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.
Or just maybe .... (to put on my most shiney foil truthout hat for a moment) ... since there is no hard set rule limiting the scope of the investigation ... Fitz has stumbled upon a connection between Joe Wilson's Africa "consulting" work and Bill Jefferson's side business in greasing political wheels and that Wilson will be indicted as part of a larger corruption scandal.
Nah ... nevermind.
Posted by: crosspatch | June 13, 2006 at 04:58 PM
To repeat myself: Fitz is not the kind of man to chuckle softly at being played for a fool. If I were one of the players, I'd be real concerned 'bout now.
Posted by: ghostcat | June 13, 2006 at 04:59 PM
Hardball on!!!!
Posted by: verner | June 13, 2006 at 05:00 PM
The Greatest Kos Posting Ever [John Podhoretz]
The poster's handle is CheChe. The text captures everything you need to know about the Angry Left:
To paraphrase Oscar Wilde: It would take a heart of stone not to laugh at the grief of Little CheChe.
Posted at 3:11 PM
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDNiNDBkMTBjYmNiNDZhZThmNDAwN2FjZGYxNmE2OGY=
Posted by: Sara (The Squiggler) | June 13, 2006 at 05:00 PM
Posted by: Sara (The Squiggler) | June 13, 2006 at 05:01 PM
According to ABC News radio, the Grand Jury believed Rove's story. I took the reporter to mean that Fitzgerald tried to get the indictment and couldn't.
Posted by: Sue | June 13, 2006 at 05:03 PM
topsecretk9 - how is it that Armitage is mad at Grossman? I thought they were like super best friends... I've been trying to keep up, but I must have missed something along the way...
Well, there is a theory that Grossman played two ends of the stick here...How did Armitage learn it was a boondoggle set up by the CIA joker and his wife? Hint: INR Memo...AKA don't worry boss, us DoS guys weren't involved...Army went a blabbing...
Posted by: topsecretk9 | June 13, 2006 at 05:04 PM
Sara,PW posted that and commentors show that Che Che keeps reprising that story sticking in the theme of the day..LOL
Posted by: clarice | June 13, 2006 at 05:04 PM
Wilson's a Liar.
Shoot, that's easy. Hillary hitched herself to the wagon she knew was going places. She was correct, it took her to the Top. In her mind, it was worth it. Same with Val. Some women do not seek love in a marriage, some women crave power, others fame others money. There are many reasons to marry.
Posted by: ordi | June 13, 2006 at 05:04 PM
--If I were one of the players, I'd be real concerned 'bout now.--
You know...I think so too. I do not think Fitzgerald was aware that Wilson and Grossman were vacation partners.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | June 13, 2006 at 05:06 PM
Top,
There was a lot Fitzgerald wasn't aware of, it would seem.
Posted by: Sue | June 13, 2006 at 05:07 PM
I don't buy the Val as a victim line at all. My guess is that she's been prodding Joey along since she met him.
Posted by: Jane | June 13, 2006 at 05:09 PM
Spectator blog (too lazy to link)
Ask Armitage - Tuesday, June 13, 2006 @ 4:40:54 PM
Richard Armitage appears tonight on "Charlie Rose." Visitors to Rose's website can post questions to his guests. Since Rose wouldn't think to ask the tough questions, perhaps our readers can submit the one question everyone wants Armitage asked: "When will you admit that you were a source for reporters in the Joe Wilson scandal?"
You can submit the question here.
Posted By: The Washington Prowler
http://www.charlierose.com/
(there is a link to email questions on Rose's site)
Posted by: topsecretk9 | June 13, 2006 at 05:09 PM
Yes, Hillary is a good comparison to Val. She covered up the rapes and hired Pellicano. According to Dick Morris, who knows them both, she is both paranoid, ruthless and power hungry--the worse of the pair. And he should know.
David Gregory has his panties in a knot. He didn't get a ticket to Baghdad on Airforce One--poor dear. Wonder why?
Posted by: verner | June 13, 2006 at 05:11 PM
Another Winner - Tuesday, June 13, 2006 @ 4:46:45 PM
Lost in taking down the MSM / Nutroot sycophants like Schuster and Olberman, was perhaps the biggest winner in the clearance of Karl Rove's good name: Scooter Libby.
