Special proescutor Fitzgerald’s office has announced there will be no indictments against Karl Rove.
Treasonous vermin everywhere are rejoicing. Now we can safely out CIA agents at will!
For the rest of us, it’s Biz as Usual under the Bush Administration. The clearly guilty aren’t even charged, the uncharged and untried are jailed for years and commit suicide, and it’s “an act of warrfare.”
No, because despite six years of non-stop whining from you bozos about all the terrible crimes Rove has committed, you cannot come up with a scrap of evidence that will stand up in court.
And yet you cling to your delusions nonetheless.
Which, obviously, demonstrates that all this vaunted skepticism and hard-boiled commitment to the cause of justice and truth from far-left fat heads such as yourself is window dressing. You care about nothing except your drooling hatred of all things Bush-related.
And thus your foolishness is a fitting subject for contempt.
Sounds just like one of those Mafia guys saying, "Hey, he’s never been convicted! I mean, c’mon, Shodan, there’s never been any doubt that Rove was outing Plame to newsmen. The only doubt was whether our weird-ass legal definition of treason would make it possible to convict him for doing so, esp. given his access to the best legal counsel. Doesn’t change what Rove did, or what he is, which is a verminous traitor. An unconvicted verminous traitor. I’m sure you’re very proud.
Ha ha ha, American intelligence gathering capabilities have been reduced and our informants no longer trust that their contacts in the CIA won’t be outed for political reasons. Ho ho ho, Plame’s identity was leaked because her husband had the nerve to point out that Bush was lying to get us into a war. Man, what a knee-slappin’ good laugh that is.
And who says that there’s a problem with “party before country” these days? Not the Republican leadership, that’s who.
And, simply, a side issue… I do trust you realize that there’s a world of difference between someone being guilty, and a prosecutor being able to get a conviction? Or do you think, for instance, that people are “delusional” and “hate all things OJ related” if they think OJ Simpson killed some folks but got off on the charges?
So how do you explain 6 years of special prosecutors investigating every aspect of Bill and Hillary Clinton’s dealings? Oh, wait. You can’t. There were, for the most part, no crimes. And no crimes committed by the Clintons.
Uh, no. We don’t lose. The difference between us and you is that, for all the Pubbie hand-wringing over Clinton’s alleged misdeeds, Bush and others in his administration might actually be guilty of various and sundry crimes. Not perjury-over-a-blowjob crime, either, but serious prison-time crime. And, unlike Clinton’s alleged lie over his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, the Bush Administration’s lies cost tens of thousands of lives, billions of dollars of contract money wasted, and the goodwill of most of the world.
BUT WAIT! CLINTON GOT A BLOWJOB! ONOZ! OMFG!!!11!!!
Robin, who is fucking sick and tired of the whole partisan one-down-manship game.
Nobody knows what Rove did or didn’t do because we weren’t in the room. None of us have access to the corridors of power, so we don’t know what goes on.
So all we are left with are our preconceived notions about who is right and who is wrong…and we filter events to fit that prism.
People on the left view Karl Rove as this evil mastermind…the “man behind the curtain”. His success is due to the misdeeds of his blackhearted henchmen. So when Fitzgerald passes on him, it’s not because he’s not guilty…heavens no. He’s evil so he must have done something! He just hasn’t been caught yet!
People on the right had a similar view of Bill Clinton. When he escaped the investigations, people on the left said it was because he was righteous and pure and the prosecutors were evil. Folks on the right said “That just means he got away with it!”.
It all depends on whose ox is being gored. Ideology uber alles.
And yet you can’t produce any evidence sufficient to even get an indictment.
Actually, it is just the opposite. Clinton admitted that he had made false statements under oath, and the judge in his trial found that he had made false statements under oath, and he was disbarred as a result. So we know pretty clearly that Clinton is guilty.
On the other hand, no evidence sufficient even for indictment can be produced against Rove. And yet, the accusations continue without a pause against him.
Because, as I said, it was never about the evidence. Nor will lack of evidence ever deter a true fanatic from believing whatever he wants.
It’s much like the crap about stealing the elections. Assume the conclusion, and then restate it regardless of anything else, louder and louder.
And also a difference between not even being able to muster enough to bring this particular ham sandwich before a grand jury.
I realize nothing can stop the ranting from the Usual Suspects. I can do no more than derive personal satisfaction from seeing y’all make fools of yourselves. Again.
Don’t count those chickens quite yet. Truthout.org maintains there is a sealed indictment under the curious heading of Sealed vs. Sealed. . It is entirely possible that Rove already has been indicted.
If Rove does indeed walk, it is a tribute to the professionalism of Patrick Fitzgerald. If he could not come up with enough evidence to have a reasonable chance of getting a conviction, then the proper thing to do is not indict. Some prosecutors (like Starr) feel compelled to keep at it until they have something, no matter how small or removed from the scope of the investigation, to throw a charge at someone. At least Fitzgerald has the integrity to know when to fold the tent and pack up.
It’s also possible that the reason Rove is not a target for indictment is that he’s cut an immunity deal with Fitzgerald, that he has decided to save himself by turning on his masters, and that the sealed document contains criminal charges against Cheney, who seems to be the ultimate architect of the whole scheme.
It’s also possible that Fitzgerald is a space alien who is conducting experiments on human psychology with an emphasis on perceptions of guilt.
I think we should all just hang tight for a few weeks and see what happens. Otherwise we’re basically trying to interpret, like tea leaves, the isolated scraps of information that squeeze out from between the fingers of this clenched fist of an administration.
Insisting that Rove is acually guilty and not being indicted simply because a conviction is unlikely is absurd. It’s not that difficult to convict on conspiracy charges or on lying under oath (what Libby is charged with). No one has been indicted for outing a CIA agent, and if the lesser charge of conspiracy or lying to the Grand Jury can’t stand up, then the it’s reasonable to assume that he didn’t do anything illegal. Now, that doesn’t prove he didn’t do anything illegal (in this matter), but insisting that he did is balatant partisanship, pure and simple.