No Charges Against Rove

David Johnston of the Times tells us that Fitzmas will be indefinitely postponed:

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.

Let me gulp down some crow - last May 8, I pegged the probability of a Rove indictment at 70%; a few days ago, I marked that down to 50% - well, at least I had the trend right.

Two quick guesses as to why there was no indictment:

(a) The Libby indictment looks very much like a failed attempt to force Libby to cooperate, presumably by testifying against Dick Cheney.  Evidently, the prospect of a second failed attempt held little appeal for Fitzgerald.

(b)  The Armitage angle made a Rove indictment problematic except as a package deal (as I discussed on May 19).  Briefly, Richard Armitage, former deputy Secretary of State, had apparently leaked about Ms, Plame's CIA affiliation to Bob Woodward in mid-June and Bob Novak in early July.  However, he seems to have only testified about the Woodward leak *after* the Libby indictment was handed down in Oct 2005, despite reminders and requests from Bob Woodward during 2004.  That looks a lot like obstruction and perjury, yet Special Counsel Fitzgerald has shown no interest in pursuing him.  Well, fine, but how can what Rove did (which amounted to forgetting about his talk with Matt Cooper of TIME) be considered indictable if Armitage's behavior was not?

Well.  I have no doubt my friends on the left will explain all this. [Corrected from "friend" to "friends", although if I keep up with the shameless gloating I will have the trend backwards].

MORE:  This spin could work: Rove Cleared, Zarqawi Dead, GOP Doomed.

Decision '08 questions the timing of this announcement:

[M]y only regret is that this didn’t happen when the PlameGate panel was meeting at the YearlyKos.

Oh, we are snarky today, aren't we?  That PlameGate Dream Team panel discussion ought to be a collector's item now.

ANOTHER COLLECTOR'S ITEM:  On the same June 12 that Fitzgwerald was informing Luskin that no charges were anticipated, Jason Leopold was keeping hope alive at TruthNot:

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."

We have not seen the contents of the indictment "06 cr 128". But the fact that this indictment was returned by the grand jury hearing evidence in the CIA leak case on a day that Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald met with the grand jury raised a number of questions about the identity of the defendant named in the indictment, whether it relates to the leak case, and why it has been under seal for a month under the heading Sealed vs. Sealed.

We don't know either, but Sweetness and Light notes that the attached case number looks more like the civil suit involving the TIME subpoenas than it does the criminal suit.  Of course, that only makes sense if someone messed up - why seal a case and then give it the appropriate (but supposedly secret) case number?  And I can't quite get PACER to kick up the TIME file with that case number, but the "00128" is a match.

PROPS: To the EmptyWheel, who noted that a key point of the Monday status hearing on Libby was to resolve the question of how long Fitzgerald could hide evidence under the "ongoing investigation" blanket.  Apparent answer - not much longer.

And is there a Newton's Law requiring that every "Props" has an equal and opposite "anti-Props"?  How about this, from a Dream Team Plame panelist on June 9:

you don’t leave a defendant hanging.  you either bring a charge or  let the defendant know.

which brings us to karl rove. the investigation is ongoing. she says that because she heard pat fitzgerald say "the investigation is on going." and the judge presiding over the libby case said "the investigation is on going." so, she guesses the invesigation is still ongoing. (many chuckles in the room).

Or not, and who's chuckling now?  (Besides me, and you should try typing while doubled over...). [Matt Drudge seems to be able to type and laugh!]

KEEP HOPE ALIVE!   Christy Hardin Smith staddles this case like a mighty Colossus, admitting that Rove looks to be clear but refusing to accept it:

On the one hand, how could Luskin, Rove's attorney, dare to mislead us?

it’s not surprising that Luskin would pick the NYTimes as his outlet for announcing news of a letter freeing-up Rove (if, indeed, that is what it fully does…although, I have to say, in all honesty, as an attorney you would never make an announcement like this without something in hand from the prosecutor which purports to say this — you’d never be taken seriously in any other case otherwise…)

On the other hand, never lack for tinfoil:

I’ve said this before, and I will say it again: 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, should the evidence (like handwritten marching orders on the Wilson op-ed in Dick Cheney’s handwriting) lead there.

