Support NeoGAF

[MIMIC]

Looking over some of the press briefings, I found a damning exchange:

QUESTION: So none of them told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA?

McCLELLAN: They assured me that they were not involved in this.

Matt Cooper's article:

Was it through my conversation with Rove that I learned for the first time that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and may have been responsible for sending him? Yes. Did Rove say that she worked at the "agency" on "WMD"? Yes.

 

[Incognito]

yah, the press corps has brought up that line to robot mclellan numerous times over the past week. rather funny stuff...

 

[xsarien]

Looking over some of the press briefings, I found a damning exchange:



Matt Cooper's article:

Ultimately, the White House is going to quibble on whether or not Rove actually stated her name outright. It's sleazy and pretty disingenuous, but hey, that's what we've gotten for the past five years anyway.

 

[MIMIC]

Well Cooper has already stated that Rove didn't mention her by name. However, McClellan stated that Rove didn't tell any reporters that she worked for the CIA. According to Matt, he clearly did.

 

[Dan]

Ultimately, the White House is going to quibble on whether or not Rove actually stated her name outright. It's sleazy and pretty disingenuous, but hey, that's what we've gotten for the past five years anyway.

Even if that's what happens (or is true, ha ha), there might be perjury issues, so Rove could be in trouble one way or another.

 

[MIMIC]

Joe Wilson does something that the Republicans don't like, so they drag his wife into the mess.

Matt Cooper does something that the Republicans don't like, so they drag his wife into the mess.

How utterly disgusting.

 

[fart]

another great reason to marry a ninja assassin feared by even the most evil of men.

 

[3rdman]

Joe Wilson does something that the Republicans don't like, so they drag his wife into the mess.

Matt Cooper does something that the Republicans don't like, so they drag his wife into the mess.

How utterly disgusting.

LOL! Its the Chewbacca defense!

Funny how they jump on this tidbit like it matters to the testimony already given at the grand jury.

 

[APF]

Even if that's what happens (or is true, ha ha), there might be perjury issues, so Rove could be in trouble one way or another.

I think the perjury "issue" is the only issue right now. Or the only issue we know about...

 

[Nerevar]

I think the perjury "issue" is the only issue right now. Or the only issue we know about...

not necessarily, if Eli Manning's point earlier in the thread is true:

Looks like under subsection c the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that 1) he intended to expose her, 2) he disclosed the info to an unauthorized person knowing it would expose her, and 3) he knew the government was taking affirmative actions to keep her identity secret.

He could clearly be guilty of parts 1 and 2 (AFAIK you don't have to say a name specifically to reveal an identity. I have a family friend who's wife works for the CIA and even though she is not covert she says she works for the state department. If I tell a friend that this man's wife works for the CIA, I'm clearly identifying her because her marriage and her name are public record and easily found). The issue at hand is part 3 - he could claim that he didn't know the CIA was making efforts to keep her identity secret. But the fact that he stated "I may already have said too much" clearly implies he had knowledge of what he was doing, and that what he was doing was wrong. Whether or not that holds up to a jury is another issue entirely.

 

[APF]

not necessarily [...]

Keep the faith I guess, but IMO my point stands.

But the fact that he stated "I may already have said too much" clearly implies he had knowledge of what he was doing, and that what he was doing was wrong.

I'd think that too (although what he thought he was doing--and "wrong" on what level--is debatable) if Cooper himself didn't say the meaning was ambiguous. He did, so we don't know what it "clearly implies."

 

[Nerevar]

Keep the faith I guess, but IMO my point stands.


I'd think that too (although what he thought he was doing--and "wrong" on what level--is debatable) if Cooper himself didn't say the meaning was ambiguous. He did, so we don't know what it "clearly implies."

I don't disagree, but you seem to be underestimating the value of circumstantial evidence. Despite the "innocent until proven guilty" credo of the US, a very large number of cases are prosecuted on circumstantial evidence alone. I don't know the role or intentions of the special prosecutor, but just by going with the facts that I've seen it is clearly more than enough to make an indictment and prosecute a case against Rove with a clear hope of winning. Of course, there's probably a whole host of data I'm not privy too, but from what I've read it's certainly enough to make a strong case against him.

And btw, that's not a "keep the hope alive liberal left!" statement, it's an honest evaluation of the facts that are in public record. As I said, there's probably a whole host of other stuff we don't know about yet, so it's too early to leap to conclusions.

