No criminal charges against Rove in CIA leak case

Locked
Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

No criminal charges against Rove in CIA leak case

Post by Corlyss_D » Tue Jun 13, 2006 1:44 pm

I know this just kills the Dems. They are all going to have to go into therapy again. Katrina vanden Heuvel may spontaneously combust.

The New York Times


June 13, 2006
Leak Counsel Won't Charge Rove, Lawyer Announces
By DAVID JOHNSTON

WASHINGTON, June 13 — The prosecutor in the C.I.A. leak case on Monday advised Karl Rove, the senior White House adviser, that he would not be charged with any wrongdoing, effectively ending the nearly three-year criminal investigation that had at times focused intensely on Mr. Rove.

The decision by the prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, announced in a letter to Mr. Rove's lawyer, Robert D. Luskin, lifted a pall that had hung over Mr. Rove who testified on five occasions to a federal grand jury about his involvement in the disclosure of an intelligence officer's identity.

In a statement, Mr. Luskin said, "On June 12, 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove."

Mr. Fitzgerald's spokesman, Randall Samborn, said he would not comment on Mr. Rove's status.

For months Mr. Fitzgerald's investigation appeared to threaten Mr. Rove's standing as Mr. Bush's closest political adviser as the prosecutor riveted his focus on whether Mr. Rove tried to intentionally conceal a conversation he had with a Time magazine reporter in the week before the name of intelligence officer, Valerie Plame Wilson, became public.

The decision not to pursue any charges removes a potential political stumbling block for a White House that is heading into a long and difficult election season for Republicans in Congress.

Mr. Fitzgerald's decision should help the White House in what has been an unsuccessful effort to put the leak case behind it. Still ahead, however, is the trial of Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby Jr., on charges for perjury and obstruction of justice, and the prospect that Mr. Cheney could be called to testify in that case.

In his statement Mr. Luskin said he would not address other legal questions surrounding Mr. Fitzgerald's decision. He added, "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. Rove's conduct."

But it was evident that Mr. Fitzgerald's decision followed an exhaustive inquiry into Mr. Rove's activities that had brought the political strategist dangerously close to possible charges. In October, when Mr. Libby was indicted, people close to Mr. Rove had suggested that his involvement in the case would soon be over; speculation about Mr. Rove's legal situation flared again in April when he made his fifth appearance before the grand jury.

A series of meetings between Mr. Luskin and Mr. Fitzgerald and his team proved pivotal in dissuading the prosecutor from bringing charges. On one occasion Mr. Luskin himself became a witness in the case, giving sworn testimony that was beneficial to Mr. Rove.

As the case stands now, Mr. Fitzgerald has brought only one indictment against Mr. Libby. The prosecutor accused Mr. Libby of telling the grand jury that he learned of Ms. Wilson from reporters, when in reality, the prosecutor said he was told about her by Mr. Cheney and others in the government. Mr. Libby has pleaded not guilty in the case, which is scheduled to begin trial early next year.

Ms. Wilson is married to Joseph C. Wilson IV, the former ambassador who wrote in an Op-Ed column in the New York Times on July 6, 2003 that White House officials, including Mr. Bush, had exaggerated assertions that Iraq had sought to purchase nuclear fuel from Africa. Mr. Wilson wrote that such claims were "highly dubious."

He said his conclusions were based on a trip he had made in early 2002 to Niger, a fact-finding mission that he said had been "instigated" by Mr. Cheney's office.

It is now known that the column upset Mr. Cheney and that within his office it was viewed as an attack on the Vice President's credibility, according to legal briefs filed in the Libby case by Mr. Fitzgerald. In his filings, Mr. Fitzgerald depicts Mr. Cheney as actively engaged in an effort with Mr. Libby to rebut Mr. Wilson's assertions.

After the Wilson column was published, Mr. Cheney wrote notes on a copy asking whether Ms. Wilson played a role in sending her husband to Africa and whether the trip was a "junket." At the same time, Mr. Fitzgerald has said, the vice president dispatched Mr. Libby to challenge Mr. Wilson in conversations with reporters.

It was during that effort, Mr. Fitzgerald has alleged, that Mr. Libby disclosed Ms. Wilson's employment at the C.I.A. along with the possibility that it was she who sent him to Niger.

In Mr. Rove's case, Mr. Fitzgerald centered his inquiry on why Mr. Rove did not admit early in the investigation that he had a conversation with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper about Ms. Wilson and whether Mr. Rove was forthcoming about the later discovery of an internal e-mail message that confirmed his conversation with Mr. Cooper, to whom Mr. Rove had mentioned the existence of the C.I.A. officer.

Mr. Rove told the grand jury that he forgot the conversation with Mr. Cooper and volunteered it to Mr. Fitzgerald as soon as he recalled it, when his memory was jogged by the e-mail to Stephen J. Hadley, then deputy national security adviser, in which Mr. Rove referred to his discussion with Mr. Cooper.

At the center of the inquiry involving Mr. Rove are the circumstances surrounding a July 11, 2003, telephone conversation between Mr. Rove and Mr. Cooper, who turned the interview to questions about the trip to Africa by Mr. Wilson.

In his testimony to the grand jury in February 2004, Mr. Rove did not disclose the conversation with Mr. Cooper, saying later that he had forgotten it among the hundreds of calls he received on a daily basis. But there was a record of the call in the form of Mr. Rove's message to Mr. Hadley, the deputy national security adviser, which confirmed the conversation.

One lawyer with a client in the case said Mr. Fitzgerald was skeptical of Mr. Rove's account because the message was not discovered until the fall of 2004 — a year after Mr. Rove first talked to investigators. It was at about the same time that Mr. Fitzgerald had begun to compel reporters to cooperate with his inquiry, among them Mr. Cooper. The prosecutors legal thrust at reporters, in effect, put White House aides like Mr. Rove on notice that any conversations might become known.

Associates of Mr. Rove said the e-mail message was turned over immediately after it was found at the White House. They said Mr. Rove never intended to withhold details of a conversation with a reporter from Mr. Fitzgerald, noting that Mr. Rove had signed a legal waiver to allow reporters to reveal to prosecutors their discussions with confidential sources. In addition, they said, Mr. Rove testified about his conversation with Mr. Cooper — long before Mr. Cooper did — acknowledging that it was possible that the subject of Mr. Wilson's trip had come up.

It is now known that Mr. Fitzgerald and the grand jury have questioned Mr. Rove about two conversations with reporters. The first, which he admitted to investigators from the outset, took place on July 9, 2003, in a telephone call initiated by Robert D. Novak, the syndicated columnist. In a column about Mr. Wilson's trip four days after the call to Mr. Rove, Mr. Novak disclosed the identity of Ms. Wilson, who was said by Mr. Novak to have had a role in arranging her husband's trip. Mr. Novak identified her as Valerie Plame, Ms. Wilson's maiden name.
link
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

Ralph
Dittersdorf Specialist & CMG NY Host
Posts: 20996
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Paradise on Earth, New York, NY

Post by Ralph » Tue Jun 13, 2006 1:49 pm

I was doubtful that any indictment would issue against Rove. I don't even think he did break the law.
Image

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

Albert Einstein

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Post by Corlyss_D » Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:01 pm

Ralph wrote:I was doubtful that any indictment would issue against Rove. I don't even think he did break the law.
To Dems, that's hardly relevant. They want the evil Rasputin dead with a stake thru his heart. God forbid they should actually have to come up with ideas and politicians people could vote for! That's so time consuming, don't you know? And they couldn't get 2 interest groups running the party to agree on any of the ideas, even for the sake of winning an election.
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

Ralph
Dittersdorf Specialist & CMG NY Host
Posts: 20996
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Paradise on Earth, New York, NY

Post by Ralph » Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:10 pm

Corlyss_D wrote:
Ralph wrote:I was doubtful that any indictment would issue against Rove. I don't even think he did break the law.
To Dems, that's hardly relevant. They want the evil Rasputin dead with a stake thru his heart. God forbid they should actually have to come up with ideas and politicians people could vote for! That's so time consuming, don't you know? And they couldn't get 2 interest groups running the party to agree on any of the ideas, even for the sake of winning an election.
*****

Well I'm a Democrat and so are most of my friends (not all). I've never heard anyone express the kind of rabid fantasies that seem to color your view of those supporting the Democraic Party. Perhaps you should take a much needed holiday on Earth.
Image

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

Albert Einstein

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Post by Corlyss_D » Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:13 pm

Ralph wrote:
Corlyss_D wrote:
Ralph wrote:I was doubtful that any indictment would issue against Rove. I don't even think he did break the law.
To Dems, that's hardly relevant. They want the evil Rasputin dead with a stake thru his heart. God forbid they should actually have to come up with ideas and politicians people could vote for! That's so time consuming, don't you know? And they couldn't get 2 interest groups running the party to agree on any of the ideas, even for the sake of winning an election.
*****

