Patrick Fitzgerald will not charge Karl Rove.
I guess Jason Leopold really did get it wrong. It's source-burning time. Of course, the source will simply deny, deny, deny -- and Dems, being Dems, will blame the writer, not the people who lied to the writer. Thou'rt screwed, Jason.
Bush's approval ratings are already rebounding -- not by much, but up is up. At the same time, the gap between Democrats and Republicans in a generic who-should-control-congress poll has narrowed. You can guess what the radio rightists and cable news propagandists will do with the latest news. Apparently, they are already saying that this turn of events proves that Valerie Plame/Wilson was not outed as a CIA agent!
This is a bad day.
The only possible way this situation could brighten is if Rove has ratted out someone else -- the obvious "someone else" being Cheney. Watch the Republican reaction carefully. They will all crow, of course. But if the biggest players are less than fully enthusiastic in their cock-a-doodle-doodling, we should interpret their reticence as indicative of troubling times ahead.
(By the way, if you scope out the reaction on D.U., you'll see one or two folks calling for Truthout to "shut down" -- as though that cyber-journal, not Rove, were the real problem. I haven't seen such obvious plants since the last time I visited the Arboretum.)
7 comments:
Joseph, think about this for a minute. Leopolds article claims an indictment in the week of May 10. Fitz met personally with the GJ that week, and on the same day we get a Sealed v. Sealed. Leopold also claims a visit to Roves attorneys offices by Abu Gonzales that same week. Yesterday, Fitz met with the Judge and Libby et al , and now we get an announcement about Rove. Fitz could have also discussed "other things" with the judge at that time, such as whether to QUASH AN INDICTMENT that was under seal, per "Justice" Dept request.
Rove may be a witness for the prosecution and turn over Cheney and others as well. Not being indicted would make him more credible as a witness -- less likely to be seen as trying to save his indicted ass.
Rove is a minion compared to Cheney, an entrenched member of the power elite; you know, the kind of people who dont tolerate disloyalty from their "retainers" who would not hesitate to destroy whoever tries.(See Plame)
Roves life, professional and otherwise, would not be worth a plug nickel if he rolled over on Cheney.
The thing that I find interesting is that Rove's attorney Luskin says Fitzgerald's letter said Fitz "does not anticipate charging" Rove. WaPo says that Fitgerald "does not expect" to charge Rove. But the NYT has chosen to state categorically that Rove will not be charged.
Is it possible that if Rove plays ball (rolls over on cronies) he won't be charged, but that if he doesn't play ball, he could still be charged? Neither Fitz nor his spokesman are talking about "Rove's status".
Of course Rove will rat-out anyone and everyone, everywhere. And where is Novak in all this?
Joy Tomme
Ratbang Diary at: http://ratbangdiary.blogspot.com
this is a bit off topic from the rovian situation.. but couldn't resist suggesting that someone take the latest pic of bush and maliki from w's "surprise!" stunt and photoshop in a big sweepstakes winner check in the background with some spiffy, colorful balloons.....
Many of you need to watch "Who Killed John O'Neill?" It's available for free online here... http://www.wkjo.com .
This film sheds light on the criminal cabal that are running things currently thanks to the Bush family, Soros, and others... Fitzgerald is crooked and always has been. Look at his record going back to his days with Giuliani and Louis Freeh. This film does just that.
I think the problem isn't smarts, it's street smarts.
To anon 3:13,
i viewed the film online you mentioned and there is certainly alot of material to digest. there are some disputed facts such as what exactly was O'Neill's start date as head of security at WTC. The film says it is Sept 10th, 2001 and PBS Frontline says it was July 2001.
also, there is no mention of Patrick fitzpatrick whatsoever. From the filmmaker:
"Regarding Fitzgerald, we finished production of the film by the time he entered the scene in Chicago. So he was not mentioned in the film.
Naturally, we did some research and traced him back to the same
office Cherkasky and Giuliani worked out of in NY. Working the same cases they did under Morgenthau in the US Attorney's office in the Southern District of Manhattan.
There are no coincidences."
Post a Comment