As I read this, she is saying that Rove may walk, but Cheney is still a target.  Let me just say, I have no doubt Fitzgerald wanted Cheney, but he doesn't have him and won't get him.

In a further attempt to keep hope alive, note this misreading of Luskin's words.  From the Times:

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.

And how does Ms. Hardin Smith interpet that?

Hmmm…interesting that Luskin, who has blathered about town about every hangnail that he’s ever witnessed on any person involved in this matter suddenly clams up, isn’t it? And that he mentions the ongoing investigation…

No, he did *NOT* mention the "ongoing investigation", he mentioned the "pending case".  Now I understand that in somebody's fantasy, that is the pending case to be brought against Dick Cheney, but in my world, that is the pending case agaisnt Lewis Libby, a case in which Rove will almost surely be a witness.  And since he will be a witness, he has been asked to pipe down about the "subject matter of the investigation", which again, is a phrase with a different meaning than "the ongoing investigation".

UNRELENTING:  John Tabin of the American Spectator is enjoying the morning.

A QUICK CHANGE OF GEARS:  Dan Froomkin makes the perfectly valid point that Fitzgerald's decision not to indict hardly represents a complete exoneration, and he urges the press to get some answers:

Senior White House political adviser Karl Rove's successful avoidance of criminal charges in the CIA leak investigation is a huge win for the White House.

It's also a massive blow to those who had hoped that special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald's investigation would end Rove's career as a cunning and outlandishly successful Republican strategist.

And finally, it means Fitzgerald probably won't be shedding any more light on Rove's role in the outing of Valerie Plame.

By all rights, that latter job should now fall to the press.

The White House has long maintained -- spuriously, I might add -- that the ongoing criminal investigation precluded them from answering any questions even vaguely related to Rove's conduct.

Now, without charges against Rove in the offing, the media should demand answers to a slew of questions. The overriding issue: Just because Rove wasn't charged with a crime doesn't mean his conduct meets the standards the public expects from its White House.

Yes, but - the press may well decide on their own initiative to pursue this.  But after eight months of hearing from the left that the indictment of Rove was imminent, it is going to strain credulity for the left to grind through the gearbox and insist that this case really should have been pursued by the press after all.  Not that straining credulity is something the left has avoided on this case.

But no worries - the latest dodge, as articulated by Luskin, is that Rove can't comment on the pending Lobby case.

CHUCK, FIND YOUR SONGSHEET:  This AP story has Chuck Schumer off-message:

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said he accepts Fitzgerald's decision to not seek Rove's indictment but called on him to ferret out the person who leaked the name of then-CIA operative Valerie Plame and whether the disclosure amounts to criminal wrongdoing.

Schumer also said that Fitzgerald should issue a report on his findings and any decisions to seek the indictment of others. "I have every confidence in this decision because it was made by an independent and fair minded prosecutor," the senator told reporters at the Capitol.

"It is not good enough to simply have a case for perjury. We still need to know who did the leak," Schumer added. "We still need to make sure that anyone who did that is given the appropriate punishment."

Look, the fellow who leaked to Woodward and Novak is (IMHO) Richard Armitage, former Deputy Secretary of State, and an indictment seems to be unlikely.  I am not sure why that is, but I think that, in FitzgeraldWorld, Libby was part of a vicious White House conspiracy to make Joe Wilson cry; Armitage was just flapping his gums about a CIA operative.  That's a big difference.

OK, more seriously, I don't think Libby or Armitage had criminal intent, and I don't think either of them could ever have been indicted under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, since neither of them knew that Ms. Plame was covert.  However, Armitage's failure to come forward with his tale of the leak to Woodward threw a monkey-wrench in this investigation - why no indictment for perjury, or failed memory, or anything at all?

But let's go double or nothing - don't rule out Armitage as a candidate for indictment.  More later.

OR IS "LATER" NOW?  Is it just an extraodinary coincidence that Armitage is on the Charlie Rose show tonight?  Some possibilities:

(a) Yes, it is an extraordinary coincidence; Armitage has made no news for months, but here he is.

(b) Armitage can't wait to tell the world about his impending indictment - who wouldn't be bubbling over with excitement?

