Stop the Presses! Rove May Tell the Truth!

Well maybe. Anything Karl Rove says leaves me skeptical. And anything said about Karl Rove leaves somewhat skeptical as well. Karl Rove would never have gotten as far as he has if he weren't a master of CYA. But, for what it's worth, here's a post at No Quarter:

Not so fast.

IMPORTANT FACTS:
1 We haven't yet seen a copy of the letter from Fitzgerald to Ruskin (and we need someone like former prosecutor Christy Hardin Smith at Firedoglake to parse Fitz's language in that letter);
2 We have had NO statement yet from the Justice Dept.;
3 There's the possibility of a sealed indictment; and
4 Even if Rove is cooperating to nail Libby or Cheney, he has no right to keep his security clearance.

"The language used by [his attorney Robert] Luskin strongly suggests that Rove got immunity in exchange for his cooperation...

And here's more from Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo:

...let's not forget the salient facts here. The question going back three years ago now is whether Karl Rove knowingly participated in leaking the identity of a covert CIA operative for the purpose of discrediting a political opponent who was revealing information about the White House's use of intelligence in the lead-up to the Iraq War.

That was the issue. From the beginning, Rove, through Scott McClellan, denied that he did any of that. There weren't even any clever circumlocutions. He just lied. From admissions from Rove, filings in the Libby case, and uncontradicted reportage, we know as clearly as we ever can that Rove did do each of those things.

So he did do what he was suspected of and he did lie about it.

Now, I'm happy to take Patrick Fitzgerald's word for it, his evaluation of the evidence, that there's not enough evidence to indict Rove on any criminal charge. As Rove's defenders have long made clear, the underlying statute dealing with revealing the identities of covert operatives is very hard to bring a charge with. Same goes for making false statements or perjury. Hard to prove and you need lots of evidence as to intent and so forth.

In fact, not only am I happy to take Fitzgerald's word for it, if this is in fact the case, good for Fitzgerald. A prosecutor's role is not to punish people for malicious acts. It is to ascertain whether they've committed specific criminal acts and determine whether there is sufficient evidence to sustain a charge.

But none of this changes the fact, for which there is abundant evidence, even admissions from Rove himself, that he did the malicious act. And he lied about doing it. Indeed, on top of that, President Bush welched on his promise to can anyone who was involved.

So, at the end of the day, it's likely that Mr. Rove lied. And lied some more. And lied so well that he's getting off the hook. I expect President Bush at any moment will award Rove the Congressional Medal of Freedom for doing such a good job at what he does.