Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

June 12, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

SEALED....I'd sort of forgotten about Jason Leopold's claim last month that Karl Rove had been indicted in the Valerie Plame case and given 24 hours to "get his affairs in order." It's been 744 hours since that story appeared and we're all still waiting.

Today, Truthout's Marc Ash provides an explanation: the indictment was sealed. Here's the latest:

We know for certain several things about federal indictment "06 cr 128" (Sealed vs. Sealed). The indictment was returned by the same grand jury that has been hearing matters related to the Fitzgerald/Plame investigation. The indictment was filed in the time frame (around May the 10th) that the indictment of Karl Rove was first reported. The title of the indictment, Sealed vs. Sealed, is unusual. Typically a sealed federal indictment will be titled, "US vs. Sealed." The indictment has been sealed for roughly five weeks, an unusually long time (although not unheard-of). We know that experts watching the Fitzgerald/Plame investigation are keeping a very close eye on "06 cr 128" (Sealed vs. Sealed). We know that we attempted to contact Karl Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, on two occasions while researching this issue and both calls went unreturned.

Unfortunately, the update goes on to say only that they "believe" this indictment is related to the Plame case. This is based on a "single credible source," not the half dozen they claimed previously.

Well, who knows? Not me. I continue to have a hard time believing that Leopold just invented the whole thing, but on the other hand there's been precious little confirmation of any of it. So all we can do is wait. In any case, this update seemed worth posting just for the sheer weirdness factor of it all.

Kevin Drum 5:54 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (127)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

If Karl Rove really was indicted, doesn't it seem exceedingly likely that a source more credible than truthout would have the story? That's the sort of thing that would leak to the NY Times or Washington Post in about a second flat. The fact that nobody else has the story makes me think that Leopold is being misled or is himself misleading the blogosphere.

Posted by: American Hawk on June 12, 2006 at 6:03 PM | PERMALINK

Does anyone know what the Federal Rules of Procedure says should happen after a ciminal indictment is handed down by a grand jury?

It seems like the the accused should be promptly notified and brought before a judge to enter a plea and have bail determined. Does sealing the indictment impact this process?

Is it possible that somelike like Rove could have been indicted, brought for preliminary hearing, entered a plea, had bail set, and this could all happen in secret?

Posted by: JimPortlandOR on June 12, 2006 at 6:06 PM | PERMALINK

OTOH, if you were Rove and you were indicted, why not leak it to a less credible source, thereby getting the slow trickle started so when the indictment is unsealed you can try and claim its off as either "old news" or spin your own leak as "politicizing the normally secret grand jury process" or "those mean liberals are out to get me"?

Posted by: Ugh on June 12, 2006 at 6:06 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe Leopold should just be ignored until he is actually right about something.

Posted by: Qwerty on June 12, 2006 at 6:07 PM | PERMALINK

Or we could take it all the way down the road to conspiracy theory and Fitz traded sealing the indictment for Rove digging up dirt on the Veep, and now Rove's going around wearing a wire.

Posted by: Ugh on June 12, 2006 at 6:07 PM | PERMALINK

Seems like information warfare at its best.

Sadly they are using it for nefarious purposes.

Posted by: nut on June 12, 2006 at 6:08 PM | PERMALINK

AmHawk

Your mask is slipping. Your initial post contains a reasonable speculation!

Frankly, I find the general skepticism about the Truthout revelation in the liberal blogosphere to be refreshing. Its the triumphal prose of the right-blog denunciations of Truthout that add some credibility to the story.

But facts are scarce.

Posted by: troglodyte on June 12, 2006 at 6:09 PM | PERMALINK

I have a theory that American Hawk is a moniker used by several people, working in tandem. That would explain the 24 hour commenting, and the fact that the posts don't all have the same voice or tone. Sometimes, they even seem, dunno, rational; maybe even human.

Other times, not so much.

Posted by: craigie on June 12, 2006 at 6:10 PM | PERMALINK

Sealed indictment? Maybe they'll wisk Karl Rove off to Gitmo or one of those CIA camps in Eastern Europe. OK, it's tin foil hat time but I can only hope!

Posted by: pgl on June 12, 2006 at 6:11 PM | PERMALINK

Ugh beat me to it... many of these juicy stories that come out of DC that we wish were true have sources that end up being traced back to Karl Rove. He's as likely a source for this story as any, and Leopold might be being led by the nose with it.

Posted by: Constantine on June 12, 2006 at 6:21 PM | PERMALINK

Didn't Georgie say he would not have anyone indicted in this matter continue to work for him???

Posted by: Matt in Eugene on June 12, 2006 at 6:23 PM | PERMALINK

Ok, do we know if there really is a federal indictment "06 CR 128"?

Posted by: JohnF on June 12, 2006 at 6:23 PM | PERMALINK

JimPortlandOR: It seems like the the accused should be promptly notified and brought before a judge to enter a plea and have bail determined. Does sealing the indictment impact this process?

Yes. But truthout also said that Fitz spent a looong time informing Rove of what was about to happen to him. This wouldn't happen with a sealed indictment, since it gives Rove no incentive to cooperate. Rather, they would've said, "here's what we WILL indict you for, unless you cooperate."

Is it possible that somelike like Rove could have been indicted, brought for preliminary hearing, entered a plea, had bail set, and this could all happen in secret?

No.

Posted by: dj moonbat on June 12, 2006 at 6:24 PM | PERMALINK

Constantine,

Yup. If it turns out to be a false story, there is a chance that Rove is behind it, but only if he was behind Rathergate as well. Leopold and Truthout are unlikely to have fabricated the story of whole cloth -- they's know that the probability of blowback was unity.

Posted by: troglodyte on June 12, 2006 at 6:28 PM | PERMALINK

Considering that the purpose of a sealed indictment is to briefly keep the indictment secret from the accused (almost always to prevent the accused from leaving the country)...this doesn't even pass the smell test.

Truthout, Raw Story, et al, have been wrong so many times I fail to see why anyone's giving them any credence at all.

seriously folks...

Posted by: Nathan on June 12, 2006 at 6:46 PM | PERMALINK

The Bush administration has won all court cases so far. Cheney does not have to reveal the names of the energy officials either.

Did I miss something? Did they ever have to comply with a court order?

Clinton was not so lucky, he lost every time.

Posted by: Renate on June 12, 2006 at 6:48 PM | PERMALINK

American Hawk,

You fucking shithead.

Can you detail, providing specifics, why you claim that truthout is not a credible source?