(c) Armitage will accept the opportunity to do a bit of a mea culpa, clear up his role in this (he never did get back to the many folks who called him last fall about the Woodward leak), and anounce that he, too is in the clear.

Choice (b) makes no sense (unless Fitzgerald offered him a chance to tell the world himself first???).  Go with (c), but don't bet the ranch.

Comments

[Jason Hjetland]

I knew it all along. No Fitzmas, but is there anyone else in the mix, perhaps our friend Mr. Armitage?

[noah]

Would that friend be Jeralyn Merritt? Her recent blog entries demonstrate conclusively that she is no friend of due process or fairness for our troops.

Personally, I take the moral failings of my friends seriously (ie, they either see the light or AMF!).

[Sue]

I must also eat some crow. I promised I would so please serve it up with lots of salt...and a jalapeno would be nice too...

[MayBee]

I was wisely very waffley.

I'm hearing Bush is in Baghdad????

[maryrose]

And I am not going to say I told you so: I'm really not.

[MayBee]

OK, interrupted myself.
I was very wisely too weasly to commit about Rove.

Bush is in Baghdad.

[Sue]

Bush is in Baghdad.

[Sue]

Woops...

::grin::

[Gary Maxwell]

I repeat my Diogenesian quest. someone please tell me why we should not break out in convulsive laughter whenever Leopold prints anything. I guess the sealed indictment disappeared into Area 54? Or the business clock on the wall had its batteries wore out and stuck on 10 minutes to midnight?

[clarice]

Well, TM, Mr. 70%, no make that 50%, eat my grits! Man, this is a grim time for the left..and just yesterday Jason Leopold reported secret v. secret..LOL

[Sue]

Go ahead Maryrose. When you're right you're right...

::grin::

...and I did say I would gladly eat that crow!

[MayBee]

Anyway, I'm a simple girl with a simple idea. Fitzgerald got led astray by the Marc Grossman "Strickly for Revenge" story. He indicted Libby because he thought Libby started the chain of leaks (like Begala and Carville in the Gennifer Flowers smear).
BUT Libby wasn't hiding the big leak, and Fitz wouldn't have indicted him if UGO would have stepped forward. Fitz just got it wrong, and he's been unable to extricate himself.
I didn't think he would step in it MORE by indicting Rove on charges that only mattered in a false narrative.

[MayBee]

In other words, now that Rove is not going to be indicted, I make my case for "yes, I always thought that. I just never said it outloud".

[Gary Maxwell]

Hold the phone! Several lefties sites are sure that the reason for this is.... Rove cut a deal to flip on Cheney!!!

Ha Ha Ha Ha I am getting pins in my sides from laughing at these bozos. The concusive force of all these dissonant waves is destroying their brains ( or what was left of them ).

[MayBee]

Seriously, though you guys.

Bush just landed in Baghdad. I think that's really cool. Now we know what the 70,000 troops were for.

[Sue]

Gary,

I was wondering how they would spin the no indictment. I figured they would go with the sealed v sealed theory. McNulty shut Fitzgerald down. Or some such nonsense. I guess wrong everytime, it would seem. ::grin::

[Semanticleo]

I'm glad to see there are enough sensible people here to be encouraged, but not celebratory.

If the leaker lawyer indeed has a letter from Fitz absolving Rove of ALL charges, it would
be highly unusual unless.........there is a bigger fish to fry.

[ordi]

I was wondering when Bush would go to Iraq again! Good for him!

Eat your Hearts out Dems!

[Patton]

This can only mean Cheney has been indicted.....and Rove turned States evidence....

[Sue]

Seriously, I thought Fitz would indict Rove. In fact, I was much higher in my percentage than Tom ever was. I thought he would right up to the point when the judge said Cooper could be impeached, whichever way he testified. I started to slow down then, but I still figured Fitz would indict.

[richard mcenroe]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA -- *ahem*

I'm feeling this weird sensation... either compassion or gas... but you know, it must be hell to be a lefty and realize that NOTHING YOU WANT WILL EVER HAPPEN...

[Sue]

Leo,

Why do you say that? What is your proof that it is highly unusual? Or are you just performing an obligatory wishful thinking moment?

