So why is this news? What makes a non-event even worth blogging about, let alone massive coverage across the blogosphere? One word: Fitzmas.
The term "Fitzmas" was coined to describe the glee and schadenfreude that the left was displaying while looking forward to the dearly hoped-for indictment of Karl Rove by prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. The attitude in many was like a child looking forward to Christmas. For example, even with the failure of this indictment to come to pass, here's how Tigerhawk describes the New York Times' coverage:
The New York Times describes this as a barely dodged bullet, Rove having been "dangerously close to possible charges." You can almost feel the disappointment.
Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame's husband, said that would love to see Karl Rove "frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs." Although that dream is dead, there are still ways to keep hope alive in this for the left, and Decision '08 has a top-10 list to help out.
Just One Minute Typepad has extensive coverage of this, as is Tom Maguire's usual style, laying out the timeline, the coverage, and the events with precision and care. In fact, any time there is a major legal scandal, check Just One Minute out, he'll have some of the best coverage available on the internet, if not the best. Tom honorably makes an admission:
Two quick guesses as to why there was no indictment:
(a) The Libby indictment looks very much like a failed attempt to force Libby to cooperate, presumably by testifying against Dick Cheney. Evidently, the prospect of a second failed attempt held little appeal for Fitzgerald.
(b) The Armitage angle made a Rove indictment problematic except as a package deal (as I discussed on May 19). Briefly, Richard Armitage, former deputy Secretary of State, had apparently leaked about Ms, Plame's CIA affiliation to Bob Woodward in mid-June and Bob Novak in early July. However, he seems to have only testified about the Woodward leak *after* the Libby indictment was handed down in Oct 2005, despite reminders and requests from Bob Woodward during 2004. That looks a lot like obstruction and perjury, yet Special Counsel Fitzgerald has shown no interest in pursuing him. Well, fine, but how can what Rove did (which amounted to forgetting about his talk with Matt Cooper of TIME) be considered indictable if Armitage's behavior was not?
Commenters at the Typepad typed this:
I repeat my Diogenesian quest. someone please tell me why we should not break out in convulsive laughter whenever Leopold prints anything. I guess the sealed indictment disappeared into Area 54? Or the business clock on the wall had its batteries wore out and stuck on 10 minutes to midnight?[Mr Maxwell is referring to the Truthout.org claim of indictment, based on a sealed indictment being handed down which was presumed to be Karl Rove's]
-by Gary Maxwell
Anyway, I'm a simple girl with a simple idea. Fitzgerald got led astray by the Marc Grossman "Strickly for Revenge" story. He indicted Libby because he thought Libby started the chain of leaks (like Begala and Carville in the Gennifer Flowers smear).[In case you want to ask Mr Leopold to follow through on this promise, here's his email address: firstname.lastname@example.org]
BUT Libby wasn't hiding the big leak, and Fitz wouldn't have indicted him if UGO would have stepped forward. Fitz just got it wrong, and he's been unable to extricate himself.
I didn't think he would step in it MORE by indicting Rove on charges that only mattered in a false narrative.
I'm glad to see there are enough sensible people here to be encouraged, but not celebratory.
If the leaker lawyer indeed has a letter from Fitz absolving Rove of ALL charges, it would
be highly unusual unless.........there is a bigger fish to fry.
Actually, Leo, I think I answered my own question upon further reflection. Rove's lawyer doesn't have a letter absolving Rove of anything. He has a letter that says he isn't going to indict him. There was nothing to absolve...capice?
It is fair to say that my chest is swollen with gloating joy. By God, this is rich! Now we can sit back and wait for Leopold to deliver on his promise to out his sources if they proved to be incorrect. As I recall, he said he had one at Knight Ridder, one at ABC News, and a couple of others. But don't hold your breath...
Wake up people, McHitlerBushiburton is pulling the wool over your eyes! This is just another plot by the Administration to subvert the American justice system. Obviously, the only way they could have gotten away with this is... Karl Rove and Patrick Fitzgerald are the same person!*UPDATE: Added Wilson quote and minor formatting change