal of information on Libby. The question is 1) What exactly did Rove tell investigators and the grand jury in his first go-arounds? 2) Is that consistent with forgetting? 3) Is it consistent with his previous behaviors.

If, for example, he told Cooper he didn't know much about it, and told the grand jury the same thing, and it's provable that he did know quite a bit at that point, he will be indicted.