Posted by: angryspittle on June 12, 2006 at 6:49 PM | PERMALINK

What does Marcy over as Kos say? She can figure it out.

Posted by: Powerpuff on June 12, 2006 at 6:51 PM | PERMALINK

Hey Nathan,

Give us some specific axamples.

Fuckwad.

Posted by: angryspittle on June 12, 2006 at 6:52 PM | PERMALINK
Unfortunately, the update goes on to say only that they "believe" this indictment is related to the Plame case. This is based on a "single credible source," not the half dozen they claimed previously.

That's not an inconsistency; its quite easy to have a half-dozen credible sources that Rove was indicted and one credible source that this particular sealed indictment was the one.

Posted by: cmdicely on June 12, 2006 at 6:54 PM | PERMALINK

I hate to pick on Kevin on only his first full day back, but Tim Grieve on "Salon" posted a much more fleshed-out report on this topic early this morning.

Rather than just regurgitate the same old song and dance from "Truthout", Grieve actually did some research and found out that the claims they are making about the sealed indictment are no more credible than their original claims about the indictment itself.

As an earlier commenter suggested, "Truthout" ought to be ignored until some of their reporting is actually confirmed.

Posted by: SteveK on June 12, 2006 at 6:54 PM | PERMALINK

Have Truthout and Rawstory been more Wrong than the neo-con assholes?

Jesus fuckity fuck, they have been wrong about just about every fucking thing they made predictions on.

Frank Gaffney, Rummy, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Bush, Rice, Perle, Feith, and the rest have been so fucking wrong I am amazed anyone even gives them any fucking credence whatsoever, not to mention a forum to let them predict other shit.

It is simply fucking amazing how fucking wrong they have been.

Posted by: angryspittle on June 12, 2006 at 6:56 PM | PERMALINK

angryspittle

Truthout is not the source. Truthout is the conduit of the source. Truthout could be misled by its source. If the RNC pays money to post 24-hour trolls onto Kevin's blog, they could invest a few c-notes toward messing the reputation of the alternative press. Just as with Rathergate, a public debate about journalistic ethics distracts attention from the malfeasance of BushCo.

or was it the Bush/Condi affair? So much smoke these days.

Posted by: troglodyte on June 12, 2006 at 7:00 PM | PERMALINK

Angryspittle

On the other hand, your 656 post hits the spot.

Blog on!

Posted by: troglodyte on June 12, 2006 at 7:02 PM | PERMALINK

Trog,

I also smell Rovian plants to crumble the credibility of whatever critical voices are raised against these fascist bastards.

Posted by: angryspittle on June 12, 2006 at 7:04 PM | PERMALINK
Does anyone know what the Federal Rules of Procedure says should happen after a ciminal indictment is handed down by a grand jury?

Well, a warrant or summons is to be issued; if a warrant is issued, there is not a lot specified about the manner in which it should be executed -- particularly, there is nothing saying it can't be delayed.

Still, the extensive delay makes no sense that I can see if Rove was indicted, though I can see some scenarios where it would make sense if someone else was indicted in connection to the Plame Affair.

Sealed v. Sealed, though, seems outright bizarre and inexplicable.

Posted by: cmdicely on June 12, 2006 at 7:09 PM | PERMALINK

"Sealed vs. Sealed" Let me think about that.

Judging by the secrecy, it sounds like something that might be embarrassing or damaging to the executive branch. Has an internal dispute concerning the Plame investigation come up for judicial review? Let's hope the good guys win.

Posted by: anao on June 12, 2006 at 7:12 PM | PERMALINK

Point.

Kindasleazy Rice was supposedly an expert on the Soviet Union.

She was Bush I's principle advisor on the Soviet Union.

She speaks fluent Russian.

Her academic career was Soviet studies.

And she fucking missed the fact that the Soviet Union was just a fucking hollow shell?

How is that for incompetence?

Shit, I am just an old retired history/government teacher and I knew that since about 1980 just from all the sources I had available to me that any person with just a little curiosity could have had as well.

And she FUCKING MISSED IT?

And these assholes think Truthout and Rawstory lack credibility?

Morons.

Posted by: angryspittle on June 12, 2006 at 7:13 PM | PERMALINK

I just have trouble thinking of the information that could be concealed by saying Sealed v. Sealed instead of U.S. v. Sealed. Could the District bring charges before the Federal Grand Jury? Because that's the only other conceivable complainant in a criminal matter in D.C., right?

Posted by: dj moonbat on June 12, 2006 at 7:22 PM | PERMALINK

angryspittle, you must not have a large enough stake in defense contractors' businesses to know that keeping the Soviet Union around was good business. Leezy did.

Posted by: Powerpuff on June 12, 2006 at 7:28 PM | PERMALINK
Could the District bring charges before the Federal Grand Jury? Because that's the only other conceivable complainant in a criminal matter in D.C., right?

Certainly in the US District Court for the District of Columbia there are a fairly limited number of possible criminal complainants (it occurs to me that I don't actually no how original D.C. criminal cases are styled, I'd kind of assumed they would be US v. Smith as well.)

Posted by: cmdicely on June 12, 2006 at 7:28 PM | PERMALINK

Good for you, I'm sticking with Leopold also.

Posted by: jerry on June 12, 2006 at 7:29 PM | PERMALINK

Nah,

Her bets were in the oil industry moreso than defense.

Posted by: angryspittle on June 12, 2006 at 7:30 PM | PERMALINK

And still,

What does that say about her intellectual integrity?

Posted by: angryspittle on June 12, 2006 at 7:31 PM | PERMALINK

This is a classic Rove-a-dope.

1. leak a story that, were it provably true, would be devestating to the reputation of the Administration, but ensure that not enough evidence is available to prove it. Doesn't matter if the story is true or not.

2. Watch the liberal elements of the press scramble like mad to report or gather more information on the story.

3. Plant false evidnece that can't be traced back, but can be proven false.

4. Continue to watch them scramble. Chuckle a bit.

5. Wait until the blogosphere and liberal punditry are out of control with rage, then set loose the conservative punditry to claim that the liberals are concocting a story to discredit and assassinate the character of upstanding conservatives.

6. Show that the fake evidence is fake, or just wait for the next Aruba story to cycle the news and the public's attention away; since it wasn't provably true in one news cycle, it was probably false, and the liberals were just playing politics and making shit up again.

Posted by: Strawman on June 12, 2006 at 7:41 PM | PERMALINK

angryspittle

About Condi, many hawks look for excuses to build armies and to exercise power, as an end in itself. It doesnt matter if the threat justifies the expense. Magnifying the threat to the public is OK, because the end is desired by the leadership. Funny, we seem to get that logic a lot.

