OK, let's just deal with the facts, as much as we can discern them:
- David Johnson of The New York Times writes that Patrick Fitzgerald told Karl Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, that Rove "would not be charged with any wrongdoing, effectively ending the nearly three-year criminal investigation that had at times focused intensely on Mr. Rove."
"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."
- Raw Story prints a statement from Christoper Wolf, attorney for outed CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson: "...While it appears that Mr. Rove will not be called to answer in criminal court for his participation in the wrongful disclosure of Valerie Wilson's classified employment status at the CIA in retaliation against Joe Wilson for questioning the rationale for war in Iraq, that obviously does not end the matter. The day still may come when Mr. Rove and others are called to account in a court of law for their attacks on the Wilsons."
- Finally, we have heard not a peep this morning from Jason Leopold, the maligned reporter and Truthout contributer, who has been most responsible for stirring up rumors of a Rove indictment. I had been giving him the benefit of the doubt, much to my chagrin. Whaaaasss up, Jason?
- Media Matters urges the media to ask, "What about that security clearance?" "As Media Matters has previously explained, both Rove's apparent confirmation of CIA officer Valerie Plame's identity to syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak and his alleged disclosure of her identity to Time magazine correspondent Matthew Cooper should trigger the loss of his security clearance under the Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement."
On careful reading of Johnston's article, some discrepencies arise. First, Karl Rove's criminal role in the case does NOT signal the end of the entire investigation, as David Johnston should know full well. So why say otherwise?
Further, Fitzgerald's letter, as quoted by Mr. Luskin, states that "he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove." "Does not anticipate" leaves the door open to indictment, albeit by a tiny crack. In the interest of journalistic accuracy, if nothing else, why would Johnston state absolutely that "Rove [will] not be charged with any wrongdoing," an incorrect overstatement based on the quote from Luskin in his own article?
One thing is for sure, whether or not Karl Rove is indicted has nada, zippo, nothing to do with the rest of the investigation, which is ongoing, and, despite Johnston's assertion, does NOT "effectively [end] the nearly three-year criminal investigation...."
- Firedoglake - Dodging CIPA Graymail Bullets ... And Other Legal Notes
- The Raw Story | Drudge falsifies report about Raw Story Rove headline
- My Way News - Rove Won't Be Charged in CIA Leak Case
- Video: Dean says Rove's 'real sin' going unpunished
- Media Matters - Rove's lawyer says he won't be indicted ... so: What about that security clearance?
- And, yes, I DO take it personally: Leopold, Rove and Markos
- Daily Kos: Rove (and Leopold)
- War Room - Salon.com - Truthout reporter stands by the "Rove indicted" story
- War Room - Salon.com - More questions than answers about "Sealed v. Sealed"