I understood that. And you’re right, we haven’t seen all but a fraction of it. My point is, you cannot expect people to not draw their own conclusions based on what’s been presented so far. Revising one’s testimony prior to indictment doesn’t give the most ringing endorsement, either.
Random thought: I wonder how many of the folks who are pleased that Fitzgerald didn’t press charges on Rove were also pissed that the jury didn’t find O.J. Simpson guilty?
You gave me an excellent idea for a serach, rjung.
[
](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4460246&postcount=85)
If the memory isn’t right, you must not indict! 
Not so random answer: Bad analogy. The public had access to all the information that the jury did in the OJ trial. Not even close here. And even if we assume that Rove outed Plame, that wasn’t what he would’ve been indicted for-- it would’ve been something like obstructing justice. It’s not at all clear to me that he did obstruct justice or lie to the grand jury.
I can respect that your position is that we shouldn’t come to a conclusion until a level of evidence sufficient for jurisprudence is available. But as Maureen pointed out, many of us are also willing to make determinations based on the available evidence. This really isn’t all that odd, as most of the time our personal epistemological standards are far different from those of a criminal trial.
If a mother gets home from work to find the cookie jar smashed, and crumbs on her kid’s hands, she’s going to come a conclusion. Not worry about whether or not there’s reasonable doubt. And while Rove’s actions are, certainly, nowhere near breaking a cookie jar, the basic dynamic still stands.
Which, of course, is why I think that the analogy is tight enough. In both cases, you have a body of evidence that the public made judgements about. Yes, in one case there is much more evidence to chew through, but people are largely intuitive beings and can fill in gaps themselves. And we don’t know, for instance, what evidence/theories were mulled over that never even made it to trial in OJ’s case. In both circumstances, people have looked at the available data and come to a conclusion.
And I don’t think it’s at all fair to say that partisanship or ignorance are the main reasons to come to a conclusion about Rove. Sure, some partisan hacks most likely just want to pin something on Rove. But there are plenty of people who’ve been reading up on the case and made up their own minds based on all available data. To insult them seems, to me, rather pointless. YMMOV.
This thread isn’t about young boys dying in Iraq.
Well, those of us who figure Rove had a hand in this see:
1 - Motivation: That one’s easy.
2 - Means: The phone.
3 - Opportunity: Any old time he spoke to a reporter.
On motivation, everyone’s got the evidence for that. Means, not hard to figure out. What Fitzgerald would be stuck on is not that he had the opportunity, but whether he took advantage of it.
Either way, Rove is just a stepping stone on the way to Cheney. Rove is a party hack; he happens to be a particularly good one, but I don’t see what he does for a living as being evil.
Cheney, on the other hand, is Evil Personified, at least to me, because he’s someone who believes in absolute Executive power, the privilege of those who make it - remember, he had those other priorities during Vietnam - and is unapolegetic about his elitism and absolutism, and will go to any means to assure both. I don’t think he understands how hypocritical he looks and in fact is, nor does he understand the phrase “checks and balances”.
The real prize for Fitzgerald is Cheney - that’s who Libby worked for, after all.
As for outing Plame being treasonous: only if someone from the Left had done it. When the Right does it, it’s patriotic. Leftists are godless heathens after all, who willingly engage in unnatural acts as soon as the bedroom door closes, and are only in this country on a pass. The Right believes in God, country, and motherhood, therefore whatever they do is What God and Mom Intended, and is therefore, automagically, Good.
Bill Clinton, a serial rapist and habitual sexual harasser, who lied under oath concerning these things abused his office and had sexual relations with a young intern betraying his wife’s trust. Prior to that he sold rooms in the Whitehouse like Motel rooms to high ranking party functionaries and partycontributors, got involved in illegal land deals defrauding investors of millions and covering it up to the extent of ordering the hit on Vince Foster, the one guy who could nail him. His wife is undisputably the last one to talk to him so clearly she was in on it, just like she was in on the illegal trade parking of the commodity deals, the trigger man most likely being Al “Blood and” Gore, himself who has never accounted for his whereabouts during the time in question.
And yet, you left wingers are upset because Valerie Plame sets up her husband to file a report without due diligence and then pretend to expertise all over the NYT editorial pages, in one of the most obvious smear conspiracies of the 20th century, and how Dare Scooter Libby accidently mention her name to defend the people she is setting up even though her name had been thrown around by everybody else first… that fucker’s gotta go down!
Partisan fantasy is fun!
Then why would he need to revise his testimony?
That the irony of that last comment escapes you after the first two paragraphs, makes me laff.
You’ve been whooshed, sir…
Thanks! You took two paragraphs to say “I got nothin’!” but at least it was done entertainingly.
See the OP for an example of the kind of debate I have with idiots on the left.
And I don’t get slapped down, I just get called a troll for disagreeing with the Usual Suspects.
As here -
“Troll” in this context is synonymous with “conservative who refuses to allow the Usual Suspects to get away with their Usual Shit”.
Oh, and FinnAgain - you might want to read post #13.
I assume you have reported me to the mods, then. Did you ever get a response? What was it?
Maybe the definition of “trolling” differs slightly from “someone who disagrees with me, but in ways I can’t counter”.
Democrat-bashing is different from “party before truth”.
Of course I’m partisan. But read post #5. It’s the usual “Rove is guilty of treason even though there isn’t enough evidence even for an indictment” that is “party before truth”.
I’ve said it before, but I’ll say it again - liberals on the SDMB are the whiniest set of pussies in captivity. Even a hint of disagreement to your latest anti-Bush fulmination sets you off into the usual “Shodan is interfering with our circle jerk! Ban him!” crap.
To quote a prominent moron - Deal.
Regards,
Shodan
Hey, it worked with regard to december.
If Rove taught the liberals anything, it’s that Effects based Operations are effective. 
Is it possible that Rove cut a deal? That perhaps in exchange for no charges, he has to testify against someone further up the food chain? Dare I say Deadeye Dick himself?
Word from Luskin is no deal, no how, no way:
Do you suppose if there was a deal, they would admit it?
Very unlikely. I doubt he’d have such a spring in his step if that’s what got him off the hook. If Cheney shoots his friends in the face, what do you think he’d do to his enemies? Really, I seriously doubt this, but I guess we’ll find out.
Ummmm … have them tortured?
Luskin being a competent lawyer, I doubt very much that he’d lie about it quite so affirmatively.