Posted by: troglodyte on June 12, 2006 at 7:46 PM | PERMALINK

Strawman

Yup, that sounds about right. Suspecting this is why the left-blog hasnt taken the bait, for the most part. And probably why truthout would be targeted rather than MSM.

Posted by: troglodyte on June 12, 2006 at 7:58 PM | PERMALINK

Truthout is not the source. Truthout is the conduit of the source.

Unless something more substantial happens that either identifies the source or confirms the allegations, Leopold and Truthout are the source. People keep speculating about what they are going to get for Fitzmas, but until something real happens this is all just a waste of time, like waiting for the world to end on 6/6/06 or for that big asteroid to destroy the earth as predicted by your psychic of choice.


Sealed v. Sealed, though, seems outright bizarre and inexplicable.
As another commenter has pointed out, Tim Grieve, at Salon.com has checked into this:

We checked the U.S. District Court's database this morning. Approximately 158 criminal cases have been filed since the beginning of the year, and approximately 31 of them -- or one out of every five -- have been styled "Sealed v. Sealed." And each and every one of these "Sealed v. Sealed" cases contains exactly the same description -- "Case is not available to the public" -- as the one provided for 1-06-cr-128, the case that Leopold suggests may be Rove's.

Under the new system, every sealed case appears in the database with the designation "Sealed v. Sealed" regardless of the caption the prosecutor might have used when the case was filed. Thus, contrary to the expert opinion included in the Truthout report, there appears to be no significance at all to the fact that case 1-06-cr-128 bears the designation "Sealed v. Sealed" rather than "U.S. v. Sealed."


Posted by: Qwerty on June 12, 2006 at 8:02 PM | PERMALINK

I also smell Rovian plants to crumble the credibility of whatever critical voices are raised against these fascist bastards.
Posted by: angryspittle on June 12, 2006 at 7:04 PM | PERMALINK

Then they should be more careful.

Not timid.

Careful.

I think that the press has utterly failed to grasp the fact that they are now being used as pawns in a modern game of Information Warfare. Their reaction has been pretty much to either stop taking the bait, or take the bait and watch their careers end.

Their reaction SHOULD be, to be damn careful, check their sources, and double check their sources, and verify, and get hard, indisputable evidence, and don't air the story until they've got it.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on June 12, 2006 at 8:05 PM | PERMALINK

Truthout is a non-credible source because they criticize the president during wartime, which is disloyal, and evil. They're clearly FOR terrorism, they want the terrorists to win, and they're working with the forces of Satan. That's why they're non-credible.

If you want a list of credible sources, look to honorable journalists who are on OUR side, who want America to win, and want the terrorists to lose, and who do not criticize those who are fighting to make sure that happens.

Posted by: American Fuck on June 12, 2006 at 8:07 PM | PERMALINK
As another commenter has pointed out, Tim Grieve, at Salon.com has checked into this

Well, that makes it more credible that it seemed on its face.

Posted by: cmdicely on June 12, 2006 at 8:09 PM | PERMALINK
I think that the press has utterly failed to grasp the fact that they are now being used as pawns in a modern game of Information Warfare.

No, look, the government gloated (and the press reported on) how that was done in actual warfare in the 1991 Gulf War.

The press hasn't failed to notice. It by and large fails to care.

Posted by: cmdicely on June 12, 2006 at 8:10 PM | PERMALINK

Angryspittle: yet another Leopold sockpuppet.

Yawn.

Posted by: Old Hat on June 12, 2006 at 8:11 PM | PERMALINK

>> Is it possible that somelike like Rove
>> could have been indicted, brought for
>> preliminary hearing, entered a plea,
>> had bail set, and this could all happen
>> in secret?

> No.

Methinks you underestimate both the power of the Patriot Act (and similar laws of recent vintage) and the ruthlessness of Cheney and Rove. The entire case could have been filed as Sealed vs. Sealed because it was to be, and has been, transferred to the FISA Court (or other convenient Star Chamber, some of the FISA Court members not being too happy with W right now) where a willing Roberts/Yoh disciple was waiting to dismiss it.

Cranky

Posted by: Cranky Observer on June 12, 2006 at 8:13 PM | PERMALINK

People keep speculating about what they are going to get for Fitzmas, but until something real happens this is all just a waste of time,

Mea Culpa. But its not a question of Fitzmas now, its whether someone planted the story to discredit the left-blogosphere. I think we are also killing bandwidth while Kevin catches up on his reading.

Much as Fitzmas might be nice, the real trouble for BushCo comes when all those mortgage ARMs reset and snare Middle America in the new bankruptcy law. I once thought this would affect mainly the blue states plus Florida, but Ohio and Colorado are actually leading the swell of foreclosures at the moment.

Posted by: troglodyte on June 12, 2006 at 8:16 PM | PERMALINK

This is all of the info on PACER:

06cr00128: SEALED v. SEALED; Case is not available to the public.

There is nothing to indicate that the case contains an indictment. If it did contain an indictment, the case would probably be US v. SEALED, not SEALED v. SEALED.

The original rumor was that this case dealt with some sort of motion Fitzgerald filed related to interference we was getting from this supervisor, ie, FITZGERALD v. HIS_SUPERVISOR. It is plausible to me that Fitzgerald is one of the two parties, but the second party could be anyone, and the subject matter could be anything.

Posted by: Alan on June 12, 2006 at 8:22 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin - you couldn't wait 24 hours before you had to get a Plame/Rove fix?

You need medical attention for your compulsion, pal!

Posted by: Down goes Frazier on June 12, 2006 at 8:50 PM | PERMALINK

Truthout's reaction to getting tossed in the trench for shitty journalism?- keep on digging.

Alfred E. Neuman's got nothing on these clowns.

Posted by: Craig on June 12, 2006 at 9:04 PM | PERMALINK

Send in the trolls!

Posted by: troglodyte on June 12, 2006 at 9:09 PM | PERMALINK

negotiating over a plea? (no jail time for karla baby tight buns)

Posted by: jim on June 12, 2006 at 9:22 PM | PERMALINK

I find it difficult to believe that an indictment of the second or third most powerful man in the country if not the world (and maybe the most powerful), could remain secret, sealed or not.

Posted by: Linus on June 12, 2006 at 10:00 PM | PERMALINK

Well, according to the Salon article by Tim Grieve pointed out by several commentors above, 18% of all criminal cases filed in thie DC court have the names of the partes sealed. That just seems bizarre to me (speaking as a criminal defense attorney).

