Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has announced that Karl Rove will not be indicted for his part in L’Affaire de Plame:
The prosecutor in the C.I.A. leak case on Monday advised Karl Rove, the senior White House adviser, that he would not be charged with any wrongdoing, effectively ending the nearly three-year criminal investigation that had at times focused intensely on Mr. Rove.(HT: STACLU)
The decision by the prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, announced in a letter to Mr. Rove’s lawyer, Robert D. Luskin, lifted a pall that had hung over Mr. Rove who testified on five occasions to a federal grand jury about his involvement in the disclosure of an intelligence officer’s identity.
Unfortunately, that “pall” which was lifted from Mr. Rove has descended like the cone of silence over internet fabricator and noted liar Jason Leopold who as recently as last night wrote this for Truthout.org still trying to justify his article last month that stated flatly Mr. Rove would be “indicted within 24 hours.” And what is truly unbelievable is the contrast with how Leopold presents his evidence. Here is Leopold’s article from last night:
Four weeks ago, during the time when we reported that White House political adviser Karl Rove was indicted for crimes related to his role in the leak of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson, the grand jury empanelled in the case returned an indictment that was filed under seal in US District Court for the District of Columbia under the curious heading of Sealed vs. Sealed.
As of Friday afternoon that indictment, returned by the grand jury the week of May 10th, remains under seal – more than a month after it was handed up by the grand jury.
The case number is “06 cr 128.” On the federal court’s electronic database, “06 cr 128” is listed along with a succinct summary: “No further information is available.”
We have not seen the contents of the indictment “06 cr 128”. But the fact that this indictment was returned by the grand jury hearing evidence in the CIA leak case on a day that Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald met with the grand jury raised a number of questions about the identity of the defendant named in the indictment, whether it relates to the leak case, and why it has been under seal for a month under the heading Sealed vs. Sealed.
Now contrast the above caveat-laden article with this piece from last month that had Rove doing the perp walk from his office in the White House straight into the slammer:
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald spent more than half a day Friday at the offices of Patton Boggs, the law firm representing Karl Rove.
During the course of that meeting, Fitzgerald served attorneys for former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove with an indictment charging the embattled White House official with perjury and lying to investigators related to his role in the CIA leak case, and instructed one of the attorneys to tell Rove that he has 24 business hours to get his affairs in order, high level sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said Saturday morning.
Robert Luskin, Rove’s attorney, did not return a call for comment. Sources said Fitzgerald was in Washington, DC, Friday and met with Luskin for about 15 hours to go over the charges against Rove, which include perjury and lying to investigators about how and when Rove discovered that Valerie Plame Wilson was a covert CIA operative and whether he shared that information with reporters, sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said.
Note how the story has morphed from Fitzgerald actually serving Rove with an indictment to some unknown indictment in an unknown case being handed down by an unknown prosecutor for an unknown crime.
Great reporting, Jason.
It will do no good to point out Leopold’s foibles to our friends on the left who seem to have a curious soft spot for this misanthropic serial fabricator. Maybe it is the fact that he is an admitted drug addict (a state that lasts a lifetime whether one uses drugs or not) or perhaps it is, as Jeff Goldstein points out, that he speaks truth to power and therefore is forgiven his many sins of omission and commission.
Whatever reason the left will not abandon him, I am happy to report that we will indeed have Jason Leopold to kick around some more thus curing conservative bloggers of writers block whenever an article of his makes an appearance. Since Truthout.Org is probably the bottom of the barrel as far as internet publications go, one would expect Leopold to continue trolling the depths of stupidity and loutishness in his quest to see how many prevarications he can get away with before the decent left gives him the permanent heave-ho.
As for the story of Rove’s non-indictment, this development makes one wonder about Fitzgerald’s case against Libby. Will Rove testify against his former aide? And could that have been the price for his reprieve?
I have my own ghosts to expunge here because for the last year I have been predicting that Rove would be indicted. Clarice Feldman at The American Thinker tried knocking some sense into me several times by telling me that Fitzy didn’t have a thing on Rove and that I was making way too much of press coverage of the story.
Clarice was right. I was dead wrong.
I will be following this story today by reading Tom McGuire and Clarice Feldman who I’m sure are busy at the moment gathering their thoughts so that they can tell us “what it all means.” Check back here for updates on this breaking story.
UPDATE: NO ENGLISH LANGUAGE ADJECTIVES TO DESCRIBE THIS KIND OF IRONY
Mark Ash, Executive Director of Truthout.Org penned an article last night that is one of the saddest examples I can remember of an editor standing behind a writer and then being betrayed by the march of events.
Now for what we believe: We believe that federal criminal indictment “06 cr 128” (Sealed vs. Sealed) is directly related to the Fitzgerald/Plame investigation. That’s based on a single credible source and the information discussed above. We believe that Karl Rove is cooperating with federal investigators, and for that reason Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald is not willing to comment on his status. That is based, again, on a single credible source, and background information provided by experts in federal criminal law. We believe that the indictment was returned and filed “on May 10 2006.” Same single credible source, and details from the filing records. We believe that if any of the key facts that we have reported were materially false or inaccurate some statement to that effect would be forthcoming from Fitzgerald’s staff. That is based on the same single credible source.
No mention of the person being indicted was Karl Rove which at least relieves Mr. Ash of the ignominy of being proved wrong less than 24 hours of assuring his readers that the “key facts” of the article written last month by Leopold was accurate.
One has to admire Mr. Ash’s loyalty but at the same time, question his judgment in supporting someone who has made him look like a fool.
UPDATE II: McGUIRE WEIGHS IN
Tom McGuire tells us what it all means and acknowleges his erroneous prognistication regarding Rove’s indictment:
Two quick guesses as to why there was no indictment:
(a) The Libby indictment looks very much like a failed attempt to force Libby to cooperate, presumably by testifying against Dick Cheney. Evidently, the prospect of a second failed attempt held little appeal for Fitzgerald.
(b) The Armitage angle made a Rove indictment problematic except as a package deal…
And Clarice Feldman emails me with her immediate thoughts:
You might want to simply quote Tom Maguire who’s getting punched around on his own site because he always thought Rove would be indicted. (I bet Fitz wishes he could take back the Libby indictment, tt.) C
He may yet.
And what update would be complete without an update from the man who invented the update…or maybe he just popularized it. Or not:
Update: Har. When you click the â€œMr. Fitzgerald callingâ€ graphic on Truthoutâ€™s front page, it takes you to this.
Sooooâ€¦ When do they frogmarch Jason Leopold off the office premises?
Update: Leave your predictions below about how Truthout will spin this. Given their track record, ainâ€™t no way no chance no how theyâ€™re going to apologize forthrightly.
Actually, Iâ€™ll refine my request. Leave your predictions below about which members of the administration theyâ€™ll inevitably accuse of being involved in the conspiracy to â€œsilence Fitzgerald.â€
Check out Pat Curley’s “Twas the Night before Fitzmas.”