[Sue]

Actually, Leo, I think I answered my own question upon further reflection. Rove's lawyer doesn't have a letter absolving Rove of anything. He has a letter that says he isn't going to indict him. There was nothing to absolve...capice?

[Sue]

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2ri.htm>Drudge is laughing.

[noah]

Fitz would have liked to continue the charade but the moonbat press speculation finally his Catholic schoolboy concience! So thank your fellow moonbats cleo!

[noah]

finally ROUSED his Catholic...

[Sue]

(Beside me, and you should try typing while doubled over...)

I'm glad to see there are enough sensible people here to be encouraged, but not celebratory.

One really has nothing to do with the other...for real...

::grin::

[Other Tom]

It is fair to say that my chest is swollen with gloating joy. By God, this is rich! Now we can sit back and wait for Leopold to deliver on his promise to out his sources if they proved to be incorrect. As I recall, he said he had one at Knight Ridder, one at ABC News, and a couple of others. But don't hold your breath...

[Gary Maxwell]

Feel sorry for Leo and admire his courage to come on here and spew nonsense in the face of all the facts that confront him. He is soldiering on, dispite the heaviness in his legs (and in his heart).

[Jeff]

Tom - Who's your single solitary friend on the left who's going to explain it?

And for what it's worth, your own snark about the Plame panel seems ill-placed, given the actual content of the thing. I think it will hold up pretty well, particularly given Waas' reminders about the unknown direction of the case.

As for your explanations, (b) is much more convincing than (a). Isn't is also possible that Fitzgerald simply thought Rove would be able to tell a convincing enough story that Fitzgerald lost confidence he could prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt?

In any case, with Bush in Iraq, if the Republicans end up turning it around this November, today will certainly be remembered as the day they officially turned it around.

[Sue]

Feel sorry for Leo (hmmm....leopold?...just kidding...) but don't wipe that smirk off your face.

[Sue]

if the Republicans end up turning it around this November

What's with the long face Jeff? ::grin:: Sorry. I am eating crow in case you didn't know. The democrats did it to themselves, if the republicans wind up turning it around. Culture of corruption is not a campaign slogan anyone should want to run on. Ask the republicans. They tried it and it didn't work for them either.

[John Loki]

(a) The Libby indictment looks very much like a failed attempt to force Libby to cooperate, presumably by testifying against Dick Cheney. Evidently, the prospect of a second failed attempt held little appeal for Fitzgerald.

I have been saying this for about a year now on Free Republic. Finally.

[The Unbeliever]

Wake up people, McHitlerBushiburton is pulling the wool over your eyes! This is just another plot by the Administration to subvert the American justice system. Obviously, the only way they could have gotten away with this is... Karl Rove and Patrick Fitzgerald are the same person!

Think about it, have any of you ever seen them in the same room together? No! Has anyone ever interviewed the people sitting on the grand jury to see if Fitz was just talking to himself those 5 times? No! Has Fitzgerald ever officially denied that he is Karl Rove in disguise? No!

It all makes total sense if you think about it. Or not.

[MayBee]

Jeff-
I think it will hold up pretty well, particularly given Waas' reminders about the unknown direction of the case.

As I was saying earlier. When in doubt, go non-committal. It holds up better over time.

[Gary Maxwell]

Jeff just made me crack up all over again. So when the Republicans add a net gain of a Senator to their totals and three House seats its all Leopold and Fitzgerald fault!!! How about the Zarq man for getting himself caught. Its his fault too. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA got to stop HAHAHAHAHAHA PLEASE NO! MORE ! (POSTS LIKE THAT).

[The Unbeliever]

Seriously though, I may have to put on my hazard suit today and go wading through the lefty fever swamps. There oughta be some priceless quotes coming out of them that should be saved for all posterity.

[jerry]

Wha... no indictment? What the hell, I could have sworn I'd read there would be! What are the odds that Leopold got rolled by Rove? windandsea?

Actually, I prefer the WaPo headline "Rove Unlikely to be Charged" as it seems to more accurately describes the situation.

I'd still like to see a JOM/KOS Plame panel discussion.