Posted by: rea on June 12, 2006 at 10:05 PM | PERMALINK

Boy, I can't wait until we find out Fitzgerald is really after Hillary Clinton and Howard Dean!

Posted by: Wingnut on June 12, 2006 at 10:09 PM | PERMALINK

The longer this goes on, the more excited I get. Not because Rove might be indicted (I doubt it now) but because I want to know who gave Leopold this information so we can destroy them utterly. They will not have a fucking shred of credibility to them after they gave us this horrible false hope.

In short, I want names so I can take my revenge.

Posted by: MNPundit on June 12, 2006 at 10:13 PM | PERMALINK


Did Al die?

Posted by: 4 on June 12, 2006 at 10:30 PM | PERMALINK

Al is on vacation, probably. It is hard work writing all that nonsense.

Because the left-blogosphere and MSM havent bitten on the truthout story, I dont think that the right is devoting much more effort to it. It is hard, even for a wingnut, to deliver sustained invective at small-fish Leopold unless they can lure others into the trap. They have a bunch of symbolic votes in the Congress to focus on.

Or --> truthout is correct and the wingnuts are bracing for impact.

Or --> they planted the Condi-Bush-affair story to wash their hands of the Fitzmas lure.

Or --> no one is planning anything

Posted by: troglodyte on June 12, 2006 at 10:42 PM | PERMALINK

. . . they planted the Condi-Bush-affair story to wash their hands of the Fitzmas lure.

What Condi-Bush affair story?

I haven't heard that one. But I've always pictured Condoleeza as a stern mistress, skilled in the art of the riding-crop. We always knew Bush was somebody's puppet. . .

Posted by: Strawman on June 12, 2006 at 10:45 PM | PERMALINK

...but because I want to know who gave Leopold this information so we can destroy them utterly.
Posted by: MNPundit on June 12, 2006 at 10:13 PM | PERMALINK

Please. You know it was Rove. Probably not in any way that is traceably direct.

Posted by: osama_been_forgotten on June 12, 2006 at 10:47 PM | PERMALINK

Let this not distract us from the fact that Rove should already be in jail. Indicted? Jeez, the man is a sociopath. His neighbors should be alerted when he moves to their neighborhood, uses the phone or toilet. He should have a dog collar that monitors his cackles for signs of morse code. So, Truthout is suffering from either a fit of early truth or nostalgia for a justice system that actually protects America.

And American Hawk of today is different from the paid poster of yesterday. That goon was foreign and psychotic--this one is only psychotic and indigenous--a product of Santorum Home Schooling I think.

There must be Kevin Drum alerts on the troll network as they still post first. I guess that is a true measure of success.

Posted by: Sparko on June 12, 2006 at 10:52 PM | PERMALINK

The sooner that men like Karl Rove, George W. Bush and Richard Bruce Cheney are behind bars, the better. Maybe America will have a chance to recover some of it's lost greatness then.

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on June 12, 2006 at 11:01 PM | PERMALINK

Alan sez:

06cr00128: SEALED v. SEALED; Case is not available to the public.

There is nothing to indicate that the case contains an indictment. If it did contain an indictment, the case would probably be US v. SEALED, not SEALED v. SEALED.

Well, the "cr" part tells us that it's a criminal docket entry. So if it's not an indictment, it's an information. And since Rule 7(b) seems to say that a defendant has to waive indictment in open court, we can rule out an information--it wouldn't be sealed if it were in open court.

So it looks like it would be an indictment. But we've seen no evidence to suggest it's an indictment of Rove.

Posted by: dj moonbat on June 12, 2006 at 11:05 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe it's Sullied v. Sold

Posted by: trueblue on June 12, 2006 at 11:21 PM | PERMALINK

"This is a classic Rove-a-dope.

1. leak a story that, were it provably true, would be devestating to the reputation of the Administration, but ensure that not enough evidence is available to prove it. Doesn't matter if the story is true or not.

2. Watch the liberal elements of the press scramble like mad to report or gather more information on the story.

3. Plant false evidnece that can't be traced back, but can be proven false.

4. Continue to watch them scramble. Chuckle a bit.

5. Wait until the blogosphere and liberal punditry are out of control with rage, then set loose the conservative punditry to claim that the liberals are concocting a story to discredit and assassinate the character of upstanding conservatives.

6. Show that the fake evidence is fake, or just wait for the next Aruba story to cycle the news and the public's attention away; since it wasn't provably true in one news cycle, it was probably false, and the liberals were just playing politics and making shit up again."

Yep. They first did this to kill the charges of high treason in the 1980 October Surprise story and Rove apparently took detailed notes.

Posted by: chaboard on June 12, 2006 at 11:26 PM | PERMALINK

".......hard time believing that Leopold invented the whole thinkg......"

The left has invented most everything else what's to stop them on this matter?

Posted by: Jay on June 12, 2006 at 11:34 PM | PERMALINK

Kriz, are you referring to the greatness of the Carter years?

Posted by: Jay on June 12, 2006 at 11:35 PM | PERMALINK

UNFUCKINGBELIEABLE! American Hawk at 6:03 nailed it!

Posted by: R.L. on June 13, 2006 at 12:54 AM | PERMALINK

Kriz,

You ignorant slut. You wouldn't know greatness if it came up and bit your stinking ass.

Posted by: Clinton Era on June 13, 2006 at 6:35 AM | PERMALINK

I'm not sure how a man can be a "slut" but I don't expect much rationality from someone who is too cowardly to post under their own name and instead, uses a moniker apparently intended to allude to some perceived shortcomings of the previous president. The problem with that, is that the previous president is Winston Churchill, compared to the current Beetle Bailey.

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on June 13, 2006 at 6:47 AM | PERMALINK

Per Lisa Myers, no indictment. Thus, Leopold made up the whole thing.

Start typing, Kev. Feel yer pain, buddy.


Oh, and Merry Fitzmas.

Posted by: RW on June 13, 2006 at 7:13 AM | PERMALINK

bad news, guys:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/13/washington/13cnd-leak.html?hp&ex=1150257600&en=e40da3e03155858f&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Posted by: Brian on June 13, 2006 at 7:15 AM | PERMALINK

Per Lisa Myers, no indictment. Thus, Leopold made up the whole thing

i'm not sure you know what "Thus" means.

Posted by: cleek on June 13, 2006 at 7:37 AM | PERMALINK

Merry Fitzmas,

How come Kevin is so slow with an update?