Well I'm a Democrat and so are most of my friends (not all). I've never heard anyone express the kind of rabid fantasies that seem to color your view of those supporting the Democraic Party. Perhaps you should take a much needed holiday on Earth.
Your friends don't appear as pundits on TV and radio, strategize for the Democratic party "leadership," write blogs like the DailyKos and MyDD and articles for opinion journals like New Republic and The Nation. There is no doubt whatever in my mind, however, if Rove were indicted, your friends would be cheering, politely of course.
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

Haydnseek
Posts: 1211
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 7:59 am
Location: Maryland, USA

Post by Haydnseek » Tue Jun 13, 2006 3:12 pm

BY JAMES TARANTO
Tuesday, June 13, 2006 3:35 p.m.


It Ain't So, Joe

On the first day of Fitzmas
Fitzgerald gave to me
An indictment of Scooter Libby

On the second day of Fitzmas
Fitzgerald gave to me
Uh, nothing! Damn it!

Well, that was quite a kerfuffle, wasn't it? Let's flash back to July 2003, when The Nation's David Corn relayed Joe Wilson's claim that the White House had "leaked" the name of his wife, Valerie Plame:

Without acknowledging whether she is a deep-cover CIA employee, Wilson says, "Naming her this way would have compromised every operation, every relationship, every network with which she had been associated in her entire career. This is the stuff of Kim Philby and Aldrich Ames." . . .

Under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, it is a crime for anyone who has access to classified information to disclose intentionally information identifying a covert agent. The punishment for such an offense is a fine of up to $50,000 and/or up to ten years in prison.

Wilson famously said he would like to "get Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs." The New York Times and other liberal editorial pages demanded the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate who gave accurate information to journalists, though it apparently didn't occur to them that finding that out would entail calling journalists to testify. (Now they are vigorously defending their First Amendment right to disclose things that really are secret.) The Justice Department complied.

Today Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, told the Times that the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, had formally advised Rove that he will not be charged. It appears the investigation is over, except for the forthcoming trial of Scooter Libby on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice--wrongdoing that allegedly took place entirely after the investigation began.

This has got to be the worst day for the Angry Left since at least last Thursday. It would not be an exaggeration to call the left's enthusiasm over the Plame kerfuffle a case of mass hysteria. For months they have been awaiting "Fitzmas," the day that the grand jury handed up indictments of Rove and--who knows?--maybe even the vice president himself.

Sorry, guys.

Anyway, look around the Web and you can find examples of the Angry Left going through the five stages of grieving (we should note that this guy beat us to the idea):

Denial. Truthout.org (motto: "If you want the truth, get out of here") "reports" that Rove actually has been indicted. "As of Friday afternoon that indictment, returned by the grand jury the week of May 10th, remains under seal--more than a month after it was handed up by the grand jury. The case number is "06 cr 128." On the federal court's electronic database, '06 cr 128' is listed along with a succinct summary: 'No further information is available.' " Says blogress Christy Smith: "Unless and until I hear it from Patrick Fitzgerald, the investigation continues to be ongoing. Which means that there are still potential developments down the road."

Bargaining. "This latest news doesn't prove or disprove the basic question of whether Fitzgerald was ready to indict Rove," claims Duncan "Atrios" Black. "It's quite likely Rove has cut a deal of some sort. It's quite possible that Fitz's letter to Luskin, which hasn't been made public as far as I can tell, says something along the lines of 'as long as you cooperate as promised your ass is safe for now.' " Black's employer, Media Mutters, says maybe Rove will lose his security clearance for--well, for what isn't quite clear.

Anger. "He doesn't belong in the White House. If the president valued America more than he valued his connection to Karl Rove, Karl Rove would have been fired a long time ago," says Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean on the "Today" show. "So I think this is probably good news for the White House, but it's not very good news for America."

Despair. "My Heart Is Broken, My Spirit Crushed, My Faith in America Destroyed," declares "Dementer" on DemocraticUnderground.com. "On the other hand, I am sure that there are numerous other criminal enterprises that Kkkarl [sic] has participated in, so we just have to keep digging. Perhaps Fitz is doing just that--he has the license to do so. Or am I approaching the definition of insanity, here?"

Acceptance. "I think the chances are nil that Luskin is making this up since that'd be practically daring Patrick Fitzgerald to indict his client," says Josh Marshall, who had been one of the most credulous cheerleaders. "Whatever else he may be . . ., he's no fool." Though Marshall must be feeling quite foolish for having been one of Wilson's most enthusiastic and credulous cheerleaders way back when.