[NOTE: Keep Hope Quashed! I assume Jerry cited the WaPo headline accurately, but it now reads this:

"Karl Rove Won't Be Charged in CIA Leak Case"]

[davod]

I am not a lawyer so forgive me for being sceptical. I wonder whether charges could still be brought at or around October/November.

[Sue]

LOL. The fun to be had by slumming. One enterprising poster has the answer. Rove has something on Fitzgerald. ::grin::

[Semanticleo]

Here's Luskin's formal 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. Rove’s conduct.

[verner]

Who is watching HARDBALL tonight? I am!!!

Zarqawi dead.

Bush in Iraq.

No Rove Indictment.

Life is good.

My only question is, will Matthews: a) cry like Katie Couric, b. rave like Howard Dean c. act like a chimp again or d. all of the above.

[Gary Maxwell]

Sue

Did he say what? I am thinking it must be compromising pictures with barnyard animals!

[jag]

I'm sure somebody can explain to me why a prosecutor would bring any charges BEFORE he determined whether or not an actual crime was commited.

Fitzgerald must be a special form of idiot because this fact has never made any sense. If Fitz thinks he'll be able to convict anyone, of anything, without demonstrating to a jury that an actual crime was commited he better pray for a panel of equally stupid jurors.

[lurker]

I wonder if Donald Luskin and Rove's Luskin are brothers...

Donald Luskin has been successful in disproving every Paul Krugman article.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Gary @ 0622:

Hold the phone! Several lefties sites are sure that the reason for this is.... Rove cut a deal to flip on Cheney!!!

Semanticleo @ 0625:

If the leaker lawyer indeed has a letter from Fitz absolving Rove of ALL charges, it would be highly unusual unless.........there is a bigger fish to fry.

Patton @ 0625:

This can only mean Cheney has been indicted.....and Rove turned States evidence....

Heh. Heh. Heh.

(PS. I'd like to note that I also predicted no indictment. I gloat. Gloat gloat.)

[Epphan]

It's Fitzmas morning and the Dems are a Jewish kid!

[Semanticleo]

Sue;

I will feel a similar compassion for you if you have to eat crow for breakfast, then again for dinner. :::smirk:::

[Gary Maxwell]

Verner

I was going to say D but on rereading I think you have a typo in C. You typed "chimp" but I think you meant to key "ass". With that correction made and easily understood, I would guess its nearly obvious that the answer is, of course, D All of the above.

[Semanticleo]

Patton;

The idiot from Colorado called you a lefty!

Bwahahahahahahaha!

[cathyf]

If you are interested TM, I think I can fire up mathematica and use its sophisticated data-fitting routines to find you a nice function that goes through 70%, 50% and 0 on the three appropriate dates. Then you can claim that you are just an expert in higher-order mathematics, and predicted it all along, and us peons just wouldn't understand. *grin*

cathy :-)

[Sue]

Sue;

I will feel a similar compassion for you if you have to eat crow for breakfast, then again for dinner. :::smirk:::

You are allowed to smirk. But could you tell me why I will need to eat crow for supper? And BTW, it needed black pepper. The salt was okay, but it lacked something. ::grin::

[lurker]

Add to the good news on Rove, great news coming from Iraq (in addition to Bush's appearance in Baghdad).

[Sue]

I have to say that immunity in exchange for cooperation is certainly something that has crossed my mind after the unusual multiple testimonial appearances before the grand jury that Rove made. And I have to wonder what that does mean, if so. And when we’ll find out.

http://firedoglake.com/>Source

The left is not giving up.

[Dwilkers]

OK, I get to gloat too. I posted some weeks ago saying Rove wasn't going to be indicted.

8^)>~~

Really though this absolutely BEGS the question: what is Fitz up to with this GJ?

I'll repeat my guess from the other thread; Armitage. Since there apparently is some logic to what Fitz is doing, Armitage is the best guess IMO.

[Sue]

Okay...so I Larwyn'd the board. ::grin::

[TallDave]

Having always thought Rove would escape indictment, I'm ready for a big "I TOLD YOU SO!!"

The evidence against Rove always seemed incredibly flimsy.

[lurker]

Last week's turning point:

Make al-Zarqawi's death a turning point

To be coupled with today's two major announcements (Rove and Bush). YAY!!

