Has Karl Rove Been Indicted? We Interrupt This Broadcast to Share the Great Tidings of Joy

Yes, Karl Rove, while not exactly cleared of criminal wrongdoing in the vicious outing of Valerie Plame in fulfillment of a petty vendetta against her Bush-critic husband, has gotten a “get out of jail free” card & can go back to the business of being Bush’s brain & architect of the troubled GOP’s plans to get re-elected by hook or by crook in November. (A job he was apparently born to do.)

At least, Demon Princess thinks it’s safe to assume attorneys in such sensitive positions choose their words very carefully, and what stands out to me is that the Special Prosecutor’s office did not say Rove has been cleared , nor exonerated.

According to this Washington Post article, “Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald told Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, in a short letter delivered Monday afternoon that he ‘does not anticipate seeking charges’ against Rove in the case, Luskin said.”

That's a rather lukewarm statement from such a ballsy guy as Fitz. I have no doubt the wording of it was the subject of fierce negotiation. (*Sigh* maybe I'm just dreaming. I was so looking forward to Karl getting spanked.)

“Rove was told about 4 p.m. while aboard a Southwest Airlines flight en route to a campaign speech in New Hampshire, but he waited until early yesterday morning to publicly reveal the news.” But he hasn’t had much to say about it since--leading me to suspect that the matter remains a two-ton elephant in the room which everybody is studiously ignoring.

You’d think they’d be shouting his innocence, if it was clearly established, from the rooftops, wouldn’tcha?

The New York Times reports htttp://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/14/washington/14leak.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&th&emc=th

that intense negotiations preceeded the blessed event, and not being privy to how things work in Special Prosecutor’s offices on highly sensitive matters such as this, I can’t tell you it’s irregular. But taking Fitz at his word, he seems not to have ruled it out entirely--the highly qualified statement says, to me, at least (a confessed non-Rove fan) rather implying "at this time, anyway" which may mean he's still weighing the evidence, or needs more-- and there’s still the weird matter of a sealed Grand Jury verdict as reported by Truth Out, yes, another indie news organization. (Demon Princess confesses to having gotten behind on her rants & was storing this report.) However, we’re apparently not going to know anything about the matter anytime soon, because the Grand Jury’s verdict was mysteriously sealed & has stayed that way.

So, we still do not know who has been involved & what further charges will be brought, if any. The report, by Jason Leopold: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/printer_061206Z.shtml

Weird also, to me, is that Fitzgerald was apparently particularly suspicious of Rove’s initial denial of his interactions with a particular reporter, & the fact that Rove’s attorney jumped in to testify for Rove that the lawyer had had something to do with it is, well, weird. The propriety of all this is not entirely clear to me. But as I remember criminal procedure (very vaguely, admittedly), lawyers are not supposed to testify for their clients. Ah well.

Power has its privileges.

Resume the celebrations—America is in safe hands (that is, Rove’s & Cheney’s) again.