Drudge notes that many Angry Left Web sites have been strangely quiet, though MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, who according to Drudge has predicted Rove's indictment at least 26 times, does comment: "It is the 'Perfect Storm' of baseball scandals."

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/
"The law isn't justice. It's a very imperfect mechanism. If you press exactly the right buttons and are also lucky, justice may show up in the answer. A mechanism is all the law was ever intended to be." - Raymond Chandler

Ralph
Dittersdorf Specialist & CMG NY Host
Posts: 20996
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Paradise on Earth, New York, NY

Post by Ralph » Tue Jun 13, 2006 3:16 pm

Corlyss_D wrote:
Ralph wrote:
Corlyss_D wrote:
Ralph wrote:I was doubtful that any indictment would issue against Rove. I don't even think he did break the law.
To Dems, that's hardly relevant. They want the evil Rasputin dead with a stake thru his heart. God forbid they should actually have to come up with ideas and politicians people could vote for! That's so time consuming, don't you know? And they couldn't get 2 interest groups running the party to agree on any of the ideas, even for the sake of winning an election.
*****

Well I'm a Democrat and so are most of my friends (not all). I've never heard anyone express the kind of rabid fantasies that seem to color your view of those supporting the Democraic Party. Perhaps you should take a much needed holiday on Earth.
Your friends don't appear as pundits on TV and radio, strategize for the Democratic party "leadership," write blogs like the DailyKos and MyDD and articles for opinion journals like New Republic and The Nation. There is no doubt whatever in my mind, however, if Rove were indicted, your friends would be cheering, politely of course.
*****

Totally weird. To cheer when someone's life may be in imminent ruins? I know my friends and they are far more likely to share my outlook than yours. And you're wrong again-my circle includes journalists, a woman who will run for Congress against a Republican incumbent, academics in law, history and sciences. They are all nice people. I don't deny there are unnice people out there, some of them in my political party. But who needs or wants them as friends?
Image

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

Albert Einstein

Barry
Posts: 10344
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 3:50 pm

Post by Barry » Tue Jun 13, 2006 4:02 pm

Ralph,
I'm afraid I agree with Corlyss. You and I are hanging out with diffent Democrats. I know loads of people who gloat with glee every time an investigation of any kind comes up against high ranking Republicans or administration officials. I understand them because I was like that myself not that many years ago. I used to say I live for the day to see Bush's approval rating under 50 percent. By the time it got there, I realized that it's not good for the war effort or our foreign policy to have a weakened president.

It's simply not good for the party to focus more on what's wrong with the Republicans than to come up with a strong agenda of their own.
"If this is coffee, please bring me some tea; but if this is tea, please bring me some coffee." - Abraham Lincoln

"Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed." - Winston Churchill

"Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement." - Ronald Reagan

http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pbp0hur ... re=related

Cosima__J

Post by Cosima__J » Tue Jun 13, 2006 4:11 pm

Barry, you talk sense. It's refreshing to know that there are Democrats who actually put the best interests of our country above petty politics. Now if we could just convince Pelosi, Schumer etal to do the same.

Werner
CMG's Elder Statesman
Posts: 4223
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:23 pm
Location: Irvington, NY

Post by Werner » Tue Jun 13, 2006 4:31 pm

Some day - perhaps sooner than later - a percptive majority will come around to the sensible opinion Ralph has expressed here.
Werner Isler

Ralph
Dittersdorf Specialist & CMG NY Host
Posts: 20996
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Paradise on Earth, New York, NY

Post by Ralph » Tue Jun 13, 2006 8:44 pm

Barry Z wrote:Ralph,
I'm afraid I agree with Corlyss. You and I are hanging out with diffent Democrats. I know loads of people who gloat with glee every time an investigation of any kind comes up against high ranking Republicans or administration officials. I understand them because I was like that myself not that many years ago. I used to say I live for the day to see Bush's approval rating under 50 percent. By the time it got there, I realized that it's not good for the war effort or our foreign policy to have a weakened president.

It's simply not good for the party to focus more on what's wrong with the Republicans than to come up with a strong agenda of their own.
*****

And weren't there a lot of Republicans who gloated over the Lewinsky business? Not MY Republican friends.
Image

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

Albert Einstein

Fugu

Post by Fugu » Tue Jun 13, 2006 10:56 pm

I want Bush out and am glad his approval rating is in the low 30s. That isn't on me whether his approval rating weakens his Presidency or not. He's a big boy--he should be able to handle the huge mistakes he and his administration have made.

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Post by Corlyss_D » Wed Jun 14, 2006 12:00 am

Ralph wrote:Totally weird. To cheer when someone's life may be in imminent ruins?
Well, that would hardly be the case for such a public figure as Rove even if he had been indicted. Even the stones in the street know that Fitzgerald doesn't have any kind of case, even against Libbey, certainly not one that would result in jail time. Every time he calls a press conference the airwaves are filled with legal commentators who give his case in chief, assuming that's the perjury case and not the leak case which we all know doesn't exist at all, he's hooted to derision by both sides: the Dems for not finding enough to get Rove so that he would flip on Bush; the Republicans for not having the stones to stand up and tell his masters that he don't have a case worth persuing. It's one of those ugly messes that so often happens in political prosecutions in DC. Rove would be disabled from advising Republican candidates for the foreseeable future, like Ed Rollins when he put his foot in his mouth once too often. They want Rove radioactive so no Republican candidate dare use him ever again. That's what they want.

I know my friends and they are far more likely to share my outlook than yours. And you're wrong again-my circle includes journalists, a woman who will run for Congress against a Republican incumbent, academics in law, history and sciences. They are all nice people. I don't deny there are unnice people out there, some of them in my political party. But who needs or wants them as friends?
If they are your friends, I'm sure they are all fine mannerly people, so they are obviously not political guerilla fighters on the front lines. I thought Shumer was going to cry at his press conference about Fitzgeral's decision when he demanded yet again that Fitzgerald turn over to him all the documentation he has amassed to date so he can hold hearings that would tie up Rove and others indefinitely and prevent them from participating in the elections in 06 and 08 because that's what they fear the most. They have built up their image of Bush as a witless puppet manipulated deftly by Rove and others that the fact that Bush can't run again offers them no comfort. Rove can consult till he dies. They want some investigation that will remove Rove from active consulting for candidates until the Dems get the majority back.

I hope you were listening yesterday when Conyers promised not to initiate impeachment hearings against Bush immediately in January 07.:D All this is planning and talking out of school by the drooling Dems about what they will do in January 07, even in their internal management, makes me laugh at the similarity with the situation of the Honorable James Sasser, Democratic Senator from Tennessee (Ret.), who spent all of his campaign in 94 working his colleagues to ensure that he would be elected Majority Leader of the Senate in January 95, but he didn't bother to campaign in Tennessee, and Bill Frist was elected. Sasser was dumbstruck. I still get a big laff out of his arrogance undoing him.
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

Madame
Posts: 3552
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 2:56 am

Re: No criminal charges against Rove in CIA leak case

Post by Madame » Wed Jun 14, 2006 5:41 am

Corlyss_D wrote:

The New York Times


June 13, 2006
Leak Counsel Won't Charge Rove, Lawyer Announces
By DAVID JOHNSTON

WASHINGTON, June 13 — The prosecutor in the C.I.A. leak case on Monday advised Karl Rove, the senior White House adviser, that he would not be charged with any wrongdoing, effectively ending the nearly three-year criminal investigation that had at times focused intensely on Mr. Rove.

The decision by the prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, announced in a letter to Mr. Rove's lawyer, Robert D. Luskin, lifted a pall that had hung over Mr. Rove who testified on five occasions to a federal grand jury about his involvement in the disclosure of an intelligence officer's identity.

In a statement, Mr. Luskin said, "On June 12, 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove."
You know, I thought this was old old news, NO crime had been committed; it just needed Fitzgerald's rubber stamp, which he could have done months ago. I've thought many times that this seemed staged ... makes for good drama and takes our attention away from other things.

They're ALL nuts, I tell ya!

Haydnseek
Posts: 1211
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 7:59 am
Location: Maryland, USA

Post by Haydnseek » Wed Jun 14, 2006 8:30 am

Frogs Aren't Marching
The Rove prosecution vanishes into partisan air.

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 12:01 a.m.

So much for having Karl Rove "frog-marched" out of the White House "in handcuffs." That's the fate Democratic partisan Joe Wilson once predicted for President Bush's political guru, and yesterday his hope and accusations vanished like fog on the Potomac.