Immunity? Oh, lordy, lordy, lordy. If Rove thinks he's innocent and had the information on somebody else, why would he need immunity?

[Semanticleo]

"The salt was okay, but it lacked something. ::grin::

Maybe you should take a grain of salt with
your assumptions about the status of the case.

(see actualabove statement by Luskin, and look for some holes)

My compassion waits for your next dish of crow, should it be served.

[maryrose]

Verner:
You are right once again! I can't wait for Hardball tonight. I expect to see Shuster and Matthews looking VERY unhappy.

[lurker]

Hey, Clarice, Rick Moran just gave you credit:

"I have my own ghosts to expunge here because for the last year I have been predicting that Rove would be indicted. Clarice Feldman at The American Thinker tried knocking some sense into me several times by telling me that Fitzy didn’t have a thing on Rove and that I was making way too much of press coverage of the story.

Clarice was right. I was dead wrong.

I will be following this story today by reading Tom McGuire and Clarice Feldman who I’m sure are busy at the moment gathering their thoughts so that they can tell us “what it all means.” Check back here for updates on this breaking story."

I know...check his site. Congratulations! :)

[lurker]

Hahaha, liked the way Rick closed it:

"Tom McGuire tells us what it all means and acknowleges his erroneous prognistication regarding Rove’s indictment:

Two quick guesses as to why there was no indictment:

(a) The Libby indictment looks very much like a failed attempt to force Libby to cooperate, presumably by testifying against Dick Cheney. Evidently, the prospect of a second failed attempt held little appeal for Fitzgerald.

(b) The Armitage angle made a Rove indictment problematic except as a package deal…

And Clarice Feldman emails me with her immediate thoughts:

You might want to simply quote Tom Maguire who’s getting punched around on his own site because he always thought Rove would be indicted. (I bet Fitz wishes he could take back the Libby indictment, tt.) C

He may yet."

[clarice]

Podhoretz(NRO The Corner):

THE TREK-O-METER

$2,495.00

(What's this?)

Fitzgerald and Rove [John Podhoretz]

Karl Rove won't say it, and his lawyer won't say it, but I'll say it: Patrick Fitzgerald's conduct in the Rove matter has been disgraceful. He kept Rove hanging for eight months with his bizarre game of keeping the Rove case "open" even though he claimed he did not expect any more indictments. I'd guess this cost Rove several hundred thousand dollars in legal fees and months of sleepless nights. Nice work, Patrick. You have once again reminded us why the misbegotten term "special prosecutor" should be considered an obscenity.
Posted at 7:57 AM

Forbes hints that Armitage is still in peril.

Piffle.
And Libby's case is shrinking faster than a half baked souffle.

Sorry, lefties, you still have to win elections to hold power and you can't win elections without a message people like.

[lurker]

Strata-sphere has some interesting Fitzgerald Quits While He Is Behind

He considers this good news for Libby.

[Jane]

Well gee I think I get one big fat "I told you so" because I never thought Rove was going to be indicted, and said so. Since it was a gut feeling, it doesn't get me much.

I tell you tho, the sun is bright, the sky is blue, the air is crisp, Bush is in Baghdad, Zarqawi is dead and yesterday I won an ipod and Bose earphones from the bank. Life is good!

[noah]

Like a busted clock that is right twice a day, I too predicted no indictment. More to bust TM's chops than for any substansive reason. IIRC, I thought Rove's alleged offense to trivial to merit prosecution.

[Jane]

So let's ask Jason to reveal his source:

[email protected]

[Gary Maxwell]

Well Hugh Hewitt found this gem in the DUmp and its so good it should be shared for all to savor. Here it is:

This doesn't make sense
Is it possible that Rove was actually indicted on May 12 like truthout reported, but somehow Bush got involved to stop it? Maybe Bush told Fitz that he was going to pardon Rove so Fitz dropped it. Or maybe Rove has some dirt on Fitz so Fitz dropped it.

[Sue]

(see actualabove statement by Luskin, and look for some holes)

Come on, Leo. I don't look for pies in the sky. That's why I'm not considered a lefty. ::grin::

[Jeff]

Tom - Glad to see you're aiming your Plame-panel snark with a little more precision. And I'll note that I've made the point about "pending case" twice so far this morning, once at fdl and once at tnh.

