« Good Afternoon | Main | A Thousand Disbarments are Not Enough For Starr »
October 28, 2005
Whither Rove?
I was thinking that the single Libby indictment was a disappointment, a win for the White House. The Carpetbagger, however, has an interested contrarian take on that.
October 28, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/19450/3472337
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Whither Rove?:
Comments
You can be sure they'll spin it that way, regardless of the truth. My hope is that Fitzgerald is building a stronger case.
Posted by: Rebecca Allen, RN, PhD | Oct 28, 2005 4:49:36 PM
Well, liberals can't feel as satisfied as they would if maybe the whole WHIG team had been indicted for a criminal conspiracy (which is likely what occured), and Bush doesn't face the consequences of replacing nearly all of his staff.
The indictment stuff about 'offical A' in the WH can't make Rove feel too good however. They will spin it as a vindication, but they'd do that regardless of the result.
Libby won't plead to anything that implicates Cheney, so Cheney may be safe even though he's dirty. Fitzgerald can't accept a plea from Libby that does away with all the felonies. So Libby must depend on pardon from Bush if he is convicted (or possibly even before) - and Bush set that up in his <1 min. announcement in the rose garden praising Libby's patriotism and service.
Today however Patrick Fitzgerald's press conference made him probably immune from attack (a steller performance!). But he didn't convey the sense that a lot more is coming from his office - which could be deliberate misdirection, but that seems unlikely.
Damage assessment: Certainly not fatal to Bu$hCo unless more figures are indicted (doubtful?). Hurtful to Bush until after the pardon of Libby, but a war or two and some wingnut appointments may obscure the hurt.
Nothing happening here. Just move along.
Only with a shift in control of the House in 06 would this get dangerous to BushCo. Investigations and control of legislation and the budget could really hurt. Dems can't depend on prosecutors to undo the Bush harm - and they shouldn't. Only an electoral overturn can change the direction of the country - as it should be.
Posted by: JimPortandOR | Oct 28, 2005 5:16:48 PM
This is just the first day of Fitzmas and Libby is just a partridge in a pear tree. Deals are being made and others are going down.
Whatever Rove said to Fitzgerald that "gave him pause" was not proof of innocence. It was an ass saving proposal of something Fitzgerald might be able to use for other broader or higher indictments. That is the M.O. Fitzgerald has established in many other cases.
Posted by: nonplussed | Oct 28, 2005 5:57:47 PM
After all is said and done. After the democrats and republicans try to put there spin on this. A (serious breach of public trust) is what Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald called this case. A (serious breach of public trust) is what this is all about.
This was the best press conference I have ever seen. Some of the reporters were asking very dumb questions. Some very political questions. But Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald would not and did not play that game.This was professional in ever way. You can not attack Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald or the investigation in any way. I saw one of the republican senators trying to attack Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. The senator just made a fool of himself.
Democrats or republican you have to respect the job Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has done so far.
http://novus-ordo-seclorum.us/
www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libby_indictment_28102005.pdf
Posted by: old man | Oct 28, 2005 7:35:23 PM
"This is just the first day of Fitzmas and Libby is just a partridge in a pear tree."
What vile, nasty people on the left. Libby's life is ruined. That is why America sees the Democratic party as a bunch of mean, nasty used car salemen.
When Clinton was busted for lying, I (and most on the right) did not take pleasure in that. It was more like anger at his behavior and embarrassment for our country. He was a disgrace.
If Rove had been indicted, you all would be dancing in the street. Just cuz he hands the Democrats their own ass in election after election.
Well, I guess that is directly from the liberal playbook. If you can't persuade the people your side is right and win at the ballot box, then take them to court!
Posted by: Captain Toke | Oct 28, 2005 9:12:07 PM
When Clinton was busted for lying, I (and most on the right) did not take pleasure in that.
Bullshit. And yet again you display your obsession with Clinton. Very intersting.
Posted by: TJ | Oct 28, 2005 9:22:55 PM
toke, if Libby breaks down and tells the whole truth of the matter, I'd be in favor of leniency. Right now, he's still trying to bs his way out of it.
Posted by: roublen | Oct 28, 2005 9:31:30 PM
Clinton's behavior was a disgrace to America, not something to celebrate. I am an American first, I don't root against my own country, no matter who is in charge.
If Libby lied, he should be punished. But keep in mind, no one was charged with outing a CIA agent, which is what this all started over. After two years of investigation, the only person charged was charged for lying during the investigation.
Also, his punishment, if he is guilty, needs to be kept in context. Keep in mind Sandy "sexy pants" Berger got probation and security clearence suspension for removing and destroying classified documents from the national archive. He stuffed documents down his pants and stole them from the national archive while he was supposed to be preparing for the 9/11 Commission. That is a hell of a lot worse than what Libby is accused of doing.
Posted by: Captain Toke | Oct 28, 2005 10:14:04 PM
"Also, his punishment, if he is guilty, needs to be kept in context. Keep in mind Sandy "sexy pants" Berger got probation and security clearence suspension for removing and destroying classified documents from the national archive. He stuffed documents down his pants and stole them from the national archive while he was supposed to be preparing for the 9/11 Commission. That is a hell of a lot worse than what Libby is accused of doing."
Thank you for this insightful comment; I was able to put it to good use. You see, I was out of toilet paper and realized that the appropriate utilization of your comment was to print it out and wipe my a$$ with it. So thanks again.
Maybe you can run this through your walnut-sized brain:
http://www.juancole.com/2005/10/larry-johnson-on-plame-scandal-i-think.html
Posted by: Central Scrutinizer | Oct 28, 2005 11:31:14 PM
Generally I'm hella bored with liberals' Karl Rove obsession -- the man's numerous flops (such as the social security fiasco or his inept attempts at minority outreach) suggest that the main reason he's considered a genius is that liberals think he's a genius. The description of him in the Libby indictment (as "Official A") doesn't make him sound like any kind of mastermind. And as Firedoglake pointed out, if he and his lawyers hadn't told the media yesterday that he would remain under investigation, they could have made it look, as of today, that he was completely in the clear. He's just not that good. And while losing him would hurt Bush, hurting Bush is practically a parlor game at this point, given that he's never going to be up for election again.
Given a choice between the two, Libby is more important, because he's related to the Vice-President and therefore to the Vice-President's feud with the CIA, and therefore to the intelligence-fixing and other issues that should come out as this thing goes on.
Posted by: M.A. | Oct 29, 2005 12:50:57 AM
I think Rove is more of an election organizer than a real cloak-and-daggers Nixon type. I think he wants to be the latter, but really isn't.
And Toke, I would like to mention that perjury and obstruction of justice are usually stepping-stone crimes in conspiracy proceedings. There's not really a question whether or not Libby committed a very serious felony, orders of magnitude worse than what Clinton and Berger did. But the idea is that you find the weakest link in the chain, hit him with an ironclad charge, then start stepping up the ladder. That impresses your seriousness on both of your targets, and you can usually get someone along the way to talk. And once you get someone to talk, then you can start building evidence as to intent.
That's the playbook, at least. We'll see if that's what Fitzgerald has in mind. I advise both sides in the matter to shut up about trying to point fingers and exonerate and let justice do its work.
Posted by: Fnor | Oct 29, 2005 1:42:26 AM
Hey Captain Toke! Don't forget to inhale! Though I suspect that is really not the problem here, the opposite if anything.
The Legend of Karl Rove did not rise spontaneously from paranoid Leftists, the Right has been spinning the 'genius' of Rove from Day One. The notion that his current defense of "I am a confused old man with a record of forgetting stuff" is going to fly is laughable. It may keep him out of jail, but how you reconcile that with retaining a job as Deputy Chief of Staff to the President of the United States is a little more complicated. "Mr. President did I really advise you to bomb Nigeria? Silly me, I meant Niger"
Rove of his own free will decided to hire a Democrat as his defense attorney, apparently not realizing that Luskin may be fully prepared to keep him out of jail but equally prepared to put a Dunce Cap on his client.
Newsweek: Karl Rove's Consigliere
When the president's political guru landed in hot water, he turned to a flamboyant Democrat for help. Will that work?
Posted by: Bruce Webb | Oct 29, 2005 9:09:25 AM
The Legend of Karl Rove did not rise spontaneously from paranoid Leftists, the Right has been spinning the 'genius' of Rove from Day One.
Oh, sure. But liberals have bought into the spin.
Posted by: M.A. | Oct 29, 2005 10:12:11 AM
Anyone who thinks that Friday's developments were a good thing for the WH overlook three things:
1) Fitzgerald, in addition to being a terrifying prosecutor, has a very good public demeanor. You can't politically attack him like Clinton could with Starr,
2) The indictment makes it clear that Libby is in massive, "spend the rest of your life in jail" trouble. Which means that he has every incentive to cooperate with Fitzgerald and talk about Cheney or Rove or whoever,
3) The indictment is also fairly clear that there are other facts of the case that Fitz. knows about -- and may spring later.
This may even be -- in its way -- worse than an overarching multiple indictment scenario. It is clear to me that Fitz. isn't someone to be trifled with or use as a political opponent -- and it is also clear that his methodical investigation isn't done.
If I were the WH, I would nominate a fire-breathing conservative to SCOTUS. Better to the focus on a fight with the Sen. Dems. than Fitzgerald.
And if I were the WH, I would be very afraid that Fitzgerald isn't done.
Posted by: Chris R | Oct 29, 2005 10:28:11 AM
"Fitzgerald, in addition to being a terrifying prosecutor,"
Yeah, after two years of investing a CIA leak, he got one person on lying during the investigation. He's scary!
Oh yeah, it is over! The grand jury was not extended. I know you guys are praying Libby is going to tell all the WH secrets to Fitzgerald, but don't forget Libby's boss is Darth Vader, I mean Dick Cheney. You don't know the power of the dark side of the force.
"The indictment makes it clear that Libby is in massive, "spend the rest of your life in jail" trouble."
So libby did what Martha Stewart did and you think he might go to jail for years while Berger and Clinton lose security clearance and are disbarred for their crimes?
You ever hear of intellectual honesty?
Oh, that's right, you're liberals.
Posted by: Captain Toke | Oct 29, 2005 11:50:17 AM
Shouldn't you be posting on RedState or something?
Posted by: Iron Lungfish | Oct 29, 2005 12:25:25 PM
It think I should make it clear that I'd Rove to 'wither.' Though I don't imagine that he'll run out of baby-blood any time soon.
Posted by: TJ | Oct 29, 2005 1:12:02 PM