 

[maynerd]

Didn't Novak leak the name to the general public? It's very odd that he is not really being pinned down for anything at this time. I think this case may be bigger than Rove. It could implicate someone higher up like Dick Cheney. This is going to be really interesting when all the information is released.

 

[APF]

just by going with the facts that I've seen it is clearly more than enough to make an indictment and prosecute a case against Rove with a clear hope of winning. Of course, there's probably a whole host of data I'm not privy too, but from what I've read it's certainly enough to make a strong case against him.

My instinct is that you're wrong, but if it's me that's wrong that's ok too. Just note that it's not a crime to say, "so-and-so works at the CIA," which is all I think Rove did (regarding that matter, at least; we don't know about possible perjury, etc--also IANAL, so grain of salt). The question of where he got that information, and whether or not he knew he was revealing a covert operative, is another matter entirely. Novak's primary source was supposedly not a partisan, so that leaves-out Rove. I guess we'll find out in October or whenever, but getting hung-up on implicating Bush's Brain is more a matter of one's political leaning than anything else, IMO

 

[3rdman]

Apparantly, Novak already spilled his guts about everything he knew...what he said (at least until now) is still unknown.

If Rove is going to use the defense that he was only confirming or correcting reporter who called him is gonna have a hard time...confirming is just as bad. Also, Newsweek has an interesting hypothesis on how the reports might have been informed about Plame. I suggest that you follow the link to a huge article at Newsweek...good stuff.

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/07/newsweek-exposes-rove.html

As "senior adviser," Rove would be involved in finding out. Technically, Rove was in charge of politics, not "communications." But, as he saw it, the two were one and the same—and he used his heavyweight status to push the message machine run by his Texas protegé and friend, Dan Bartlett. Press Secretary Ari Fleischer was sent out to trash the Wilson op-ed. "Zero, nada, nothing new here," he said. Then, on a long Bush trip to Africa, Fleischer and Bartlett prompted clusters of reporters to look into the bureaucratic origins of the Wilson trip. How did the spin doctors know to cast that lure? One possible explanation: some aides may have read the State Department intel memo, which Powell had brought with him aboard Air Force One.

Meanwhile, in transatlantic secure phone calls, the message machinery focused on a crucial topic: who should carry the freight on the following Sunday's talk shows? The message: protect Cheney by explaining that he had had nothing to do with sending Wilson to Niger, and dismiss the yellowcake issue. Powell was ruled out. He wasn't a team player, as he had proved by his dismissive comments about the "sixteen words." Donald Rumsfeld was pressed into duty, as was Condi Rice, the ultimate good soldier. She was on the Africa trip with the president, though, and wouldn't be getting back until Saturday night. To allow her to prepare on the long flight home to D.C., White House officials assembled a briefing book, which they faxed to the Bush entourage in Africa. The book was primarily prepared by her National Security Council staff. It contained classified information—perhaps including all or part of the memo from State. The entire binder was labeled top secret.

Missions accomplished. Except for a few little details. Under a 1982 law, it's a felony to intentionally disclose the name of a "covered" agent with the intent to harm national security. Under another, older statute, it could also be a felony to willfully disclose information from a classified document—which the State Department memo and, apparently, the Condi briefing book were. There is no indication that Rove saw the briefing book (Rumsfeld didn't get one) or that anyone disclosed classified information. But no one in the administration seems to have noticed the irony—or the legal danger—in assembling a top secret briefing book as guidance for the Sunday talk shows. Exactly what papers with what classifications were floating around on Air Force One? Who, if anyone, was dipping into them for info about the Wilson trip?

And if Rove knew Plame's identity, as Novak says, how did Rove learn it? A source close to Rove has said Rove never saw the State memo. The same source told NEWSWEEK last week that Rove "doesn't remember" where he heard the crucial information about Wilson's wife. But, the source said, Rove is "pretty sure he heard it directly or indirectly from a media source."

In a familiar Washington twist of fate, Rove's theory of politics is being turned against him—and he is being forced to deploy the Republican machine, which he built on Bush's behalf, for a more personal task: his own defense.

 

[maynerd]

Looks like Bush is "flip floppin"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8605680/

 

[bob_arctor]

Looks like Bush is "flip floppin"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8605680/

That, and actually thanking Rove for being a distraction during one of the more horrific weeks in Iraq.

 

[Incognito]

White House press conferences are quickly becoming TV's best show...

Q. But you had said that anyone involved with this would no longer be in this administration, you didn't say anyone who committed a crime.

A. Yeah, we've been through these issues over the past week, I know what was said previously.

Q. Did the president equate the word leaking to a crime? Is the only threshold for firing someone involved being charged with a crime?

Q. Two years and he can't call Rove in and find out what the hell is going on? (Helen Thomas, love her) All he has to do is call him in?

A. Because there's an investigation continuing at this point, the appropriate people handling these issues are the people investigating this investigation.

Q. We don't know all the facts, but we know some of the facts. Given the facts you said these men didn't discuss a CIA agent's identitity, does the white house have a credibility problem?

A. No.

Q. You made statements that have proven to be untrue.

Q. Given the new formulation of somebody committing a crime....

A. I'm not going to add to what the president said...

Q. What about president's previous statements. Do they remain operative? (funny, the media is using Watergate language here, statements remaining "operative")

Q. Dancing around definitional issue. You're telling us there's nothing new in what the president said today, yet you said before that someone would be fired if they were even involved in the leak. The president appears to have set up a higher bar. They are not the same thing on their face.

A. I would not read anything into it more than what the president said.

Q. You said you talked to Scooter and Rove and Abrams, you said they weren't involved. Do you stand by that?

A. blah blah blah

Q. Has the president asked Karl Rove to detail any involvement he's had.

A. The president directed the White House to cooperate fully.

Q. Has the prosecutor asked the White House not to speak to his top aides about this topic?

A. You can ask the prosecutor.

Q. Has the White House coordinated with the RNC and GOP members of congress on this issue?

A. I answered that last week.

:lol :lol :lol :lol

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/07/scott-mcclellan-lying-live-on-cspan-1.html

 

[MIMIC]

Regarding the notion that Rove learned of Valarie Plame's identify from the media, I find that to be a huge, steaming pile of bullshit.

^^And I was wondering whether or not they would have a press briefing today. The red-hot loathing of Bush-side of me is glad that "Watergate" is beginning to trickle into the vocabulary of the anchors covering this scandal.

 

[bob_arctor]

Regarding the notion that Rove learned of Valarie Plame's identify from the media, I find that to be a huge, steaming pile of bullshit.

^^And I was wondering whether or not they would have a press briefing today.

All of this is a huge, steaming pile of bullshit. And it disgusts me. As that reporter, Helen Thomas, alluded to: Bush didn't know a single thing? No clue? Yet we're supposed to believe his administration's gonna ferret out sleeper cells of bomb-wielding maniacs to keep us all safe? New meaning to the word "boggles", I tell ya.

 

[MIMIC]

All of this is a huge, steaming pile of bullshit. And it disgusts me. As that reporter, Helen Thomas, alluded to: Bush didn't know a single thing? No clue? Yet we're supposed to believe his administration's gonna ferret out sleeper cells of bomb-wielding maniacs to keep us all safe?

:lol :lol

She got fiesty with McClellan today.

:lol The White House website omitted the use of the word "hell"

 

[The Chosen One]

Q. You said you talked to Scooter and Rove and Abrams, you said they weren't involved. Do you stand by that?

A. blah blah blah

:lol :lol :lol



Q "Didn't you say there was Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq?"
A "blah blah blah"

 

[xsarien]

Shit, did he really say "Blah, blah, blah"?

 

[teiresias]

Someone post a video of that press conference as soon as it's available!!!

 

[Macam]

Someone post a video of that press conference as soon as it's available!!!

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/07/20050718-2.html

 

[Incognito]

Those are just notes taken from the press conference. As you can tell, not verbatim. He didn't say "blah blah blah." More than likely, he repeated the same, oft-repeated talking point of "won't comment during an ongoing investigation" bullshit. However, Helen Thomas did utter the word HELLLLLLL.

 

[teiresias]

The white house coverup is very thorough, they're even encoding their conferences in RealVideo to ensure no one watches them after the fact!!!!!

 

[ronito]

McCellan: So Rove gets on the phone and yada yada yada now Plame needs a new job.

