The language used by Luskin strongly suggests that Rove got immunity in exchange for his cooperation (it is probably the same deal I have been suggesting was offered to Novak way back when. . . ) Otherwise he never would have testified in the Grand Jury to begin with.I'd take Cheney over Rove.
“Does not anticipate seeking charges” means that if Rove testifies at Libby’s trial as expected, and as his agreement no doubt provides for him to testify, (lawyers call it providing “ongoing cooperation”), then all will be well for him. But if he “goes sideways” on Fitz and testifies differently from what is now expected, he could be charged–w/perjury certainly, and his deal to avoid criminal liability in the larger conspiracy could be “off” as he could face charges in that as well.
All told, a very standard deal and not unexpected. The more interesting issue and the reason for optimism now is that he couldn’t have gotten such a deal without having something important to offer Fitz. The “no prosecution” letter pretty much guarantees that he that he made a good deal. Either he offered up Cheney himself, or he offered up Libby to guarantee a conviction so Fitz can roll up Libby to Cheney. Either way, for me, I see Cheney going down and that’s something I can live with!
I'm a very lucky person with every allergy known to man but still happy to be enjoying a wonderful life living in the best place in the world!