[lurker]

Here's the latest top ten whiners

Subject to change throughout the day.

[Dwilkers]

Two quick guesses as to why there was no indictment

May I add a third?

When Walton admitted Cooper's drafts in the Libby case Fitz abandoned any hope those documents would remain concealed. Given Cooper's status as the fulcrum on which any tale of Rove perjury was leveraged Fitz gave it up as hopeless.

[lurker]

Jeff, I thought Judge Walton wanted to know the status of Fitz's ongoing investigation because of the CIA Referral letter????

[BurbankErnie]

Ha Ha Ha

The Dems are such a punching bag, whipping boy charactature. I love the ones still posting here "KEEP HOPE ALIVE" and SPEAK TRUTH TO POWER".
Classic. Why post, when the real entertainment is reading the Lefties doing mental pretzel logic.
1,00 AlGores. Can you imagine? Yeah, that will win you elections! The hits just keep on coming! And Dean's (Screamin' Howie of course) response was just awesome calling Rove a Sinner. Quote "That does not excuse his real sin which is leaking the name of an intelligence operative during the time of war. He doesn't belong in the White House."

Ha Ha Ha.....

[Rick Ballard]

The Libby indictment sits alone like the class clown in a corner wearing a dunce cap. A wise use of time and energy, Fitz.

Will CheapTalkLeft continue to stand by her man? Will she now insist that he keep his "word" and reveal the source of the voices he keeps hearing? Will the left's hash fog ever lift?

Although we know the answers, the fun is in asking the questions.

[Gary Maxwell]

OK we have a winner! From one of the first posts at an open thread on KOS. Warning major spew alert. This is a classic. See if you dont agree:

I don't think I've ever seen such a look of misery and dejection on the face of my daughter as I just did a moment ago. She just couldn't understand why the President would be going to Iraq when so many things are wrong in this country. "Doesn't Mr. Bush care about us anymore?" she asked pitifully.

I sat down with her on the sofa and (as calmly as I could) tried to explain to her why the President seems to be abandoning his country. "Honey, I think his boss, Mr. Rove, sent Mr. Bush out of the country in order to keep himself out of the newspapers. You see, he wasn't sure if he was going to be arrested today or not, and so he planned Mr. Bush's trip ahead of time just in case..."

I tried to keep my voice steady, but it became increasingly difficult - the rage and feelings of helplessness were just too much. I think my daughter could tell something was wrong. I found myself at such a loss for words - nothing made any sense; nothing makes sense anymore. I finally had to admit, "Honey, I just don't know - I don't know what's going on in this country anymore..."

When I finished her lower lip started to tremble and her eyes began to fill with tears, "Daddy" she said, "why are the Republicans doing this to the country?" Well, that was it for me: I finally fell apart. She just fell into my arms and we both began sobbing for several minutes.

For once she had to comfort me and get me back on my feet. Sometimes I just think it's too much, but seeing the strength in my young daughter's voice helped me to get through.

Shouldn't Child Prtective Services be called, as this poster is not well at all.

[Sue]

Gary,

That is a parody. No one is that dillusional. Surely...

::scared look::

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Ol' Matt Cooper is having a bad week. His Haditha story is falling apart, and now his other claim to fame--'Rove told me about Plame'--is an official non-event.

[Semanticleo]

I don't look for pies in the sky.

guess that's why they say 'all perception is selective'.

[JM Hanes]

"Let me gulp down some crow..."

Not so fast, please! :)

[lurker]

Sorry, this Donald Luskin is a different person than Rove's Donald Luskin.

[Sue]

Leo,

Get over it dude. Rove will not be indicted. I've already eaten my crow. It was tough and chewy but otherwise, not that bad. You should do the same. Keeping up hope at this point is not productive. Look to Libby for your inspiration.

[lurker]

Can you believe what Nancy Pelosi said????

[MayBee]

Sue- in honor of the subject at hand-- our dear Ms Plame--when eating that crow you should sit in a corner wearing darling ear muffs and nibble.

[Semanticleo]

Sue;

I am just applying the local principle of waiting until this one-source-story plays out.