Given the witnesses on which independent prosecutor Pat Fitzgerald has pegged his prosecution of Libby, namely Judith Miller and more imporantly Time's Matt Cooper, the Rove decision looms large. Cooper's story is slowly losing air, with it becoming increasingly apparent that at least two of the five charges pending against Libby have little to stand on. The New York Times has done a good job of devouring its own and discrediting Miller beyond repair.
So the question is: where does Fitzgerald go with Libby? Clearly, the case will go forward, but in speaking with Libby supporters there is a growing sense that they believe Libby will prevail.
Posted By: The Washington Prowler
Me: Prediction...once this sets in, who started this enormous farce mess that their asses are in a sling for...expect media to start the re-scrutinization (I made the word up) of the guy that started it and duped them 2ce - starts with a "W" ends with a "N"...I expect claws to start coming out.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | June 13, 2006 at 05:13 PM
Shoot, that's easy. Hillary hitched herself to the wagon she knew was going places. She was correct, it took her to the Top. In her mind, it was worth it. Same with Val. Some women do not seek love in a marriage, some women crave power, others fame others money. There are many reasons to marry.
You've got the male nymphomaniac and the lesbian meeting in college and discovering they have the same obsession ... be President. Both exceptionally bright ... they strike a deal, get married, she consents to have the obligatory 1 child, he agrees to keep his obsession private ... he blew it, she takes advantage. Pathetic!
Posted by: Sara (The Squiggler) | June 13, 2006 at 05:17 PM
So far on Hardball it's all about Bush in Baghdad, David Gregory saying his usual shit, Joe Biden saying it isn't better there - and then Chris asks about Rove and whether the president will keep his word (what word I'm unclear but the implication was to fire Rove) and Biden says "no". Talk of Rove is scheduled for later in the show.
Meanwhile...Here is Raw Story's latest. The dems are hanging on by their toenails:
Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA) is requesting a Congressional
investigation into Karl Rove's involvement in the CIA leak scandal,
RAW STORY has learned.
A release issued by Waxman follows:
#
In light of reports that Special Counsel Fitzgerald will not pursue
criminal charges against Karl Rove -- and does not appear likely to
file a report or make other public statements about findings -- Rep.
Waxman renewed his request to Chairman Davis for a congressional
investigation that would provide public accountability and address
unanswered questions. The text of the letter follows:
June 13, 2006
The Honorable Tom Davis
Chairman
Committee on Government Reform
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Over the past several years, I have made five separate
requests for a Committee investigation of the White House leak of
former CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson's identity.[1] From the outset,
I expressed my view that the criminal investigation by Special Counsel
Patrick Fitzgerald criminal inquiry could not be a substitute for a
congressional inquiry because of the "narrow focus" of the criminal
investigation and the possibility that the criminal investigation
could be closed without any "public accounting" of what transpired. [2]
Your consistent response was that you did not want to open a
congressional investigation while the Special Counsel was conducting
his investigation, but that "if a need for a separate congressional
investigation becomes evident" you would "not hesitate to act."[3]
In light of today's reports that Special Counsel Fitzgerald will not
pursue criminal charges against Karl Rove - and does not appear likely
to file a report or make other public statements about his findings -
I renew my request for congressional hearings and a public accounting
of Mr. Rove's actions.
By all accounts, Mr. Fitzgerald has conducted a thorough investigation
into whether Mr. Rove committed a crime by leaking Ms. Wilson's
identity or lying to federal investigators. But these are not the only
questions that need to be answered about Mr. Rove's conduct.
As I have recounted in my previous correspondence, there are
important regulatory requirements for safeguarding classified
information that applied to Mr. Rove. Like other officials with
security clearances, Mr. Rove was prohibited from making both
intentional and negligent disclosures of classified information,[4]
confirming classified information obtained by a reporter,[5] or
repeating classified information he heard from a reporter.[6]
Violations of these rules would not necessarily be criminal actions,
but they would be reprehensible and should be a matter of great public
and congressional concern.
Moreover, there remain questions (1) whether Mr. Rove was part
of a coordinated White House effort to discredit and retaliate against
Ms. Wilson's husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson, (2) whether Mr.
Rove was part of an effort to mislead the public about White House
involvement in the leak, and (3) whether reforms are needed in White
House procedures to prevent future leaks of classified information.
I am mindful that there is an on-going criminal trial
involving I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, the Vice President's former chief
of staff, and I would not want efforts by our Committee to interfere
with that prosecution. But given that Mr. Fitzgerald appears to have
completed his inquiry of Mr. Rove, it should be possible for the
Committee to initiate an effort to examine Mr. Rove's actions without
jeopardizing Mr. Libby's trial. A good first step would be to
schedule a meeting with Mr. Fitzgerald in which he can brief us about
his findings regarding Mr. Rove and we can discuss with him the best
way to proceed.
As I have written in my previous correspondence, Congress has
a constitutional obligation to provide a check and balance on the
executive branch. Providing a public accounting of the actions of Mr.
Rove is an important part of fulfilling this obligation.
Sincerely,
Henry A. Waxman
Ranking Minority Member
Posted by: Jane | June 13, 2006 at 05:19 PM
Chris Matthews visibly upset on Hardball because as the title on the bottom of the screen says" Rove Runs Free:...
Chris says Bush said he'd fire any leakers...pouty face. Then Chris says: Libby and Rove both leaked[sad face}
Then Chris asks Biden: Is Bush going to offer an explanation about this?
Biden laughs and says" Are you Kidding"
Shuster is a no show on the program. He has leopold status now-he's radioactive.
Posted by: maryrose | June 13, 2006 at 05:24 PM
Govt Reform and Henry Waxman. There is an oxymoron if I ever saw one. Of course you know what ranking minority member means. The guy would be chairman under a Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Murtha. Larry, Moe and Curly.
Posted by: Gary Maxwell | June 13, 2006 at 05:25 PM
Biden followed by Trent Lott. LOL
Lott told Matthews that it was time to move on...LOL.
Now it's on to "good news for Rove, bad news for Libby" I swear I'm not making that up.
Lisa Myers on now.
It was all up to his testimony on Matt Cooper--and we know where that stands.
No frogmarching...LOL.
Posted by: verner | June 13, 2006 at 05:29 PM
Rove VINDICATED...eat it mathews!!!
Kennedy GUILTY....bite it Mathews!!!
Zaqawi DEAD!.....Bush visits Baghdad.... Swallow hard Mathews!!!
Mathews needas to continue his lies...claims Bush said he would fire leakers...BUSH NEVER SAID IT.
Mathews has credibility with him 50,000 viewers, the ones who aren't laughing at him.
Posted by: Patton | June 13, 2006 at 05:30 PM
Democrats winning midterm campaign message:
If you elect me, I promised to hold hearings on
Valerie Plame Outing!
Posted by: topsecretk9 | June 13, 2006 at 05:31 PM
OT - Rothielsberger upgraded to fair condition, to be released from hospital in 3 to 5 days. Good news! Go Steelers. And Ben, wear a helmet ALL THE TIME!
Posted by: Sara (The Squiggler) | June 13, 2006 at 05:32 PM
sorry can't spell today - Roethlisberger
Posted by: Sara (The Squiggler) | June 13, 2006 at 05:34 PM
If Abrams wants to bring any credibility to the network, he needs to get rid of Mathews and Shuster, and then Olberman
Posted by: Patton | June 13, 2006 at 05:34 PM
--claims Bush said he would fire leakers...BUSH NEVER SAID IT.--
Kinda hard to fire Amritage since he isn't in Govt. anymore, anyways.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | June 13, 2006 at 05:34 PM
Matthews is so pathetic!! He is desperate to get somebody on air to agree with him that Bush promised to fire anyone from "the White House" (not what Bush said)who "leaked V. Plame's name and Rove did it twice (no, he did not) and that Bush should now fire Rove despite no indictment. Even Joe Biden laughed at him for that one. He won't let it drop. Keeps saying Val was a covert agent. (Someone has to debunk that nonsense once and for all). Matthews acts like someone just let all the air out of his balloon. I guess they did.
Posted by: Florence Schmieg | June 13, 2006 at 05:35 PM
How could he fire the them when the reporters already knew who Valerie Plame was.
Whooo. John Dickerson is on too. What a joke.
Posted by: verner | June 13, 2006 at 05:37 PM
If Abrams wants to bring any credibility to the network, he needs to get rid of Mathews and Shuster, and then Olberman
-----------
Fat chance, he thinks these guys walk on water.
I watch Tucker Carlson and that's it for me with MSNBC.
Posted by: Sara (The Squiggler) | June 13, 2006 at 05:37 PM
Yeah John, Rove was involved IN TELLING THE PRESS NOT TO GO THERE.
Matthews: Did they flip them? Too much!
Posted by: verner | June 13, 2006 at 05:40 PM
EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove
Sometimes people just don't know when to cry "uncle." I do. I asked Robert Luskin this morning if Karl Rove has made a deal with Fitzgerald. His response:
"There has never, ever been any discussion of a deal in any way, shape or form."
Which is exactly what Luskin told me weeks ago. It's over, folks. Karl Rove will not be charged with a crime. He's cooperated with Fitzgerald by testifying to the grand jury five times and providing whatever information he had without a safety net. Without a 5k. Without assurances he would not be indicted. That's a hell of a risk, but Luskin pulled it off. My hat's off to Luskin.
posted at talk left who I will not link to until she apologizes for posting unsubstantiated rumors about our troops
Posted by: windansea | June 13, 2006 at 05:43 PM
"I must stop Fitzmas from coming!
But how?"
Posted by: megapotamus | June 13, 2006 at 05:45 PM
Gary,
I think I figured it out - the Dems are inventing a Fantasy Political League and Pelosi got to name her team first.
That or the promise about Alcee Hastings was a sop to the black caucus to get them to help in getting Cold Cash out of sight.
I think that Cold Cash should fight them tooth and nail. He's innocent until the verdict is read no matter what the videotape shows. Mollihan was such a sissy.
I hope Rocky shows more backbone when he's indicted.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | June 13, 2006 at 05:46 PM
Jeff Goldstein is on a roll, but his latest is hilarious...what's that? Rove is an "unimpeachable witness now"? pretzels for everyone!
Posted by: topsecretk9 | June 13, 2006 at 05:47 PM
Alcee Hastings helps sell the tattered remains of "Culture of Corruption ( laughing while I type ). The guy was impeached and thrown out of office by a Democrat congress for gosh sakes.
Posted by: Gary Maxwell | June 13, 2006 at 05:48 PM
How disappointed Matthews must be. Even pulling in his usual lackeys like Isakoff, he can't win. Isakoff (what a loser that guy is) of course believes Rove was a leaker, etc., At least Van deHei (spelling? sorry) told him to get over it, it's done. If this wansn't so pathetic, I might enjoy this. But Matthews seems not to entertain the idea that Rove didn't do anything wrong. Oh no! The MSM narrative cannot be altered. May God have mercy on our country if the MSM does not change its stripes.
Posted by: Florence Schmieg | June 13, 2006 at 05:48 PM
Matthews: Primary leaker, it wasn't Armitage was it...(With a grin on his face)
They are hopeless. Matthews just won't let it go. And Isakoff thinks that if the dems win the house, they will hold hearings.
Dream on. Cause if they do, the repubs will get a chance to put Wilson adn Val under oath.
It's kind of like Wilson threatening a civil suit, or Waxman calling for hearings. Words are cheap. They have to do it--it's what the faithful expect. But it will NEVER happen.
In a couple of months we'll read a statement from Joe that goes something like: "our family has been through enough..."
Posted by: verner | June 13, 2006 at 05:50 PM
I love this post as a follow-up:
Well at least if they are bugging Goldberg they aren't coming here.
Posted by: Sara (The Squiggler) | June 13, 2006 at 05:51 PM
"In a couple of months we'll read a statement from Joe that goes something like: "our family has been through enough..."
Followed by,"Because of the smears and innuendos directed at us,our marriage has been put under such strain that we are having a trial separation whilst we work through this."
Posted by: PeterUK | June 13, 2006 at 05:55 PM
Gary,
You go with what you've got. I hear that R/S/S is having a tough time keeping them with the 'Culture of Corruption' schtick. Loretta Sanchez is having trouble sleeping and there are a number of others having trouble keeping food down.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | June 13, 2006 at 05:57 PM
PUK, you cynic. Hoe right you are. When that moment comes, take a victory lap and I'll remind everyone why.
Posted by: clarice | June 13, 2006 at 05:58 PM
I know it's poor form to brag, but I did predict no indictment for Rove and I was one of the earlier posters to guess that Armitage was the UGO. Bragging over.
I missed the first part of Matthews. Bush should tell Matthews he'll fire Rove when Matthews hires that hack Shuster. Oh, never mind. Was Shuster on?
Posted by: kate | June 13, 2006 at 05:59 PM
I am starting to understand what exactly happened here. It wasn't Woodwards testimony that blew Fitzmas apart.
It was clearly Zaqawi had the goods on Rove, once we offed Zaqawi, Fitz couldn't use his SEALED testimony. But Zaqawi didn't die, so Bush had to fly to Baghdad, probably on a SR-71, to deliver the Coup De Grace', to Zaqawi and save Rove.
Mean while, Rove has been setting up Democrats like Kennedy, Jefferson, Mckinney with false charges.
Sources claim Rove was spotted in the back seat of Kennedys carm, he was found in Jeffersons refrigerator and he was caught pushing McKinney into the officer.
He not be indicted by Fitz, but only because a fair trial is too good for him!!
Posted by: Patton | June 13, 2006 at 06:01 PM
OT
Man a good day just keeps getting better. What is the line the C & W " why conat every day be just this good? Committee at U of Colorado votes to recommend that Churchill( Ward that is ) be fired 6- 3 vote. One more step and he is toast.
Posted by: Gary Maxwell | June 13, 2006 at 06:01 PM
Seems to me like its time for a Bulwer-Lytton take on this failure of Fitzmas:
"It was a dark and stormy night--Rove's Mercedes pulled out of the garage, the windows raised so as to obscure the master--he reached for his cell phone and speed dialed Gen Casey in Iraq: Great job, George, in getting Z-man thawed out for the take and bake--Make sure those two F-16 guys know we have them in line for a CIA directorship if they keep their noses clean--Second on the speed dial list was Fitz--"Fitz, its Karl--I was just kidding about pics of the menage-a-trois.....Karl reflected on the weeks activity--it was a most excellent 5 days work--he was only modestly upset by his inability to not announce his clearance in time for the yearly KOS panel in Vegas....but there would be other days, and other moonbats to scam---
Posted by: rjarango | June 13, 2006 at 06:03 PM
Jason L., Tar, Feathers ......some assembly required.
Sorry, couldn't help myself...and I'll feel terrible about that in the morning....
no I won't :-)
Posted by: Patton | June 13, 2006 at 06:04 PM
I was just watching the replay of Bush's arrival and greeting of Maliki. Since Maliki didn't have a clue that GWB was going to walk thru the door, I wonder if they checked with his physician before springing this surprise. It was certainly a moment!
Posted by: Sara (The Squiggler) | June 13, 2006 at 06:05 PM
Byron York will be on with Hugh Hewitt soon about Rove NON-indictment and the left-o-sphere
Posted by: topsecretk9 | June 13, 2006 at 06:09 PM
Sara, I saw that too. Maliki looked so moved, it was quite a moment.
Posted by: kate | June 13, 2006 at 06:09 PM
Very good, rjarango.
Posted by: clarice | June 13, 2006 at 06:14 PM
SEIXON:
Posted by: Sara (The Squiggler) | June 13, 2006 at 06:15 PM
Clarice,
It will be round about the time of the movie of the book of the same name,special adviser Joseph Wilson IV.
Posted by: PeterUK | June 13, 2006 at 06:15 PM
Sigh.
You know how there could've been NO indictment at all?
Libby could've decided NOT TO LIE to the grand jury.
Posted by: Anderson | June 13, 2006 at 06:20 PM
Hahahahaha, Wilson had better hope there is no trial separation or any other kind of separation or he is in deep fudge without a spatula. The wrath of the wronged third wife will not be pretty. He needs to make good on his promises to Val of fame and fortune. His last hope is that he gets Chairman Henry Waxman to undertake a one-sided investigation and demand Rove's firing. And that is quickly fading.....
My guess is that Rove quietly goes off to K Street after this election anyway. His work is done. He won't give the Dems a target to go after even if they win the House, which they won't.
Posted by: Wilson's a liar | June 13, 2006 at 06:21 PM
SCripps Howard jumps the shark.
http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?action=detail&pk=SCHRAM-06-13-06
Posted by: clarice | June 13, 2006 at 06:24 PM
"
Sigh.
You know how there could've been NO indictment at all?
Libby could've decided NOT TO LIE to the grand jury."
Even better if Fitzgerald had started at the beginning of the case instead of the middle,and had ascertained that an offence had been committed.
Posted by: PeterUK | June 13, 2006 at 06:24 PM
Don't know if our old pal Beta posted this here but he did at proteinwisdom....
"Jason Leopolds’ shopping list for today
Bacardi 151 (two litre)
Party Balloons (helium type)
Heavy Rope (6 feet)
Fancy Note Paper
Gold Ink Pen
Cancel phone and electric
Posted by Beto Ochoa"
ROFetc.
Posted by: Barney Frank | June 13, 2006 at 06:28 PM
Sigh.
You know how there could've been NO indictment at all?
Libby could've decided NOT TO LIE to the grand jury."
Substitute Cooper for Libby and you will be closer to the truth.
Posted by: Sara (The Squiggler) | June 13, 2006 at 06:29 PM
GWB's poll numbers jumped up 8 pts after Zarqawi's little mishap. Have a feeling we'll see another sizable jump after today too.
Posted by: Sara (The Squiggler) | June 13, 2006 at 06:32 PM
Pelosi says "enough with culture of corruption thingy already" "Dems need to start defining themselves. Hehehehehehehehehehe
Posted by: Sara (The Squiggler) | June 13, 2006 at 06:33 PM
Hugh Hewitt:
http://hughhewitt.com/archives/2006/06/11-week/index.php#002442
Posted by: Sara (The Squiggler) | June 13, 2006 at 06:37 PM
I ain't buying it. After all Our Pal Val was suppose to be a "Super-Secret Spy", she had better be smarter than you give her credit for.
Haven't spent much time with CIA folks, have you?
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | June 13, 2006 at 06:38 PM
"I hate CNN."
See, all Bush did was export hate towards Americans!!
Posted by: Patton | June 13, 2006 at 06:39 PM
Sure, maybe it's all conincidence and all innocent. Or maybe Joe seduced Valerie and then Joe and Jacqueline blackmailed her into being a French-Saddamite mole in the CIA. The CIA is intensely interested in employees with security clearances doing anything which might put them in the position of being blackmailed. The story that Joe and Val told to Vanity Fair -- if true -- is one that would have gotten her security clearance instantly lifted if the Agency knew about it in 1997.
But again, maybe it's all innocent and nothing like that happened. I will say that if anything like that did happen, then Joe Wilson is f***ing insane to have done something that brought this much attention to them.
cathy :-)
Posted by: cathyf | June 13, 2006 at 06:40 PM
Perhaps Val was double deep undercover covert and Joe was the assignment?
Posted by: PeterUK | June 13, 2006 at 06:45 PM
"""Libby could've decided NOT TO LIE to the grand jury."""
So nobody committed any crimes prior to the investigation, so Libby decides to up and commit 6 felony crimes during the investigation.
How diabolical of him.
Posted by: Patton | June 13, 2006 at 06:46 PM
Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, you have to ask yourself ONE question.
Why would my client commit six major felonies to cover up a NONE CRIME?
Posted by: Patton | June 13, 2006 at 06:51 PM
Gee, I knew before I ever opened my eyes this morning that this was going to be a fun day, now this at Instapundit:
The NYT is so pathetic! LOL
Posted by: Sara (The Squiggler) | June 13, 2006 at 06:51 PM
So Libby gets pulled over for speeding and decides to shoot the police officer and 5 fellow motorist witnesses to cover up his speeding.
Posted by: Patton | June 13, 2006 at 06:53 PM
Hey All,
Sorry I wasn't here to celebrate all day, but I've been under cover over at TruthOut. LOL. See if you can figure out who I am. I will tell you it is much lower profile today.
Posted by: Specter | June 13, 2006 at 06:54 PM
Is 2006 the Year of the Faulty Prosecution? We have this nonsense, the Duke case...has enough time and money been wasted harrassing people for political ends yet?
Posted by: Dave | June 13, 2006 at 06:57 PM
And it just gets "funner" ...
Rove Is Unindicted and Out for Our Blood!
A taste:
Posted by: Sara (The Squiggler) | June 13, 2006 at 07:05 PM
Dave is still at work but I heard the left woke up in bed with Fitz this morning, just not the way they expected, so even though I was pretty busy I thought I'd make a few rounds on the web.
First I went over to TruthOut to see what they were saying. That Marc Ash guy apparently didn't get the word but Jason Leopold pretty worried.
As to the rest, all I saw was a lot of people pulling out their hair, blaming angry gods and constructing silly new conspiracy theories. I was kind of embarrassed for them to be honest.
Of course I only see things from my own particular slant but sometimes you see things differently when you travel down low like me. When I first looked in on Karl Rove he seemed sort of irritated over what the lefties were saying but later it looked to me like he had internalized the news well.
I thought about it a while and I think people on the left need to chill out. You know, smell the flowers. There are more important things than politics you know. Like squeeky fuzzyman toys and rawhide chew bones for example.
Whatever. I'm confident that if they keep putting their faith in Fitz they're going to be disappointed.
Posted by: HerbieWilkers | June 13, 2006 at 07:09 PM
It's official...PRETZELS for EVERYONE!
Hey Bob, Where’s Your Letter?
By Jane Hamsher
"I have to say I don’t know what all the fuss is about"...Joe Wilson and Scary Larry think Rove flipped so it must be!!!!
nevermind TalkLeft thinks Wilson may be hinting at suing the unimpeachable witness who is helping Fitz get Cheney!!!!
Pretzels for the fire!
Posted by: topsecretk9 | June 13, 2006 at 07:09 PM
Specter,
If I guess, what is my prize?
Posted by: Sue | June 13, 2006 at 07:12 PM
Waxman, yeah, that's the ticket.
He has about as much chance of getting a congressional hearing on the Rove matter as I do.
This is posturing for his homeys and nothing more. I am sure Mad Maxine and Stark Petey are all for it, as are some of the other California Crazies.
Tom Davis has no appetite for this kind of thing whatsoever.
I hope this becomes a new mantra for Howie, Kerry and the rest of the Magic Hat Tricks.
"Out the Outers" might replace the "culture of corruption".
If we're lucky.
Posted by: vnjagvet | June 13, 2006 at 07:13 PM
Oh, Clarice, channeling Mickey Kaus, with his Bob Shrum "moment" was an occasion for Depends, here.
Bob Shrum! Every campaign he touches LOSES in the BIG TIME. What is he now? Zero for 8? And, the donks are taking tips from him?
I can't wait to see the bumper stickers! "Don't be afraid to say we're for the people, not the powerful."
What kinds of people would be happy to hear that?
Ya know, it's probably too late now for the donks to change horses. And, they don't even have ONE kingdom to trade. Too funny.
Worse, their own professionals did them in.
Posted by: Carol Herman | June 13, 2006 at 07:15 PM
Well Herbie...you know what Karl does to all those disappointed!
Posted by: topsecretk9 | June 13, 2006 at 07:16 PM
There is craziness out there. Serious craziness. But keep hope alive...
Posted by: Sue | June 13, 2006 at 07:29 PM
Ah, don't forget that with Joe Wilson it's a "menage-et-tois" (Sorry, but I don't spell french). Val's #3. Jacqueline is with the french foreign servide. (Make her #2). And, the mystery woman, from his "yoot" ... back when he also befriended Marc Grossman ... is a woman named Jennifer. Who knows? She could be involved with the A-kaku African money mess; which involves Representative Jefferson, from Louisiana. (I don't spell african, either.)
But this is an international set of characters. Instead of "casa-blanca" ... it looks like Dan Rather's Hokey-Pokey Saloon. Just left turn at Black Rock. (Not far from Lincoln Center; where the fat lady sings.)
The pressure is coming off this dog. Books will flow. Oddly enough, I don't see Bob Novak, Prince of Darkness, as the mega-winnah. What can Bob Woodward do? And, can it be out by thanksgiving?
Fitzmas is lucky, in a way. He's allowed to leave without ever having to write a report. Maybe, up ahead, he can join Marsha Clark. In some sort of he said/she said practice? Do you know anybody that would pay them by the hour?
Posted by: Carol Herman | June 13, 2006 at 07:30 PM
I noticed on Hardball no David Shuster, Matthews talked to the much more credible Lisa Myers.
The hack Shuster will be back, I bet he's the Haditha man.
Posted by: kate | June 13, 2006 at 07:35 PM
The unspoken truth about these indictments?
Matt Cooper was deemed to not be a credible witness. That was the crux of the case against Rove. If he was solid Fitz would have gotten at least his indictment.
Posted by: paul | June 13, 2006 at 07:41 PM
They never go away if they are really dreadful, do they?
This Rove thing really shows us the face of mass hysteria, doesn't it?
And the few sinsible people left in the Dem party are under attack. Oh, Rove you genius!
Posted by: clarice | June 13, 2006 at 07:41 PM
Herbie - ROTFLMAO - Your posts are the best! I fell off my chair when they were pulling out their hair. LOL
So one above mentioned Pelosi say they are giving up the "Culture of Corrption" meme! LOL
Why is that Nancy? Hmmmmmm!
Posted by: ordi | June 13, 2006 at 07:45 PM
Wilson's first wife was Susan Dale Otchis.
Posted by: Sue | June 13, 2006 at 07:46 PM
Sue,
Did she ever do anything of note?
Posted by: ordi | June 13, 2006 at 07:48 PM
Meanwhile, Lucy Ramierez is still missing...
Posted by: Beto Ochoa | June 13, 2006 at 07:49 PM
For you that may not know, Ed Morrisey, Captain's Quarters was admitted to the hospital today. The First Mate has been hospitalized for awhile. Ed finds that he has wireless, so with lots of time on his hands, he has put up a great post on John Kerry, a must read:
Kerry's 'So Is Your Mama' Mature Response
Posted by: Sara (The Squiggler) | June 13, 2006 at 07:50 PM
Ordi,
Not that I've found.
Posted by: Sue | June 13, 2006 at 07:53 PM
Is there any online footage of Bush meeting Maliki?
I haven't seen it yet.
Posted by: danking70 | June 13, 2006 at 07:56 PM
I have a link to the video of his speech to the troops, danking, and Fox has been running the other footage all day, so check foxnews.com for video.
Posted by: Sara (The Squiggler) | June 13, 2006 at 07:59 PM
Yes, Fox has it up.
Posted by: Sara (The Squiggler) | June 13, 2006 at 08:02 PM
It's the called "We Stand with You"
Posted by: Sara (The Squiggler) | June 13, 2006 at 08:05 PM
Well this should be interesting:
he AP reports:
"Tonight" host Jay Leno might want to consider wearing referee stripes on Wednesday's show when Ann Coulter and George Carlin are his guests.
Coulter, the acid-tongued conservative with a new book out, and Carlin, the quick-witted, anti-establishment comedian who's in the voice cast for the new animated film "Cars," were booked at separate times for the NBC late-nighter, a spokeswoman said Monday.
But the duo's meeting could produce serious fireworks for "Tonight," which usually limits its political fodder to Leno's bipartisan monologue jokes.
Posted by: Sara (The Squiggler) | June 13, 2006 at 08:10 PM
Thanks Sara,
great stuff.
Posted by: danking70 | June 13, 2006 at 08:14 PM
Hell, this is funny
Anyone want to bid on the collector's item, "Official Karl Rove Sealed Indictment"?
Damn that Waxman.
Damn that Kerry.
Posted by: Lurker | June 13, 2006 at 08:15 PM
Boy, John Kerry and his advisor aren't happy Rove has been cleared.
A spokesman for Senator John Kerry (D-MA) has launched an unusually personal attack on presidential adviser Karl Rove, RAW STORY has learned.
The move comes one day after Rove called plans to exit Iraq proposed by Senator Kerry and Representative John Murtha (D-PA) "profoundly wrong" "cut and run" strategies. "They may be with you for the first few bullets," Rove said, "but they won't be there for the last tough battles."
"The closest Karl Rove ever came to combat," said Kerry spokesman David Wade, "was these last months spent worrying his cellmates might rough him up in prison. This porcine political operative can't cut and run from the truth any longer."
Wade continued: "When it came to Iraq, this Administration chose to cut and run from sound intelligence and good diplomacy, cut and run from the best military advice, cut and run from their responsibility to give our troops body armor, and in November Americans will cut and run from this Republican Congress."
Wade forgot to mention the American People Cut and Run from Kerry in Nov 04.
Posted by: ordi | June 13, 2006 at 08:15 PM
Someone spoke about the deficits last night. Here is what Investor's got to say....tax cuts just may cut the deficits by half (providing that we don't have another Katrina, 9/11 on our hands).
Bush May Meet Vow To Halve The Deficit Three Years Early
Will the dems believe it? Nah.
Posted by: Lurker | June 13, 2006 at 08:20 PM
I cannot believe what Daily Rove/Leopold: A lesson for us in responsible reporting at DKos
"It is no secret that DKos has a target on its back, even moreso now that our profile has been raised higher after this past weekend. And it is no secret that one of the things that make this a great community is the fact that we take pride in our accuracy and sourcing. This is one of the biggest differentiators between us, most of our right-wing counterpart communities, as well as some of the other left-leaning communities."
What accurate reporting on their part????
Posted by: Lurker | June 13, 2006 at 08:22 PM
Well "cut and run" might have sounded good to this kid, but how he tortured the English language to get it in
Posted by: PeterUK | June 13, 2006 at 08:22 PM