 

[xsarien]

Those are just notes taken from the press conference. As you can tell, not verbatim. He didn't say "blah blah blah." More than likely, he repeated the same, oft-repeated talking point of "won't comment during an ongoing investigation" bullshit. However, Helen Thomas did utter the word HELLLLLLL.

Aww...

(And the reason I asked was because I *wouldn't* put it past McClellan to say it.)

 

[Incognito]

Bob Schieffer of CBS News tears Bush a new one:

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Face_the_Nation_Schiffer_Rove.wmv

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Face_the_Nation_Schiffer_Rove.mov

LATimes chimes in, via Digby:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...8,0,1271980,full.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Prosecutors investigating whether White House officials illegally leaked the identity of Wilson's wife, a CIA officer who had worked undercover, have been told that Bush's top political strategist, Karl Rove, and I. Lewis Libby, chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney, were especially intent on undercutting Wilson's credibility, according to a person familiar with the inquiry.

While lower-level White House staff members typically handle most contacts with the media, Rove and Libby began personally communicating with reporters about Wilson, prosecutors were told.

A source directly familiar with information provided to prosecutors said Rove's interest was so strong that it prompted questions in the White House. When asked at one point why he was pursuing the diplomat so aggressively, Rove responded: "He's a Democrat." Rove then cited Wilson's campaign donations, which leaned toward Democrats, the person familiar with the case said.

[...]

Activities aboard Air Force One are also of interest to prosecutors -- including the possible distribution of a State Department memo that mentioned Wilson's wife. Prosecutors are seeking to find out whether anyone who saw the memo learned Plame's identity and passed the information to journalists. Telephone logs from the presidential aircraft have been subpoenaed; among those aboard was former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer, who has testified before the grand jury.

The source familiar with the investigation said Saturday that prosecutors had obtained a White House call sheet showing that Novak left a message for Fleischer on the afternoon of July 7, 2003, the day after Wilson's op-ed article appeared and the day that Fleischer left with the president for Africa. Fleischer declined to comment for this article, but has flatly denied that he was the source of the leak.

Wilson said in an interview Saturday that he had known that Novak was interested in him a week or so before the column appeared. He said that a friend who saw Novak on the street reported that Novak told him, "Wilson is an (expletive) and his wife works for the CIA."

[...]

There have been other indications of a concerted White House action against the former envoy. Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus has said that two days before Novak's column, he was told by an "administration official" that the White House was not putting much stock in the Wilson trip to Africa because it was "set up as a boondoggle by his wife, an analyst with the agency working on weapons of mass destruction," according to an account of the conversation Pincus wrote for the Summer 2005 issue of Nieman Reports, published by the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University.

 

[MIMIC]

:lol

 

[MIMIC]

I've been reading a few news articles about Bush's back-stepping on firing a "criminal" rather than a "leaker" and I'm glad to see that the L.A. Times is telling it like it is, rather than giving Bush the benefit of the doubt:

WASHINGTON -- President Bush, whose White House is facing increasing pressure in the investigation of the public identification of a covert CIA operative, said today that he would fire anyone found to have committed a crime.

Last year, he had said he would fire anyone who had leaked such information. Thus, his remarks today appeared to shift his standard, allowing continued service in his administration until the commission of a crime had been established, rather than simply the determination that classified information had been leaked.

The AP

Bush said in June 2004 that he would fire anyone in his administration shown to have leaked information that exposed the identity of Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame. On Monday, however, he added the qualifier that it would have to be shown that a crime was committed.

WTF?! His standard changed! PERIOD!

 

[Shinobi]

All of this is a huge, steaming pile of bullshit. And it disgusts me. As that reporter, Helen Thomas, alluded to: Bush didn't know a single thing? No clue? Yet we're supposed to believe his administration's gonna ferret out sleeper cells of bomb-wielding maniacs to keep us all safe? New meaning to the word "boggles", I tell ya.

:lol Makes the mind reel doesn't it...

The white house coverup is very thorough, they're even encoding their conferences in RealVideo to ensure no one watches them after the fact!!!!!

:lol I'm surprised they're not using Vivo...that'd really throw us!

:lol

:lol The fourth panel absolutely slays me...

 

[teiresias]

Watching the stream of the press conference now. It's damn painful. This administration is freaking mess, a damn joke, and wanting to stick it's head in the sand.