It might be prudent for you to do the same.

[TallDave]

Gary: Yeah, I quoted that one over at PW.

Beyond parody, there is... DKos!

[noah]

That poor, pathetic "man of the Left". God help his daughter... God help us all.

[ordi]

Mr Wilson's Lawyer speaks:

Statement of Christopher Wolf, Proskauer Rose LLP, Counsel for Ambassador Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame Wilson

“We have become aware of the communication between Mr. Fitzgerald and Mr. Luskin concerning Karl. Rove’s status in the criminal investigation. We have no first-hand knowledge of the reason for the communication or what further developments in the criminal investigation it may signal. While it appears that Mr. Rove will not be called to answer in criminal court for his participation in the wrongful disclosure of Valerie Wilson’s classified employment status at the CIA in retaliation against Joe Wilson for questioning the rationale for war in Iraq, that obviously does not end the matter. The day still may come when Mr. Rove and others are called to account in a court of law for their attacks on the Wilsons.”

Sound like the next stop is civil court! What a braying jackass!

[lurker]

Can you believe what firedoglake said:

"Here’s what I do know: Karl Rove has been moved out of his palatial White House digs into a smaller, windowless room across the hall. Joshua Bolten has been wielding more and more influence with Bush of late, and Rove has slunk back into the background for the moment. In DC, loss of power and influence — even if it is only the perception of it — can be a painful thing. But for Rove, the most painful thing of all would be for the Democrats to re-take Congress. Guess what I’m going to be working on for the next few months? Help me mete out a little justice in the form of a Democratic victory this fall, won’t you?"

He moved into a tiny, small, windowless office????

[topsecretk9]

"yes, I always thought that. I just never said it outloud".

I went out on the No Indictment limb and DWILKERS AND our Mascot Herbie did too!

[TallDave]

Oh, and I would further add:

If Fitz knew then what he knows now, I doubt Libby would have been indicted either. Woodward blew his statements right out of the water.

[MayBee]

My bold prediction(s):

No more indictments in this case.
No indictments for conspiracy because there was no conspiracy.
No indictments for outing an agent.
No indictment of Cheney because he did nothing wrong.
No indictments against Armitage because he's out of the administration, he's well respected, and our allies like him.
No indictment for Cooper or Grossman, although they will be embarassed.
And Wilson will not pursue a civil case, because even he knows the ridiculousness of that.

[Gary Maxwell]

A liberal wants to caution against one source stories and urges patience as being prudent. Someone get the NYTimes, the AP and Mike Nifong on a conference call. They all need to hear the clarion call. What he did not say the same thing on other matters? Surely you jest.

[lurker]

Ordi, let them file a civil case against Rove but what they will find is that their evidence is slimsy and weak. After all, with that one $10,000 award and speaking fees should cover the lawyer fees.

[Wilson's a liar]

LOL@firedoglake.

Heard Michael Barone fairly cackling this AM on Laura Ingraham's show. He said the Democrats actually will have to campaign now, and he isn't sure they are capable of it, especially with wacky Howard at the helm of the DNC.

[topsecretk9]

Ordi

The day still may come

Read never. WIlson would NEVER do it, he is arrogant but I don't think they are that dumb.

[Wilson's a liar]

Actually, Wilson will be damn lucky if Rove does not sue him for libel and defamation.

[Sue]

Maybee,

You should see my earmuffs. They are a sight to behold. Suffice it to say, I am a hottie in my earmuffs. ::grin::

[Gary Maxwell]

slimsy

Combining slimey and flimsy. That is about right. Great coinage.

[lurker]

Ah ha! As expected, here's the but, but, but part.

"The news today is that Karl Rove will not be indicted by Patrick Fitzgerald. I'll be back later with more on this. But first thought: that doesn't mean that Rove and the White House didn't do anything wrong. In fact, the White House falsely stated that (a) Rove (and Scooter Libby) were not involved in the leak and (b) that anyone involved would no longer work in the White House. Rove did tell two reporters (Robert Novak and Matt Cooper) about Joe Wilson's wife's employment at the CIA (undeniably classified information). And he's still working at the White House. What does that say about the man in charge of the White House?

More to come...."