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald informed Mr. Rove's lawyers on Monday that he'll bring no charges as part of his investigation into who leaked the CIA identity of Mr. Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame. Mr. Wilson's original claims that Mr. Bush lied about Iraq intelligence have been discredited many times over, including in a bipartisan report from the Senate Intelligence Committee. And now we know that even the relentless Mr. Fitzgerald has concluded that the charge that Mr. Rove criminally blew Ms. Plame's CIA cover is false.

The mystery is why Mr. Fitzgerald kept Mr. Rove twisting in the wind for so long. The prosecutor has been on the case for 2 1/2 years, and he long ago learned the source for the July 2003 Robert Novak column that "outed" Ms. Plame and was the reason he was appointed. Mr. Rove was forced to make no less than five grand jury appearances, the latest as recently as April.

In the end, it seems Mr. Fitzgerald was trying to trap Mr. Rove over the minor matter of his failure to remember a conversation with Time reporter Matthew Cooper. But Mr. Rove is the one who later volunteered information about the conversation to Mr. Fitzgerald, after a check of White House records reminded him of it. A perjury or obstruction accusation based on that inconsequential discrepancy would have been prosecutorial misconduct.

The Rove decision also finally discredits the accusation that there was some grand White House conspiracy to smear Mr. Wilson. Mr. Fitzgerald has brought no charges concerning the original leak, which means there was no underlying crime. His entire case--and this entire "scandal"--has been distilled to charges of perjury and obstruction against one man, former Vice Presidential Chief of Staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

And that one case comes down to nothing more than the fact that Mr. Libby's memory of conversations with three reporters differs from that of the reporters themselves. Think we're exaggerating? Here's how the judge in the case, Reggie B. Walton, summarized it in a recent ruling on evidence: "The charges against the defendant are based entirely [our emphasis] upon what the defendant has said was discussed during his conversations with these news reporters."

Those conversations took place in the summer of 2003, while the reporters didn't testify about them for Mr. Fitzgerald until a year or more later. Memories aren't always perfect, and Mr. Libby's lawyers will no doubt have ample room to cast doubt on those recollections against the record of notebook entries and public statements made by the reporters. Mr. Fitzgerald will also have to prove why a seasoned lawyer such as Mr. Libby had a motive to lie if there was no underlying crime to cover up.

We should add that the lack of any underlying crime also means that Mr. Fitzgerald's pursuit of journalistic sources in this case violated the Justice Department's own guidelines, which state that "there should be reasonable grounds to believe . . . that a crime has occurred, and that the information sought is essential to a successful investigation."

Mr. Fitzgerald could ignore those guidelines because he was a "special" counsel subject only to the supervision of the friend who appointed him, former Deputy Attorney General Jim Comey. Only weeks into his probe, he had his official orders changed to include investigation of perjury, suggesting that even at that early stage he had concluded that the original leak was probably not a crime.

The tragedy of this episode is that a political fight over the war in Iraq was allowed to become a criminal matter. Mr. Wilson spun his false tale in an effort to discredit the war and deny Mr. Bush a second term. The liberal media put partisanship above their own interests in demanding a special counsel probe of "leaks"--until that probe turned on their own sources. The Attorney General at the time, John Ashcroft, passed the buck to Mr. Comey by recusing himself on flimsy grounds--an act of political and legal abdication.

So what we are left with is a three-year political spectacle that has kept the White House under siege during a war, weakened or pushed out of office some of its most important aides, and made liberal celebrities of Mr. Wilson and his wife. And to what public purpose? A prosecutor with more wisdom than Mr. Fitzgerald would have long ago understood he was injecting himself into a political brawl, closed his case, and left the outcome to the voters.

Copyright © 2006 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial ... =110008513
"The law isn't justice. It's a very imperfect mechanism. If you press exactly the right buttons and are also lucky, justice may show up in the answer. A mechanism is all the law was ever intended to be." - Raymond Chandler

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Re: No criminal charges against Rove in CIA leak case

Post by Corlyss_D » Wed Jun 14, 2006 1:13 pm

Madame wrote:You know, I thought this was old old news, NO crime had been committed; it just needed Fitzgerald's rubber stamp, which he could have done months ago. I've thought many times that this seemed staged ... makes for good drama and takes our attention away from other things.

