Rove Won't Be Charged in CIA Leak Case

It was not all a crock, but the media and Democrats made a far bigger deal about it than was ever necessary. An investigation was needed, now it is partially over, Rove is innocent enough, the Democrats look a tad bit partisan for their previous witch hunt, they can take some flack for that and then we can move on.

Merry Fitzmas!

Actually it's "Fitzmas is cancelled."

So at this point all we have is a sole indictment from the Plame affair of Scooter Libby, who was charged with lying about telling the truth about a liar...

Funny that.

All Smoke, No Fire

Most reasonable people knew this would be the outcome. The media hype is politically motivated. You can't out someone who wasn't a covert agent.

..the machine just got cranked up..now watch the show..prediction..the dem`s will actually loose seats in November..just Karls why of getting his revenge..6/13/06..now lets predict the seats...mmmm ,ok you political majors`s..

It was just a lot of hype to make the current administration look bad. If you examine how this played out, it was the press and the democrats that were making the big stink about it all.

Remember it? How can you forget it?

Correct me if I'm wrong but this story breaks on the morning of the 13th of June. That "far left website" posted this on the 12th of June. (from the very same discredited "pseudo-reporter" Jason Leopold)

Monday 12 June 2006

Four weeks ago, during the time when we reported that White House political adviser Karl Rove was indicted for crimes related to his role in the leak of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson, the grand jury empanelled in the case returned an indictment that was filed under seal in US District Court for the District of Columbia under the curious heading of Sealed vs. Sealed.

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."

And this from Marc Ash, Executive Director - t r u t h o u t on the same date. It's not what they "know" it's what they think they know.

Can you say "dumb and dumber sequel?"

Yes.

Hey James,

I was laughing out loud at this news as well when I heard it on the radio this morning. This ought to make Rush's show more entertaining today! Can't wait to hear it on my way home from work!

You betcha, kevinb66! After all, don't you think the Rush show is the greatest on earth? And Limbaugh propagates truth and love all around.

Rhine,

You're like some freaky Limbaugh reference stalker.

No stalking here, son. Just happened to come across this thread, and then I saw you and your display of devotion to Limbaugh, and remembered that we'd crossed paths less than a couple of days ago on the same topic.

After all, don't you think the Rush show is the greatest on earth? And Limbaugh propagates truth and love all around.

I saw you and your display of devotion to Limbaugh

You're funny, son.

Dang, we've got a Newsvine family going on here!

You are really funny, kiddo. In case you didn't know, I'm 77. I'm guessing you are probably in your 30's.

Sorry, Edward Sebastian, I didn't mean to imply that I fathered or grand-fathered kevinb66. Heck, I wouldn't wish that upon my enemies.

I'm guessing you are probably in your 30's.

I'll be 40 in November. Will you be sending presents?

I didn't mean to imply that I fathered or grand-fathered kevinb66. Heck, I wouldn't wish that upon my enemies.

You're one ornery son-of-a-gun. You must be pretty nice to your enemies as most people would be more than willing to wish me on them.

Rhine, I respect your ability to converse online. My father is 72 and won't touch a computer.

I'll be 40 in November. Will you be sending presents?

Ok, send me your address.

You're one ornery son-of-a-gun.

I think you misspelled "honorary."

Rhine, I respect your ability to converse online. My father is 72 and won't touch a computer.

Thanks. Try out a Mac on him. It might work.

After 70 years, surely you've come across 'ornery' before. 'Tis a lovely word, synonymous with mean-spirited, disagreeable, contrary in disposition, and cantankerous.

Edward,

That was a joke. I know what ornery means.

Ooo, but maybe I was joking too! We have several options:

a) I knew it was a joke and took it a bit further
b) I didn't know it was a joke and thought I was being useful
c) I really like word definitions and posted it not really sure if it was a joke or not

Take your pick! For answers, urm. Yeah, it's C.

Since you really like word definitions, here's your word for the day : oppugnant.

That's a good one! Thanks!

I never heard that word before ... thanks as well.

The old "when did you stop beating your wife" technique employed beautifully. Rove isn't even going to be charged with a crime, let alone convicted.

Perhaps that's how we should refer to all political advisers from now on: e.g., "Paul Begala, who isn't a convicted criminal..."

Perhaps that's how we should refer to all political advisers from now on: e.g., "Paul Begala, who isn't a convicted criminal..."

I understand what you're saying, gzirra, we could go on and on about political tactics, etc. What I'm getting at here, though, is really embodied in the part of the comment that you didn't address. Taken in the context of the corruption, cronyism, and arguably criminal activities which have come to characterize the administration, the fact that a member of the administration can't be proved to be guilty of a crime seems like little to brag about.

But hey, they've got to take what they can get. I don't blame 'em.

The context of corruption, cronyism and arguably criminal activities seems to be applicable by either side to just about any recent administration, and it doesn't ring any more true here to either side. Politics at its best.

I don't see anyone bragging, either - just a lot of "yep, he was innocent" on one side, and a whole lot of of selective silence from the other that already had Rove tried, convicted, and in prison orange on the chain gang.

a whole lot of of selective silence from the other that already had Rove tried, convicted, and in prison orange on the chain gang.

Hey, I resemble that remark! ;-)

I had him tried, convicted, and in prison suit orange, but I was hoping for something a little different from the chain gang. I'm not selectively silent, I still think he's an immoral and unethical manipulator, I think he had a part in what he has been accused of, and I don't think for a minute the fact that enough evidence was not uncovered to charge him in any way vindicates him. Having said that, I have to accept that my point of view has taken its shot, and has not prevailed. I can deal with that, but, given that I haven't claimed that Rove would be convicted, I certainly don't have any need to admit that I was wrong.

Thinking about it, I may have predicted that he would be indicted (I honestly can't remember), and if I did do so I definitely will concede I was wrong about that. There's an expansive gulf between "did the deed" and "got indicted," though.

I've heard that Wilson's wife's CIA job was already well known about by Washington's press core. I've also heard some rumors that Wilson himself may have told some before hand about his wife's CIA connection.

Mmhmm. That's just the thing. There wasn't a leak.

Actually the law refers only to agents

not being indicted doesnt mean there hasnt been a crime.. doesnt mean there has been one either.
And besides they got that neo-con Libby. Hopefully this will get the repulican in name only Dick Cheney.

Hopefully this will get the repulican in name only Dick Cheney.

Seems I heard that about Rove also.

Hope truely springs enternal I guess.

woo-mufakin-hoo, Rob_NC - Mark it on your calendar, we agree! Thanks for the comment.
:-)

It's money that's getting in the way of our political process, and the sooner we can do something about that, the better off we'll all be. I'm saying we could start by throwing out all of the incumbents come November, Democrat and Republican, and try a fresh batch. I'd even go one-for-one, new Democrats and new Republicans (not that I have any say in that, of course). Are you in?

..interesting proposal..on first look I`d say hell yeah..but we still have current laws that are way to easy to manipulate..and lobbyist are in my opinion the scourge that corrupts the whole system..soo just kicking out the incumbents only delays what must be done...we must get money and perks away from our lawmakers..period..now in your opinion how do we do that and not infringe on my right to contribute to your campaign(figuatively)..we must come up with a system that is fair to the 10$ contributor as well as the billionaire..

now in your opinion how do we do that and not infringe on my right to contribute to your campaign(figuatively)..we must come up with a system that is fair to the 10$ contributor as well as the billionaire..

Yeah, Rob_NC, that's the tough part. A couple of states have begun to experiment with public funding of campaigns. It's a tough pill to swallow, but it may be our best shot. The problem seems to be that it is way too expensive to mount a campaign, largely because of the high costs associated with advertising. Because it takes a ton of money to fund a campaign, candidates try to get the best return they can for their fundraising time.

Practically, that means that the best and most efficient place for them to get the huge sums of money they need is from big corporate lobbyists. One aim of campaign finance reform needs to be to reduce the candidate's need for so much money. Maybe some sort of real spending limits combined with restrictions on advertising. If we can stop cigarette companies from advertising on TV, we should be able to limit campaign advertising during an election season.

Maybe a combination of restrictions on the types of campaigning, elimination of corporate money and special-interest funded advertising, and some form of public financing would help us to get those lobbyists out of our business. If we can't do any of that stuff, I'm going to have to say that maybe we need to reconsider term limits. I'd really rather limit someone's term by voting them out of office, but as you know that's damn hard to do in this day and age.

..AMEN...thing is we now know something must be done..and the House and Senate is not going to be the ones to do it on their own..you made a good start,you given me something to ponder....(-;}

Rove lives his life by playing dirty.

Dirty and illegal are two different things, though.

I'm not sure that I asserted that they were the same. I'm merely saying that if you skirt a line, people are going to try and push you over it.

I just don't feel sorry for him, or think that it's wrong to expect the worst of someone who constantly puts his worst foot forward.