Evidence Shows No Rove Crime To This Point
From of all places, the NYT has a good rap-up in their closing column yesterday on the Rove matter, via Richard Stevens.
Two thirds of the article focus on the “politics” of the moment with the Dems trying to exert pressure on Bush to fire Rove, even though there is no proof that he leaked Plame’s name. On the contrary, all evidence thus far proves he did not leak her name as an undercover agent, or even knew she was an undercover agent.
It’s particularly telling when the article quoted Bruce Stanford, a lawyer who helped “write” the law in question. Here is what Stanford said:
Based on the e-mail message, Mr. Rove's disclosures are not criminal, said Bruce S. Sanford, a Washington lawyer who helped write the law and submitted a brief on behalf of several news organizations concerning it to the appeals court hearing the case of Mr. Cooper and Judith Miller, an investigative reporter for The New York Times. "It is clear that Karl Rove's conversation with Matt Cooper does not fall into that category" of criminal conduct, Mr. Sanford said. "That's not 'knowing.' It doesn't even come close."
Funny how when the politics are shaved off the story and the experts who wrote the law review the matter, it is crystal clear and cut and dry.
I also like the commentary from Victoria Toensing who was the chief counsel for Senate intelligence committee when she questioned just how much of an undercover agent Ms Plame – Wilson actually was:
"She had a desk job in Langley," said Ms. Toensing, who also signed the supporting brief in the appeals court, referring to the C.I.A.'s headquarters. "When you want someone in deep cover, they don't go back and forth to Langley."
You can’t blame the Dems and the liberal side of the MSM machine. Hey this is what they dream about, hitting for the cycle, what getting Rove and embarrassing Bush all in one hit!
It looks increasingly likely that is not going to happen given the facts know at this point. I’d put the odds at 99 – 1% unless there actually is evidence against Rove that is currently not being reported.
I still think the really interesting part of the story that is only now beginning to be covered by some organizations is why is Miller sitting in jail? That’s where this story has meat, why the Administration is remaining quiet and letting the investigation get to the answers, and why the NYT seems increasingly anxious about where this is headed.
I’ll stick with one of two previously mentioned theories: 1) Miller is protecting a liberal CIA source that she and the Times value highly. 2) That Miller could have been the one who actually leaked the name. Time will tell……………
Two thirds of the article focus on the “politics” of the moment with the Dems trying to exert pressure on Bush to fire Rove, even though there is no proof that he leaked Plame’s name. On the contrary, all evidence thus far proves he did not leak her name as an undercover agent, or even knew she was an undercover agent.
It’s particularly telling when the article quoted Bruce Stanford, a lawyer who helped “write” the law in question. Here is what Stanford said:
Based on the e-mail message, Mr. Rove's disclosures are not criminal, said Bruce S. Sanford, a Washington lawyer who helped write the law and submitted a brief on behalf of several news organizations concerning it to the appeals court hearing the case of Mr. Cooper and Judith Miller, an investigative reporter for The New York Times. "It is clear that Karl Rove's conversation with Matt Cooper does not fall into that category" of criminal conduct, Mr. Sanford said. "That's not 'knowing.' It doesn't even come close."
Funny how when the politics are shaved off the story and the experts who wrote the law review the matter, it is crystal clear and cut and dry.
I also like the commentary from Victoria Toensing who was the chief counsel for Senate intelligence committee when she questioned just how much of an undercover agent Ms Plame – Wilson actually was:
"She had a desk job in Langley," said Ms. Toensing, who also signed the supporting brief in the appeals court, referring to the C.I.A.'s headquarters. "When you want someone in deep cover, they don't go back and forth to Langley."
You can’t blame the Dems and the liberal side of the MSM machine. Hey this is what they dream about, hitting for the cycle, what getting Rove and embarrassing Bush all in one hit!
It looks increasingly likely that is not going to happen given the facts know at this point. I’d put the odds at 99 – 1% unless there actually is evidence against Rove that is currently not being reported.
I still think the really interesting part of the story that is only now beginning to be covered by some organizations is why is Miller sitting in jail? That’s where this story has meat, why the Administration is remaining quiet and letting the investigation get to the answers, and why the NYT seems increasingly anxious about where this is headed.
I’ll stick with one of two previously mentioned theories: 1) Miller is protecting a liberal CIA source that she and the Times value highly. 2) That Miller could have been the one who actually leaked the name. Time will tell……………
posted by Steve at 11:10 AM
