First, why it makes sense for Time/Cooper to hire Olson:  he is a savvy veteran before this SCOTUS, and that is where they aimed to blunt the prosecutor's request for testimony, as is made clear in this May 2005 Slate piece.  With that as a singular goal, it makes good sense to have hired Olson, especially since, as the above Slate article makes clear, the venerable Floyd Abrams apparently flinched here.

 Next, I must put on my hat as political/conspiracy speculator.

1) I dismiss this one, but here goes:  Olson, consummate loyalist to the conservative cause, is edged into this role by Rove to offer further protection for his endangered rear.  I consider this unlikely because Time and Cooper are way too savvy to be such patsies, and because as yesterday's NYT report and the amazing press conference with McLellan show, real PR damage was done to Bush/Rove as a result of Cooper's agreement to testify. 

2) Olson wants the big bucks from Time-Warner, but also has it in for Rove and perhaps W.  Here is why I might think this.

1. Unlike perhaps anyone else in this administration, Olson lost someone in 9/11, his wife Barbara.  I am sure he felt an acute desire to get those truly responsible for the crime.  However, as a true believer, an administration insider, he watched the neocons put Bin Laden aside and make up reasons to go to Iraq that linked the 9/11 villains with Saddam.  If I were an aggrieved husband, I would feel enormous anger at this great con.
   
2. Someone spoke to the WaPo in Oct. 03 and let it be known that 3 senior officials were involved in the leak shopping.  When asked why they did this, the counter-leaker said roughly it was `because what they did was wrong.'  I can imagine that a shaken loyalist whose loved one was lost and that loss was not fully venged would be more sensitive to such betrayal of the public trust.
   
3. Olson quietly left the administration in July of last year to no fanfare, simply to return to his lucrative law practice. 
   

No true blue loyalist could have let this debacle to the Bush administration happen on his watch, even putting the interests of what is probably a lucrative client (given the resources or Time Warner!) above the most right wing administration ever.  But, a grieving husband who experienced true loss and watched this administration pervert that day of loss into an ill informed adventure in Iraq might justifiably be happy to have the opportunity to turn the dagger once it was put in his hands.

 Is there other evidence to bolster this speculation?  Other apparent turns for Olson?  Well, I have the impression that Olson is one of those principled true conservatives--his late wife may have been a talk show shrieker, but one must acknowledge a sophisticated intelligence at work with Olson (as well as acknowleding his partisan hackery tendencies in pushing the Arkansas Project  and in arguing for Cheney's right to energy committee privacy before the SCOTUS).

So it is helpful to have at least another example of his speaking out against the follies of this administration and their partners in overreach, shown here in his argument against the impeachment of judges (this quote found here and drawn from the Wall Street Journal OpEd pages):

 Calls to investigate judges who have made unpopular decisions are particularly misguided, and if actually pursued, would undermine the independence that is vital to the integrity of judicial systems. If a judge's decisions are corrupt or tainted, there are lawful recourses (prosecution or impeachment); but congressional interrogations of life-tenured judges, presumably under oath, as to why a particular decision was rendered, would constitute interference with - and intimidation of - the judicial process. And there is no logical stopping point once this power is exercised.

This is far from proof of speculation (2), but I have a very hard time believing that an old partisan warrior like Olson would so suddenly allow a Bush administration PR debacle happen of the scale of last week even as it served his client and would keep the Time-Warner money flowing. 

But a husband who lost his much younger, much beloved wife to brutal terrorists and saw her loss not fully avenged might smolder with some deep, deep anger at those who devalued her life by treating too lightly the real villains.  

Just wondering....