Tuesday, June 13, 2006

Rove won't be indicted

Looks like Truthout was just plain wrong:

Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald has told White House aide Karl Rove that he does not expect to seek charges against him in connection with the CIA leak case, Rove's lawyer said today.

In a statement this morning, Robert Luskin, Rove's attorney, said that Fitzgerald "has formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges" against Rove.

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

That leaves just Lewis Libby on the hotseat. The White House breathes a small sigh of relief, though it's a sign of the difficulties they're in that "relief" is defined as "only one White House insider charged."

Does that end the buzz? Hardly. There's plenty of room for speculation, because somebody outed Plame. As Fitzgerald has noted, Libby being charged with cover-up crimes -- and nothing else -- indicates the the coverup was successful.

So unless something explosive comes out of the Libby trial, this is probably the end of the legal side of the Plame case. But it does not exonerate the White House, or Rove, or Cheney -- it simply fails to convict them. The only other hope for clarity lies in Fitzgerald's final report. It will detail what he knows and what he doesn't know, and why he chose to charge Libby and no one else. At that point we'll be able to judge the clarity or murkiness of the accusations and the defenses.

, , , ,

Labels: , ,

1 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

That's like saying.....Clinton wasn't exonerted either because Ken Star couldn't find out anything from Webster Hubbel or Susan McDougal....that just means they were covering up for Clinton and so we must assume he was guilty anyway. Or does that attitude only work when it's Republicans we're talking about?

In the Plame case.....there wasn't even an original law broken. If she wasn't covert...and she wasn't....then they had every right to be discussing her: even with the press. The reason: she injected herself into the public arena when she went with her husband to leak to a NYTimes reporter, Nicholas Kristof. On top of all that, they LIED. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the VP's office....since they are the ones that Wilson/Plame lied about.....to set the record straight and to let the American public know the truth.
JP5

6/19/2006 4:30 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home