They're ALL nuts, I tell ya!
It's the Dems trying to drive home their weak "Culture of Corruption" theme. The entire Fitzgerald investigation has come back to bite more Democrats than Republicans. I think the public isn't paying much attention because they have dismissed it as smoke and mirrors or bread and circuses unrelated to their daily problems.
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

Barry
Posts: 10344
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 3:50 pm

Post by Barry » Wed Jun 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Ralph wrote:
Barry Z wrote:Ralph,
I'm afraid I agree with Corlyss. You and I are hanging out with diffent Democrats. I know loads of people who gloat with glee every time an investigation of any kind comes up against high ranking Republicans or administration officials. I understand them because I was like that myself not that many years ago. I used to say I live for the day to see Bush's approval rating under 50 percent. By the time it got there, I realized that it's not good for the war effort or our foreign policy to have a weakened president.

It's simply not good for the party to focus more on what's wrong with the Republicans than to come up with a strong agenda of their own.
*****

And weren't there a lot of Republicans who gloated over the Lewinsky business? Not MY Republican friends.
Yes. They were wrong too. But at least they're gloating didn't prevent them from coming up with an agenda to win elections. The Democrats are focused SO heavily on what's wrong with the GOP that they don't seem to have time to come up with their own agenda. They've become an unfortunate joke.
"If this is coffee, please bring me some tea; but if this is tea, please bring me some coffee." - Abraham Lincoln

"Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed." - Winston Churchill

"Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement." - Ronald Reagan

http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pbp0hur ... re=related

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Post by Corlyss_D » Wed Jun 14, 2006 1:48 pm

Cosima__J wrote:Barry, you talk sense. It's refreshing to know that there are Democrats who actually put the best interests of our country above petty politics.
I tell you true, Cos, among my many liberal friends, he's the ONLY old-style Democrat. I think he should be cloned, or put in a museum.
Now if we could just convince Pelosi, Schumer etal to do the same.
Foget it. They only care about one thing now: recovering their power and doing unto Republicans as they think Republicans have done unto them. The only violence they can rouse themselves to is violence against Republicans, because after all, Al Qaeda is "out there somewhere" and doesn't run Congress and the White House. They know full well who the enemy is: it's Republicans.
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Post by Corlyss_D » Wed Jun 14, 2006 1:51 pm

Fugu wrote:I want Bush out and am glad his approval rating is in the low 30s. That isn't on me whether his approval rating weakens his Presidency or not. He's a big boy--he should be able to handle the huge mistakes he and his administration have made.
Dan, maybe you should sign your posts with your old screen name for a while until folks get used to you as Fugu. Just a thought.
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Post by Corlyss_D » Wed Jun 14, 2006 2:02 pm

Ralph wrote:And weren't there a lot of Republicans who gloated over the Lewinsky business? Not MY Republican friends.
The gloating was that he finally got caught at something we all knew was going on since he first appeared on the national scene. It really didn't become a political issue until the deposition and his getting caught in perjury. It was a needless consequence of his own personal behavior, both action and lies about the actions. Like Madame's quote from one of her posts, "You can't talk your way our of messes your behavior got you into." Or something along those lines.

I'm still ambivalent about it. Is there anyone here who thinks impeachment should not follow upon common proveable knowledge that the president lied under oath in a legal proceeding? I think once that was known, an indictment had to issue and impeachment had to occur. Else how could we stand in the future for the concept that our presidents have to be held accountable for criminal behavior? We know now that lying under oath about sexual encounters that have no consequences for public policy or formal government does not rise to an impeachable offence. Okay. It cost the Republicans seats in Congress to find that out. Was it worth it? Again I'm ambivalent about it. The Democrats had no choice but to politicize it by denouncing it 24/7 as a partisan outrage to reverse the election of 96. Of the two overreaches, I think the worse is the Democrats' because there was a principle at stake in the Republicans' actions. I can find none in the Democrats' except "we gotta save him because he's a Democrat and the thread by which our relevance as a political party is hanging." As an partisan I understand it. As a citizen I don't.
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Post by Corlyss_D » Sat Jun 17, 2006 1:02 pm

WSJ.com OpinionJournal

BACK TO THE FUTURE
Vietnam, Watergate and Rove
Left-wing nostalgia dies hard, but can it survive the events of this week?

BY MICHAEL BARONE
Friday, June 16, 2006 12:01 a.m.

It has been a tough 10 days for those who see current events through the prisms of Vietnam and Watergate. First, the Democrats failed to win a breakthrough victory in the California 50th District special election--a breakthrough that would have summoned up memories of Democrats winning Gerald Ford's old congressional district in a special election in 1974. Instead the Democratic nominee got 45% of the vote, just 1% more than John Kerry did in the district in 2004.

