The Shoveler Takes On The Thinker (Pausing Patrick Fitzgerald)

So, here's Isikoff's explanation of why, after visiting with Rove's attorney, Luskin, Fitzgerald decided not to indict Rove:

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 Cooperthe 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.

Does this sound like any kind of an explanation? More below the fold.

Well, without the specifics of the Rove-to-Levine email, or the subsequent Rove-Levine conversation, it is perilous to speculate, but let's assume that Rove's argument goes to "proving" that, because Rove said nothing to Levine (whom we shall also assume is telling the truth) about either Cooper or Plame, either Rove had forgotten the subject of Plame or had no part in running a leak campaign against her or had no intent to do so. In my opinion, the Rove-Levine contact would be inadmissible in evidence as irrelevant and immaterial, i.e., not probative of any legally cognizable defense on Rove's part. Plus, all he's got is his own email -- assuming again that it is genuine -- because Levine's testimony as to their subsequent conversation would be hearsay. I wonder why Fitzgerald needs extra time to consider this. Your thoughts?