Posted by: rdw on June 13, 2006 at 8:10 AM | PERMALINK

How come Kevin is so slow with an update?

beacuse it's 5-fucking-AM in CA right now. duh.

Posted by: cleek on June 13, 2006 at 8:13 AM | PERMALINK

AP: Rove won't be charged in CIA leak case

To our trolls, it's better to hope that malefactors will be held accountable than to hope that the wrongdoers will escape justice. Your gloating shames you.

Posted by: Gregory on June 13, 2006 at 8:16 AM | PERMALINK

Kriz,

Cry me a river.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT LUSKIN, ATTORNEY FOR KARL ROVE
Tue Jun 13 2006 07:14:31 ET

Washington, DCRobert Luskin, Attorney for Karl Rove today released the following statement:

On June 12, 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove.

In deference to the pending case, we will not make any further public statements about the subject matter of the investigation. We believe that the Special Counsel's decision should put an end to the baseless speculation about Mr. Roves conduct.

Posted by: Clinton Era on June 13, 2006 at 8:23 AM | PERMALINK

Gregory,
One should hope that wrongdoers are held accountable. That includes those who wrongfully accused Rove of illegally leaking and those who willingly made up stories of an indictment. Then again, it could be that no one did anything wrong.

Ouch....that won't go over well with the conspiracy laden moonbat brigade, fresh from their trip to Vegas.

One need only go back a while to see all the whoops and hollers from those who were giddy at the prospect of a Rove indictment (see: MSNBC) and put any whines of "gloating" into their proper perspective. Hey, it's not as if anyone's expecting an apology from those quarters for their smearing ("but what about the Republicans" will likely be the adolescent response.....it generally is).

Apparently, the wronged citizen was Karl Rove.
Just, damn.

"i'm not sure you know what "Thus" means."
Merry Fitzmas. Feel yer pain.

Posted by: RW on June 13, 2006 at 8:27 AM | PERMALINK

One should hope that wrongdoers are held accountable. That includes those who wrongfully accused Rove of illegally leaking

False. Rove was identified as Matthew Cooper's source. He was in no way wronged; he was the wrongdoer.

No crime was commited and no charges will be sought

The second half of your assertion does not support the first. But it's duly noted that you "love" wrongdoers not being held accountable as long as they're Republicans. I expected nothing else from a Bush Cultist.

Posted by: Gregory on June 13, 2006 at 8:46 AM | PERMALINK

"Rove WILL NOT be indicted..." Looks like the leftanista's got it wrong again. One would think that they would learn not to cry wolf so soon but alas....tee hee hee

Posted by: happy glimore on June 13, 2006 at 8:47 AM | PERMALINK

"False. Rove was identified as Matthew Cooper's source. He was in no way wronged; he was the wrongdoer."

Perhaps you should offer your expertise to the Fitzgerald legal team. Appears that there was no crime committted and we've had eight months of nothing but blather.

Let the conspiracies begin!

Merry Fitzmas.

Posted by: RW on June 13, 2006 at 8:59 AM | PERMALINK

Just stopped by to say hi.

Posted by: tool of some sort on June 13, 2006 at 9:01 AM | PERMALINK

You lefty fools make false accusations and wild-eyed predictions on something that never happened.

This from the side that gave us the Vince Foster "murder", Clinton as a rapist, and all of Whitewater. Nice.

There was no crime and there are no charges.

Look, I know that being thick come with the territory when you're a wingnut troll, but in this case there was definitely a crime. Valerie Plame was outed by someone in the White House. This was a crime. Whether or not Rove can be charged is a matter of evidence. Oh, and BTW, the notion that there have been "no charges" in this case certainly would come as a surprise to Scooter Libby as he sits under indictment.

Posted by: jimBOB on June 13, 2006 at 9:16 AM | PERMALINK

Soooo could Joe Wilson be the subject of the sealed indictment? Did he spill the beans on his wife and lie about it?

Posted by: TruthPolitik on June 13, 2006 at 9:23 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin
Today, Truthout's Marc Ash provides an explanation: the indictment was sealed. (SEALED I TELL YOU! THE MAN'S GOING DOOOWWWWNNNN!)

AH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (cough, sputter, heh) HA HAHHHH!!!!

Live by the Fitzmas, die by the Fitzmas. Heh! this is funny, and I don't even like Rove.

There's no joy in Mudville. Washington Monthly struck out.

Posted by: Red State Mike on June 13, 2006 at 9:25 AM | PERMALINK

"Much as Fitzmas might be nice, the real trouble for BushCo comes when all those mortgage ARMs reset and snare Middle America in the new bankruptcy law. I once thought this would affect mainly the blue states plus Florida, but Ohio and Colorado are actually leading the swell of foreclosures at the moment. "

Cool. I'm thinking about buying soon. Hopefully I'll be able to cash on someone else's stupidity.

Posted by: aaron on June 13, 2006 at 9:42 AM | PERMALINK

It's beginning to look less like Fitzmas.
Every where I go.

Posted by: Orwell on June 13, 2006 at 9:45 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin, I'm disappointed that you didn't at least post about the Rove non-indictment. At least Fiztgerald waited until the Yearly Kos was over. We can't have pimply faced jerks jumping off Las Vegas hotel balconies.

Posted by: Mike K on June 13, 2006 at 9:45 AM | PERMALINK

Valerie Plame was outed by someone in the White House. This was a crime.

Fitz has clearly stated it was not a crime to out Plame. Further the evidence suggest that Valerie was outed by Joe. They both knew of the book deals and lucrative speaker fees to come from the left. They've made millions and will make millions more.

Only in America can an unemployed former State Dept flack become so wealthy playing fools for fools.

Posted by: rdw on June 13, 2006 at 9:45 AM | PERMALINK

cleek,

Thanks for the info. I didn't know kevin was a CA boy but given his opinions it should have been obvious. My bad.

I take it he won't be happy when he does wake up.

Posted by: rdw on June 13, 2006 at 9:47 AM | PERMALINK

aaron,

Why is it liberals are so desperate to be miserable?

Posted by: rdw on June 13, 2006 at 9:48 AM | PERMALINK

No Fitzmas today. . .

Posted by: David P on June 13, 2006 at 9:49 AM | PERMALINK

There was no crime and there are no charges.

Are you deliberately obtuse or just dishonest, FWG (and RW)? The fact that there are no charges against Rove at this time is not evidence that there was no crime. We know Plame was outed and we know Rove was a source.