Second, U.S. forces with a precision air strike killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, on the same day that Iraqis finished forming a government. Zarqawi will not be available to gloat over American setbacks or our allies' defeat, as the leaders of the Viet Cong and North Vietnam did.

Third, special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald announced that he would not seek an indictment of Karl Rove. The leftward blogosphere had Mr. Rove pegged for the role of Bob Haldeman and John Ehrlichman. Theories were spun about plea bargains that would implicate Vice President Dick Cheney. Talk of impeachment was in the air. But it turns out that history doesn't repeat itself. George W. Bush, whether you like it or not, is not a second Richard Nixon.

It is hard in retrospect to understand why the left put so much psychic energy into the notion that Mr. Rove would be indicted. He certainly was an important target. No one in American history has been as powerful an aide to a president, both on politics and on public policy, as Karl Rove. Only Robert Kennedy in his brother's administration and Hamilton Jordan in Jimmy Carter's come close, and neither was as involved in electoral politics as Mr. Rove has been.

Still, it was clear early on that the likelihood that Mr. Rove violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act was near zero. Under the law, the agent whose name was disclosed would have had to have served overseas within the preceding five years (Valerie Plame, according to her husband's book, had been stationed in the U.S. since 1997), and Mr. Rove would have had to know that she was undercover (not very likely). The left enjoyed raising an issue on which, for once, it could charge that a Republican administration had undermined national security. But that rang hollow when the left gleefully seized on the New York Times' disclosure of NSA surveillance of phone calls from suspected al Qaeda operatives abroad to persons in the U.S.

In all this a key role was played by the press. Cries went up early for the appointment of a special prosecutor: Patrick Fitzgerald would be another Archibald Cox or Leon Jaworski. Eager to bring down another Republican administration, the editorialists of the New York Times evidently failed to realize that the case could not be pursued without asking reporters to reveal the names of sources who had been promised confidentiality. America's newsrooms are populated largely by liberals who regard the Vietnam and Watergate stories as the great achievements of their profession. The peak of their ambition is to achieve the fame and wealth of great reporters like David Halberstam and Bob Woodward. But this time it was not Republican administration officials who went to prison. It was Judith Miller, then of the New York Times itself.

Interestingly, Bob Woodward himself contradicted Mr. Fitzgerald's statement, made the day that he announced the one indictment he has obtained, of former vice presidential chief of staff Scooter Libby, that Mr. Libby was the first to disclose Ms. Plame's name to a reporter. The press reaction was to turn on Mr. Woodward, who has been covering this administration as a new story rather than as a reprise of Vietnam and Watergate.

Historians may regard it as a curious thing that the left and the press have been so determined to fit current events into templates based on events that occurred 30 to 40 years ago. The people who effectively framed the issues raised by Vietnam and Watergate did something like the opposite; they insisted that Vietnam was not a reprise of World War II or Korea and that Watergate was something different from the operations J. Edgar Hoover conducted for Franklin Roosevelt or John Kennedy. Journalists in the 1940s, '50s and early '60s tended to believe they had a duty to buttress Americans' faith in their leaders and their government. Journalists since Vietnam and Watergate have tended to believe that they have a duty to undermine such faith, especially when the wrong party is in office.*

That belief has its perils for journalism, as the Fitzgerald investigation has shown. The peril that the press may find itself in the hot seat, but even more the peril that it will get the story wrong. The visible slavering over the prospect of a Rove indictment is just another item in the list of reasons why the credibility of the "mainstream media" has been plunging. There's also a peril for the political left. Vietnam and Watergate were arguably triumphs for honest reporting. But they were also defeats for America--and for millions of freedom-loving people in the world. They ushered in an era when the political opposition and much of the press have sought not just to defeat administrations but to delegitimize them. The pursuit of Karl Rove by the left and the press has been just the latest episode in the attempted criminalization of political differences. Is there any hope that it might turn out to be the last?

Mr. Barone is a senior writer at U.S. News & World Report.

Copyright © 2006 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial ... =110008527

*As Stephen Harper recently commented in connection with constantly hostile press attacks on him, "The press has become the loyal opposition." It's what the journalism schools teach them, i.e., the first duty of the press is to oppose the government (except when the government is making smushy nice with some misbegotten needy segment of domestic society that has won the hearts of the journalists). If the press were consistent about it, and fought everything, we'd know where they stood and how to weigh their partisan positions. But they don't. They are selective. And in their selectiveness lies their undoing.
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests