Thursday, July 14, 2005

Depends what the definition of 'leak' is...

The waters are murky on the question of whether Karl Rove revealed the name of a CIA Agent, at least according to this article from my favorite newspaper, the New York Times. Seriously though, according to the Times, an anonymous witness of some sort has come forward to let Patrick Fitzgerald know that Rove was told by Robert Novak that Novak knew who Plame was, and Rove confirmed that.

So that bolsters Rove's defense, but
The person who provided the information about Mr. Rove's conversation with Mr. Novak declined to be identified, citing requests by Mr. Fitzgerald that no one discuss the case. The person discussed the matter in the belief that Mr. Rove was truthful in saying he did not disclose Ms. Wilson's identity.

Well, this could be anyone. This could be George W. Bush, or Karl Rove's attorney Robert Luskin. Seriously though, an anonymous informant is basically agreeing with Rove's version of the facts, with no indication of how this person was privy to such information.

Finally, even if Rove's side of the story is true, and it hasn't been confirmed either way, the Times mentions that
White House officials may argue that Mr. Rove's conversation with Mr. Novak did not amount to leaking the name of the agent. But to critics of Mr. Bush - including the Democrats who have called for Mr. Rove's resignation - that is splitting hairs, and Mr. Rove in effect confirmed her identity, even if he did not name her.

Let's not forget, Rove is also vulnerable of perjury charges for his statements to a grand jury about not leaking Plame's name. I won't comment about the zealousness from those who wanted Clinton charged for perjury because I'm sure they are equally adamant that Rove, if guilty of leaking Plame's name, should face the same grave charges Clinton faced. Right guys?

Finally, I just want to make a point to those of you who will jump down my throat or the throats of those who have a similar perspective on this case, calling us partisan and simply out to get Rove because he has been such a powerful force behind Bush's success.

(1) The law's the law. If Rove is supsected of treason, he should be investigated. It's a grave act independent of who did it.
(2) Democrats, or at least not this Democrat, do not envy Rove. Rove to me is a bitter, angry man who has made it his life's work to smear his opponents in whatever creative way he can think of. Rove for instance gained access to the Democratic headquarters of Alan Dixon, took some official stationary, and handed out invitations to homeless people for a Democratic function to try and embarass Dixon. (It doesn't need to be said how depraved and disrespectful of everyone involved such a tactic is). I'm not surprised that no-holds barred Republicans may think Democrats jealous of Rove because they themselves have no moral qualms with his malicious campaigning.
(3) The ONLY ARGUMENT Republicans ever make when they're accused of something, be it Tom Delay, Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich, ad infinitum, is that they are victims of a partisan attack. Little to no effort is made to clear up any controversy that may exist; no, Republicans, majority party in essentially all three branches of government, are the victims.

Needless to say, I'm pessimistic about Rove's chances of being indicted. For all of Fitzgerald's supposed independence, Bush WH seems to have him in their pocket:
Robert D. Luskin, Mr. Rove's lawyer, said Thursday, "Any pertinent information has been provided to the prosecutor." Mr. Luskin has previously said that prosecutors have advised Mr. Rove that he is not a target in the case, which means he is not likely to be charged with a crime.

No comments: