Does that make sense to you? Wouldn't the recipient of that news be Rove's lawyer?
One lawyer involved in the case who declined to be identified because of the matter's confidentiality said Novak decided "early on" to cooperate with Fitzgerald's probe and ID his source—whom Fitzgerald never charged, apparently because the mystery leaker told the truth to the grand jury.And what sets this mystery leaker (Rove, probably) beyond the reach of the law?
Readers will recall Isikoff's biased, unreliable "reporting" in Whitewater. He has done better work since. But I still don't trust him...
2 comments:
Huh? So, if I murder someone but tell the truth to the Grand Jury, I don't get charged? Nonsensical.
Are deadlines so tight that these reporters don't stop and think about what they're writing?
The Bush lawyer explanation makes about as much sense.
If Fitzpatrick were really serious about going after those who leaked Plame's name and disinformation about Iraq's WMD, then he would have announced indictments to not only Libby, but also Rove on Friday.
But Fitz didn't, and it appears that his investigation is limited and that he doesn't have the authority to go forward in a meaningful manner.
Libby may just be a sacrificial lamb, the "fall" guy who takes the blame for Cheney and Rove.
My guess is that on Friday Fitz had intended to make file indictments against other WhiteHouse staffers like Rove along with Libby but had his hands cuffed.
Bush will refocus attention off PlameGate/IraqGate by announcing yet another nightmare rightwing candidate for the supreme court.
My guess is that it will be Priscilla Owens whose career has been guided by Rove.
Post a Comment