 

[MIMIC]

Great article on the situation by the L.A. Times:

WASHINGTON — Top aides to President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were intensely focused on discrediting former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV in the days after he wrote an op-ed article for the New York Times suggesting the administration manipulated intelligence to justify going to war in Iraq, federal investigators have been told.

Prosecutors investigating whether administration officials illegally leaked the identity of Wilson's wife, a CIA officer who had worked undercover, have been told that Bush's top political strategist, Karl Rove, and Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, were especially intent on undercutting Wilson's credibility, according to people familiar with the inquiry.

more...

 

[Incognito]

ABCNews polls and info:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/PollVault/story?id=949950

July 18, 2005 — Just a quarter of Americans think the White House is fully cooperating in the federal investigation of the leak of a CIA operative's identity, a number that's declined sharply since the investigation began. And three-quarters say that if presidential adviser Karl Rove was responsible for leaking classified information, it should cost him his job.

Skepticism about the administration's cooperation has jumped. As the initial investigation began in September 2003, nearly half the public, 47 percent, believed the White House was fully cooperating. That fell to 39 percent a few weeks later, and it's lower still, 25 percent, in this new ABC News poll.

Resources

* The Polling Unit: Archives

Top Stories

* Podcast: The AfterNote
* Bush Would Fire Leaker if Crime Committed
* The Note: When the Dog Bites

This view is highly partisan; barely over a tenth of Democrats and just a quarter of independents think the White House is fully cooperating. That grows to 47 percent of Republicans — much higher, but still under half in the president's own party. And doubt about the administration's cooperation has grown as much among Republicans — by 22 points since September 2003 — as it has among others.

There's less division on consequences: 75 percent say Rove should lose his job if the investigation finds he leaked classified information. That includes sizable majorities of Republicans, independents and Democrats alike — 71, 74 and 83 percent, respectively.

At the same time, in September 2003 more Americans — 91 percent — said someone who leaked classified information should be fired. The question at that time did not identify Rove, the White House deputy chief of staff and one of George W. Bush's closest advisers, as the possible source of the information.

Should Karl Rove Be Fired If He Leaked Classified Information?
Yes No
All 75% 15%
Republicans 71 17
Independents 74 17
Democrats 83 12

A Time magazine reporter, Matthew Cooper, said this weekend that Rove told him that the wife of a former ambassador was a CIA officer, without giving her name. Cooper testified last week before the grand jury investigating the matter, saying his source had released him to do so.

Bush today appeared to raise the bar on a dismissable offense, saying he'd fire anyone who committed a crime. Previously the administration said anyone who'd disclosed the CIA agent's identify would be removed, without specifying a criminal act.

Miller

This poll finds majority support for another reporter, Judith Miller of The New York Times, who's gone to jail rather than disclose her confidential source in the case. Sixty percent say she's done the right thing, ranging from 49 percent of Republicans to about two-thirds of Democrats and independents.

That view comports with an ABC News/Washington Post poll in May that found majority support for the use of confidential sources by news reporters — 53 percent in general, rising to 65 percent if it's the only way to get an important story.

Serious

The leak investigation is seen as a meaningful issue: About three-quarters call it a serious matter, and just over four in 10 see it as "very" serious. These are down slightly, however, by five and six points respectively, from their level in September 2003.

Fifty-three percent are following the issue closely — a fairly broad level of attention. Those paying close attention (who include about as many Republicans as Democrats) are more likely than others to call it very serious, to say the White House is not cooperating, to say Rove should be fired if he leaked, and to say Miller is doing the right thing.

Methodology

This ABC News poll was conducted by telephone July 13-17, 2005, among a random national sample of 1,008 adults. The results have a three-point error margin. Sampling, data collection and tabulation by ICR-International Communications Research of Media, Pa.

 

[maynerd]

Watching the stream of the press conference now. It's damn painful. This administration is freaking mess, a damn joke, and wanting to stick it's head in the sand.

Where can I see this?

 

[MIMIC]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/07/20050718-2.html

Go there and at the top is a link for the video of the press briefing.

These briefings are starting to get tiresome because McClellan answers every question with "no comment" essentially. The only interesting aspect of the briefings are the palpable nervousness of the White House and how bad the press corps are grilling him.

McClellan didn't answer a single fucking question.

:lol Just read this:

Q Scott, I just wonder -- Scott, on a personal, human note, how are you holding out? Are you enjoying this? (Laughter.) Seriously. And are you consulting with any of your predecessors who have also gone through crises, Mike McCurry --

:lol

 

[TheOMan]

Q Scott, going back to the President's statements from earlier -- if someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration -- it makes me go back to the question I asked you last Wednesday, is there regret from this administration of what it has done to the Wilson family, with the CIA leak? And I talked to Mr. Wilson prior to going into the East Room, and he basically said, the American people deserve an apology, and that his family was basically collateral damage in a bigger picture.

MR. McCLELLAN: All these questions are getting into prejudging the outcome of the investigation, and we're not going to do that.

Q But if someone -- if the President acknowledged that there was a problem, and it could be a criminal problem, if he acknowledged that, isn't there some sort of regret?

MR. McCLELLAN: It's a criminal investigation. We don't know all the facts to it.

Go ahead.

Q Well, is there any regret from this White House that it has caused an American family who worked for this government --

MR. McCLELLAN: I heard what you had to say and I've already answered it.

Q No, you didn't.

:lol :lol :lol I almost feel sorry for this guy. If he has any integrity, he can't be sleeping well at night.

 

[Macam]

James Moore once agains brings us back to why Karl Rove will never go alone. Sadly, I tend to side with Moore more than I would like.

There's also a bit of a jab at the end there, when a reporter inquires whether McClellan has consulted with any of his predecessors who similarly have gone through crises like Mike Curry, who was the former White House spokesperson under the Clinton administration during the Lewinski affair. While it's somewhat innocuous, the implication of that is fairly obvious: When there's a crisis, there's obviously foul play.

 

[maharg]

I'm curious who actually wants Rove to go alone. The people on his side don't want him to go at all, and the people on the other side would like nothing more than for Bush and the neoconservative Republican party to go down with him.

 

[MIMIC]

Didn't take much to sweep this story out of the way....

 

[Shinobi]

Heh, it never fails...

 

[The Chosen One]

Hah, yeah I noticed the same thing. This story literally fell off the face of the earth today after it had been gathering steam the past several days. Some are saying that's why the white house waited to make this Supreme Court Nomination announcement until primetime, instead of during the day like with what's normally done. Seems like it worked, at least temporarily.

But I don't think the media will let go of the Rove story entirely so easily. Once the supreme court hubbub dies down and there's some new developments with the CIA Leak investigation, they'll start reporting the story again.

 

[Hitokage]

Hah, yeah I noticed the same thing. This story literally fell off the face of the earth today after it had been gathering steam the past several days. Some are saying that's why the white house waited to make this Supreme Court Nomination announcement until primetime, instead of during the day like with what's normally done. Seems like it worked, at least temporarily.

But I don't think the media will let go of the Rove story entirely so easily. Once the supreme court hubbub dies down and there's some new developments with the CIA Leak investigation, they'll start reporting the story again.

Not when one of their own is in jail over it.

I mean, if the mainstream media lets itself get apathetic over even THAT... then there truly is no hope.

 

[MIMIC]

At least the mainstream media is REPORTING that the White House is obviously using the Supreme Court nomination to distract from the Rove leak. I'm glad that they're not treating this as if it were some brand new, unintentional news story.

 

[Incognito]

At least the mainstream media is REPORTING that the White House is obviously using the Supreme Court nomination to distract from the Rove leak. I'm glad that they're not treating this as if it were some brand new, unintentional news story.

It really doesn't matter. Fitzgerald will still conduct his investigation, regardless of the Supreme Court hoopla. And when indictments are handed down, I hope the Bush express has a chest full of news stories to deflect attention.

 

[Shinobi]

But I don't think the media will let go of the Rove story entirely so easily. Once the supreme court hubbub dies down and there's some new developments with the CIA Leak investigation, they'll start reporting the story again.

Call me an eternal cynic, but I'll believe it when I see it. Personally I expect to see July's "missing white woman of the month" take center stage by week's end.

 

[ronito]

It really doesn't matter. Fitzgerald will still conduct his investigation, regardless of the Supreme Court hoopla. And then nothing will happen.

Fixed for reality's sake.

 

[Guileless]

For the third time, media attention on this right now is beside the point. If there's enough evidence for a grand jury to indict him, he will be indicted regardless of what the media does. The media could start doing all their Rove stories in Latin and it will have no effect on whether he's indicted.