Robert Luskin, the lawyer for Karl Rove, issued a statement this morning, reported by Byron York of National Review Online:
On June 12, 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove.
In deference to the pending case, we will not make any further public statements about the subject matter of the investigation. We believe that the Special Counsel's decision should put an end to the baseless speculation about Mr. Rove's conduct.
Only yesterday, the badly mis—named website Truthout featured yet another report from Jason Leopold claiming that Rove was the subject of a sealed indictment, according to Sweetness & Light.
Rather than shame and withdrawal in disgrace, we can expect the left to claim that Rove barely escaped, that he is damaged goods, and that the "criminals in the White House" used nefarious means to cover—up a real crime and avoid Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV's vision that Rove would be "frog—marched" out of the White House.
Thomas Lifson 6 13 06
Ed Lasky adds:
What relevance, what does it mean, for Dean to opine on the matter?
(Via Drudge) DNC Chair Howard Dean: "If Karl Rove had been indicted it would have been for perjury. That does not excuse his real sin which is leaking the name of an intelligence operative during the time of war. He doesn't belong in the White House. If the President valued America more than he valued his connection to Karl Rove then Karl Rove would have been fired a long time ago. So I think this is probably good news for the White House, but its not very good news for America."
Note to Dean: The special prosecutor found NO grounds to pursue an indictment, let alone convict Rove. Dean intends to insert himself as lawmaker (by making up a law to be violated), judge, jury, and executioner. What ever happened to the separation of powers?
Share