Seal Versus Seal Versus Unemployment
Whoopsie. Right after Leopold's Truthout comeback story breathlessly speculated on what "Sealed vs Sealed" might actually contain, the New York Times reports that not only is Rove not under indictment, he also has been told in a letter from Fitzgerald that he will not be indicted. Presumably, the NYT reporter actually saw this letter. But the NYT still can't quite let it go with this stinker of a paragraph:
But it was evident that Mr. Fitzgerald's decision followed an exhaustive inquiry into Mr. Rove's activities that had brought the political strategist dangerously close to possible charges. In October, when Mr. Libby was indicted, people close to Mr. Rove had suggested that his involvement in the case would soon be over; speculation about Mr. Rove's legal situation flared again in April when he made his fifth appearance before the grand jury.
Let's make this perfectly clear. A prosecutor can get an indictment from a grand jury on almost anything with almost no evidence. Had Fitzgerald had anything to work with he would have gotten an indictment. The only thing Rove was dangerously close to was irresponsible speculation by people who really ought to know better.
Perhaps Mr. Leopold can get a job at a zoo. Cleaning up after seals.
UPDATE: Forgot to link to the real truth that got out. Many thanks to Pajamas Media for linking.
UPDATE: Decision '08 has a top ten - themed - roundup of reaction from the left.
UPDATE: Don't miss Sister Toldjah on Howard Dean and his ability to discern when to pronounce guilt and sin. And who gets a pass.
UPDATE: Bwahahaha. Brainster and The Night Before Fitzmas.
UPDATE: For an International perspective, here's David's Medienkritik. I once had occassion to email David about a questionable news item, he responded and answered my question rather quickly. But that was long before I started this blog. I hadn't read him for a while before he popped up on Technorati with this entry. He's still a good source for what's going on in Germany.
Other Links to this Post
-
The Moderate Voice — June 13, 2006 @ 9:42 am
-
Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » Rove Will NOT Be Indicted — June 13, 2006 @ 10:30 am
-
The Anchoress » The Sour Grapes Round-up — June 13, 2006 @ 10:55 am
By Dave Hardy, June 14, 2006 @ 7:13 pm
Sure. All a prosecutor needs for an indictment is probable cause, variously defined as including “strong suspicion.” And he can use hearsay, etc. Just one person who could say that someone else told them that they knew Rove broke the law. Or at least did something that would make you strongly suspicious that he did so. And of course the defense attorney is not invited to put on his case, or allowed to rebut the evidence.
The saying that you could indict a ham sandwich if you wanted to may be overstating it, but not by too much.