But thanks for proving my point -- you're condoning -- even cheering! -- Rove escaping charges because he's on your team. IOKIYAR. Shameful.

Posted by: Gregory on June 13, 2006 at 9:49 AM | PERMALINK

Thanks for holding out for the 'sealed' indictment.
Too bad you haven't considered the obvious.

The average lefty is a dishonest, lying, puddle of pond scum and has that much credibility.

Posted by: McA on June 13, 2006 at 9:51 AM | PERMALINK

Further the evidence suggest that Valerie was outed by Joe. They both knew of the book deals and lucrative speaker fees to come from the left. They've made millions and will make millions more.

Only in America can an unemployed former State Dept flack become so wealthy playing fools for fools.

...and thanks to rdw for his unfounded slander (for "the evidence suggest that Valerie was outed by Joe," read "PowerLine claims"...) of two Americans whose lifetime of public service matters naught compared with the crime of revealing information politically damaging to the White House. rdw is a Bush Cutltist First Class. The shame is, he shows no shame, but rather revels in his delusions.

Posted by: Gregory on June 13, 2006 at 9:59 AM | PERMALINK

rdw, I have no idea. But it's fun to watch.

Posted by: aaron on June 13, 2006 at 10:00 AM | PERMALINK

This is what the Dems get for putting all of their trust in that lying hypocrite Joe Wilson. He did out his own wife for financial gain and pulled the typical moonbat tactic; blame the other side for what you actually do.

No Friztmas, President Bush in Iraq. The day has just begun and it isn't looking good for the wacko hate Bush crowd.

Posted by: Orwell on June 13, 2006 at 10:10 AM | PERMALINK

".....we know Rove was a source" Gregory

Apparently then Special Prosecutors do not indict those guilty of a crime. Now that's dishonest.

Gregory, Jow outed his own wife for political and monetary gain and the left bought it hook line and sinker. Much like they fall for the propaganda of the Islamic Jihadists. Remember, if you don't stand for anything, you'll fall for everything.

Posted by: Jay on June 13, 2006 at 10:13 AM | PERMALINK

How long has this "Joe Wilson outed his wife for monetary gain" idea been around? And they call us moonbats?

Posted by: Hoyt Pollard on June 13, 2006 at 10:15 AM | PERMALINK

mca: ......credibility.


Vice President Cheneys handwritten notes, disclosed in a new court filing by Patrick Fitzgerald, show that he was acutely focused on smearing Joseph Wilson. [D]id his wife send him on a junket? - Dick Cheney 7/6/03


"I didn't dig it out, it was given to me... they gave me the name and I used it." - Novak, Newsday, 7/22/03

'I've gone to Karl Rove and Elliott Abrams and Scooter Libby, and they have told me they are not involved in this' Scott McClellan 9/23/03


"I want to know the truth. .. I have no idea whether we'll find out who the leaker is, partially because, in all due respect to your profession, you do a very good job of protecting the leakers." - President Bush -Fox News, 10/8/03


Then-Attorney General John Ashcroft continued to oversee the Valerie Plame-CIA leak probe for more than two months in late 2003 after he learned in extensive briefings that FBI agents suspected White House aides Karl Rove and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby of trying to mislead the FBI to conceal their roles in the leak, according to government records and interviews.
- Murray Waas, National Journal 6/8/06

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on June 13, 2006 at 10:22 AM | PERMALINK

"This from the side that gave us the Vince Foster "murder", Clinton as a rapist, and all of Whitewater. Nice."

At least the moonbats are starting to grok how goofy their barking has become.

Posted by: tool on June 13, 2006 at 10:25 AM | PERMALINK

Apparently then Special Prosecutors do not indict those guilty of a crime. Now that's dishonest.

No, Special Prosecutors do not indicty those they can prove guilty of a crime in a court of law.

As Mark Kleiman says, Rove is entitled to the presumption of innocence before a court of law. The public can assess the available evidence -- and the drivel from Bush Cultist Kings PowerLine et al -- and draw their own conclusions.

Thanks again, Jay, for proving me right.

Posted by: Gregory on June 13, 2006 at 10:27 AM | PERMALINK

"...but because I want to know who gave Leopold this information so we can destroy them utterly.
Posted by: MNPundit

Please. You know it was Rove. Probably not in any way that is traceably direct." --OBF

I don't know about you guys, but I think the Dems should run on this issue in the fall. You know, the issue of Bush keeping an evil overlord as political advisor.

Posted by: tool of some sort on June 13, 2006 at 10:29 AM | PERMALINK

This is what the Dems get for putting all of their trust in that lying hypocrite Joe Wilson. He did out his own wife for financial gain and pulled the typical moonbat tactic; blame the other side for what you actually do.

Congrats to the ironically-named Orwell for not only perpetrating the baseless smear of Wilson's so-called "lies" -- cite, please? And don't bother with the unvetted and unendorsed minorty-report rant of the Senate Intelligence Committee, even if you pull the usual trick of lying about its provenance -- but also showing typical Rovian/Bush Cultist projection.

No Friztmas, President Bush in Iraq. The day has just begun and it isn't looking good for the wacko hate Bush crowd.

Spoken like a true Bush Cultist. How sad that these yo-yos don't get that approving of Bush is a minority position by a country mile.

As for Iraq...

The trip was known only to a handful of aides and a small number of journalists sworn to secrecy because of obvious security threats for Bush and members of his entourage.

Mission Accomplished! 'Nuff said.

Posted by: Gregory on June 13, 2006 at 10:32 AM | PERMALINK

Proving you right Greggy? Quit deluding yourself. You stated matter of factly Rove was the source, Fitzgerald disagrees and is not indicting him. Who's the dishonest one?

BTW, just saw a Howard Dean interview and I want to thank each and every lefty for elevating this baffoon to his current position. He is a spectacular failure and a perfect choice to chair the DNC. Bush in Iraq, Zarqawi dead, economy booming, it's going to be a fun year, pass the popcorn.

Posted by: Jay on June 13, 2006 at 10:34 AM | PERMALINK

What makes "Bush in Iraq" such a popcorn-worthy event?

Posted by: Hoyt Pollard on June 13, 2006 at 10:38 AM | PERMALINK

I'm going to wait patiently for Kevin Drum and all the liberal commenters to apologize to Karl Rove. They essentially called him a traitor, assumed his guilt in outing a CIA operative, and were drooling at the thought of an indictment.

Unimpressive for a bunch of people who profess to be "reality-based" and believe in "innocent till proven guilty".

So where's the apology, Kevin?

