Tuesday, June 13, 2006

No indictment for Rove

OK, Rove slipped through the net and won't be indicted. I was one of those who posted an inaccurate and overly optimistic report saying he had been or was about to be awhile back. I regret that. If anyone paid off any bets based on my posting, I apologize. But let's not confuse "not indicted" with "not guilty of anything," OK?

WashPost reports:
Karl Rove Won't Be Charged in CIA Leak Case

By Fred Barbash and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, June 13, 2006; 8:24 AM

Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald has told White House aide Karl Rove that he does not expect to seek charges against him in connection with the CIA leak case, Rove's lawyer said today.

In a statement this morning, Robert Luskin, Rove's attorney, said that Fitzgerald "has formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges" against Rove.

"In deference to the pending case, we will not make any further public statements about the subject matter of the investigation," Luskin said in the statement. "We believe that the Special Counsel's decision should put an end to the baseless speculation about Mr. Rove's conduct."


At 8:30 AM, Blogger Crazy Politico said...

Gosh it's gonna be a fun day reading the lefty spin on this, probably as close to the Onion as one can find.

At 8:33 AM, Blogger Other Side said...

Who cares what you righties think. He's still a pig.

At 10:16 AM, Blogger XOut said...

Ummm... Okay.

This is too easy.

At 4:19 PM, Blogger Erik Opsal said...

We'll see what happens when Dick Cheney gets indicted.

At 12:07 AM, Blogger Troy Fullerton said...

I agree with Xoff...'not indicted' does not mean 'not guilty of anything'.

Much like Doyle and Marotta not being indicted in the Adelman scandal does not mean they knew nothing about the contract or are not guilty of anything.


Post a Comment

<< Home