Posted by: Tom on June 13, 2006 at 10:41 AM | PERMALINK

I think Greggy is more in denial than the usual lefty. Every smear and underhanded tactic they have deployed against this administration has failed miserably yet they just keep their head in the sand and press forward.

Here are some of the lefts contentions: Global warming is more of an imminent threat than jihadism, illegal immigration is welcome in that immigrants are victims of American imperialism, there is no current or future problem with SS, and Howard Dean just stated that we should be deploying our troops to other parts of the world to fight terrorism (this one I loved). Where does he want to send them? Norway.

Posted by: Jay on June 13, 2006 at 10:42 AM | PERMALINK

Freedom must have been marching double time while I slept.

Posted by: Hoyt Pollard on June 13, 2006 at 10:42 AM | PERMALINK

"Fitz" has long been regarded as highly professional and 1.) would not attempt to take a case to court unless he had enough evidence to reasonably secure a conviction OR 2.) would take into consideration "total cooperation" from a witness in making a decision to indict.

So, either Fitz feels that the evidence against Rove may not tip the scale to a guilty verdict OR Rove has been cooperating heavily rather than obfuscating as Libby has done. Knowing that the Bush and Cheney camps would throw each other under the bus in a heartbeat, and that part of the evidence in hand is a newspaper with Cheney's handwritten notes (given to Fitz in a moment of "cooperation"?) AND that the exact verbiage of Fitz's letter to Luskin is yet unknown, it is premature to state anything other than Rove will not be indicted. There is still too much unresolved.

And of course, a crime has been committed. The very simple, simple fact that Libby is indicted points to that.

The whole picture is being unraveled behind the doors of the special prosecutor. Jerralyn of Talkleft has been doing a good job of keeping up with the legal documents and offering some very good analysis.

Am I disappointed that Rove is not going to be indicted? Absolutely. That's the way it is though. Even so, Fitz is still working on this. There are no announcements that it is all over. It looks as if Rove (Bush) have thrown the Cheney camp under the bus and there are some agreements about witness lists. This may get far more interesting....

This topic is near and dear to me -- alas I have to make my morning commute now, (yes trolls, I have a real job). No doubt there will be further opportunity to parse.

Posted by: jcricket on June 13, 2006 at 10:43 AM | PERMALINK

"He is a spectacular failure and a perfect choice to chair the DNC. Bush in Iraq, Zarqawi dead, economy booming, it's going to be a fun year, pass the popcorn."

I've yet to see a liberal politician that isn't a spectacular failure. I look forward to the wialing here when permanent Republican majorieties are cemented in Congress in the mid-terms and President McCain is elected in 2008.

And liberals will still wonder why they can't get anyone elected. They're so sure of being right they can't understand why the vast majority of Americans don't think like they do.

And the vast majority of Americans wonder how liberals can hate Karl Rove so much, and yet have such a soft spot in their hearts for real criminals.

Posted by: Tom on June 13, 2006 at 10:46 AM | PERMALINK

Hoyt:

Here's a link for some good nws from iraq that you'll never read from Kevin. It's also a god primer for the November elections. If you don't want to have a nervous breakdown after you find out Nancy won't be speaker read more stuff like this. This will explain why liberals can't win.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmQwNzg0Y2Y4MTE5Y2E2ZTNhN2QzZWQ4N2Q1Njg3ZDg=

Posted by: rdw on June 13, 2006 at 10:50 AM | PERMALINK

Libby has been indicted on perjury and possible obstruction. Nothing related to compromising of national security or the "outing" of the most covert CIA desk jockey in history. Libby will vindicated, the left will collectively apologize to every American for being well, who they are and the the GOP will retain majority roles in both houses this fall.

That way the left can continue to play the victims, a role they perform very well.

Posted by: Jay on June 13, 2006 at 10:51 AM | PERMALINK

Tom, nice post but I am pulling for Gingrich.

Posted by: Jay on June 13, 2006 at 10:53 AM | PERMALINK

Great post, Kevin. Would that every keen observer waited for actual information before leaping

Maybe Leopold should just be ignored until he is actually right about something.

Posted by: Qwerty on June 12, 2006 at 6:07 PM |

Or maybe, just maybe, those readers without factual information disproving Leopold ought to withhold their condemnation until such time as they have any such facts? Any facts at all?

Dunno if Leopold is right. But it's absurd to hop on him when most everyone knows the relevant documents are or are likely to be sealed, until such time as Fitzgerald sees fit to unseal them.

This destructive eat-your-own-young compulsion surpassed unstable levels long ago, but reached a ludicrously overblown altitude recently when FDL commenters resorted to quoting Byron York, who was quoting of all people Mark Carallo -- Karl Rove's spokesman.

Using York as a 'standard' to measure Leopold is silly -- and I said so at the time. Now, suddenly, w/ Timmeh referring to York as "objective," York's lack of credibility is thinkable and can be spoken of openly.

You know, the KoolAid tastes pretty good, but there's an endemic herd mentality at work. Make that mob. Don't like something -- attack it -- regardless of the facts at hand. Dont' ask questions, don't gather facts -- make assumptions! Never mind with whom you're speaking. Claim to know what you cannot yet know. Point IS to be the Party controlling what is known and who knows anything. Leopold got i the way of that. Two legs good! It's too bad, because so much is being missed in a misguided pursuit of control of what's true.

Leopold may be wrong. He may be right. But the notion that there could be definitive conclusion either way is in error. And there's little profit in offering up one of your own in a ritual sacrifice, to the altar of Rove's politics.

Posted by: SombreroFallout on June 13, 2006 at 10:58 AM | PERMALINK

"And of course, a crime has been committed. The very simple, simple fact that Libby is indicted points to that."

Wrong. Ham sandwich. Fitz can eat one and indict one.

Say it loud enough and long enough. Fitzmas has officially been cancelled.


Posted by: Orwell on June 13, 2006 at 11:06 AM | PERMALINK

"And of course, a crime has been committed. The very simple, simple fact that Libby is indicted points to that."

An indictment is not proof of guilt, it is not proof a crime was committed. Where did the reality-based community go?

Posted by: Tom on June 13, 2006 at 11:13 AM | PERMALINK

Where oh where did the reality based community go, oh where oh where could they be........

Posted by: Jay on June 13, 2006 at 11:14 AM | PERMALINK

"No, Special Prosecutors do not indicty[sic] those they can prove guilty of a crime in a court of law. As Mark Kleiman says, Rove is entitled to the presumption of innocence before a court of law. The public can assess the available evidence"

See: Clinton, Hillary. re: billing records.

So, you're going with the "he's guilty, I tell ya, he's guilty, and I don't care what any official document or officer of the court/gov't says" line, eh? On top of assuming that calling anyone who points out the obvious is a "Bush cultist" (is it really a virtue in some circles to call people names via the internet, as if that does anything but damage the credibility of the person calling the name?), of course.

You're fighting a losing battle. Actually, there is no battle as your side just lost it. Rove won't be indicted, just as Hillary wasn't indicted over the billing records. Game over. Lick your wounds and fight another battle another day and try your best to win that one.

Posted by: RW on June 13, 2006 at 11:16 AM | PERMALINK

An indictment would be an indication that something improper happened if the Democrats weren't so obsessed with using the court system to take down their political enemies.

Posted by: Orwell on June 13, 2006 at 11:25 AM | PERMALINK

An indictment is not proof of guilt, it is not proof a crime was committed.

It's proof that the Grand Jury declared there's probable cause to believe a crime was committed, thus rendering the crowing here a bit hollow (though no less proving my point). It's beyond obvious that our resident trolls are deficient in American Civics -- could the Scaife Counter Blogging Project be outsourcing to cheap overseas labor? Judging from the quality of the troll posts here, it's a distinct possibility...

Posted by: Gregory on June 13, 2006 at 11:25 AM | PERMALINK

Denigrating overseas labor and implying that they don't have the mental capacity of the left elites? Wow, spectacularly liberal of you Greggy.

Posted by: Jay on June 13, 2006 at 11:28 AM | PERMALINK

"It's proof that the Grand Jury declared there's probable cause to believe a crime was committed..."

Which isn't the same thing as proof that a crime was committed. Since you are so well-versed in American Civics, I assume you are aware that a conviction decides that matter.

By the way, your comment "outsourcing to cheap overseas labor..." smacks of racism. Has your devastation over Rove not being indicted caused your world to so crumble that you are losing that famed "liberal tolerance"?

Posted by: Tom on June 13, 2006 at 11:33 AM | PERMALINK

Yeah pardon the comments, I just cashed my Scaife check.

Gregory is being disingenious with the Grand Jury idea.
"The Grand Jury need not meet any burden of proof to open an investigation, and can investigate on mere suspicion or simply to ensure that a crime has not been committed. See U.S. v. Morton Salt. Co., 338 US 632 642-643 (1950).

Also, the Grand Jury does not need to conform to rules of evidence, such as hearsay, and the Grand Jury can also view evidence that would normally be suppressed or suppressible. See U.S. v. Williams, 504 US 35, 50 (1992).

Well there seems to be a bit of wiggle room for the prosecution doesn't there? I wonder if a special prosecutor can be even looser with his Grand Jury. And according to the civics lessons I took, a person is innocent until PROVEN guilty. Wow, glad I took that civics class.

Posted by: Orwell on June 13, 2006 at 11:33 AM | PERMALINK


jay: Nothing related to compromising of national security or the "outing" of the most covert CIA desk jockey in history.


the special prosecutor said it best....


Well, why is this a leak investigation that doesn't result in a charge? I've been trying to think about how to explain this, so let me try. I know baseball analogies are the fad these days. Let me try something.

If you saw a baseball game and you saw a pitcher wind up and throw a fastball and hit a batter right smack in the head, and it really, really hurt them, you'd want to know why the pitcher did that. And you'd wonder whether or not the person just reared back and decided, "I've got bad blood with this batter. He hit two home runs off me. I'm just going to hit him in the head as hard as I can."

You also might wonder whether or not the pitcher just let go of the ball or his foot slipped, and he had no idea to throw the ball anywhere near the batter's head. And there's lots of shades of gray in between.

You might learn that you wanted to hit the batter in the back and it hit him in the head because he moved. You might want to throw it under his chin, but it ended up hitting him on the head.

FITZGERALD: And what you'd want to do is have as much information as you could. You'd want to know: What happened in the dugout? Was this guy complaining about the person he threw at? Did he talk to anyone else? What was he thinking? How does he react? All those things you'd want to know.

And then you'd make a decision as to whether this person should be banned from baseball, whether they should be suspended, whether you should do nothing at all and just say, "Hey, the person threw a bad pitch. Get over it."

In this case, it's a lot more serious than baseball. And the damage wasn't to one person. It wasn't just Valerie Wilson. It was done to all of us.

And as you sit back, you want to learn: Why was this information going out? Why were people taking this information about Valerie Wilson and giving it to reporters? Why did Mr. Libby say what he did? Why did he tell Judith Miller three times? Why did he tell the press secretary on Monday? Why did he tell Mr. Cooper? And was this something where he intended to cause whatever damage was caused?

FITZGERALD: Or did they intend to do something else and where are the shades of gray?

And what we have when someone charges obstruction of justice, the umpire gets sand thrown in his eyes. He's trying to figure what happened and somebody blocked their view.

As you sit here now, if you're asking me what his motives were, I can't tell you; we haven't charged it.

So what you were saying is the harm in an obstruction investigation is it prevents us from making the fine judgments we want to make.

I also want to take away from the notion that somehow we should take an obstruction charge less seriously than a leak charge.

This is a very serious matter and compromising national security information is a very serious matter.

But the need to get to the bottom of what happened and whether national security was compromised by inadvertence, by recklessness, by maliciousness is extremely important.

We need to know the truth. And anyone who would go into a grand jury and lie, obstruct and impede the investigation has committed a serious crime.

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on June 13, 2006 at 11:52 AM | PERMALINK

The biggest joke here is the claim of compromising national security. Joe and Valerie are the people responsible for their predicament. The husband of a "covert" spy and one with a bent toward proving the WMD claim false, would not be the best person possible to send on such mission.

The Wilsons are frauds and the left should be ashamed for propping them up to be anything other than just that. btw, loved the pictoral in Vanity Fair. What a handsome couple, perfect for the cocktail circuit.

Posted by: Jay on June 13, 2006 at 12:00 PM | PERMALINK

"And anyone who would go into a grand jury and lie, obstruct and impede the investigation has committed a serious crime."

I remember that phrase back in 1998.

Posted by: RW on June 13, 2006 at 12:40 PM | PERMALINK

leopold works for, used to work for, the wall street journal.

fund's harbor.

paul gigot's employer. paul gigot the bilderberger. the conspiracist.

anyone who pays any attention to leopold is a fool.

Posted by: albertchampion on June 14, 2006 at 2:44 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly