• Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Subscribe
  • RSS

No Charges for Rove (Video)

Matt Drudge is reporting that Patrick Fitzgerald won’t be seeking charges against Karl Rove for the Valerie Plame investigation.

Robert Luskin, Attorney for Karl Rove today released the following statement:

“On June 12, 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove.

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

This will no doubt come as a surprise to some pundits out there, who were expecting Fitzgerald to indict Rove. I’d also be willing to bet that there’s quite a few people in the Republican Party who aren’t happy about this turn of events, either. No charges against Rove means that he’s still going to be around, and it’s pretty clear that following the Rove playbook isn’t likely to equal any gains for Republicans in the upcoming elections.

UPDATE (James Joyner): It’s as if they’ve canceled Fitzmas.

Rove Thumbs Up

Michael Demmons expects mass suicides at YearlyKos.

UPDATE (James Joyner): Meanwhile, Jason Leopold is still citing his usual reliable sources, this time producing an article that is virtually unintelligible. You’d have to be a Florida Masochist to still be reading him at this point.

UPDATE (James Joyner): RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman is having a field day:

“It’s pretty clear that he not only did nothing wrong, but me did everything right in terms of cooperating with this investigation. And what’s so incredible to me is that the folks on the other side of the aisle, people like Howard Dean and Harry Reid, they owe him an apology. They took this good man and they prejudged him.”

Video of his appearance on FOX:

Video of his appearance on CNN:


via RNC email tip.

Related Posts:

  • None Found

About Alex Knapp
Alex Knapp writes about pretty much everything under the sun, including politics, art, religion, philosophy, sports, music, culture, and science.

Comments

  1. Mark says:

    So much for Jason Leopold’s “sources”, eh?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. Rove Cleared – Moonbats Sad…

    Fresh from DRUDGE:

    “On June 12, 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove.

    “In deference to the pending case, we will not make any further public statements about …

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  3. Jason didn’t get the memo…

    So who do we believe The Times or Leopold?…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  4. Amplez says:

    Alan Foley(not Laurence RPCV like Wilson) will be directing the new CIA analysts mmoving to NSA(DIA).

    Plame and her old boss.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  5. Bithead says:

    itâ??s pretty clear that following the Rove playbook isnâ??t likely to equal any gains for Republicans in the upcoming elections.

    If that’s true, why are so many Democrats on suicide watch this morning?

    The very reason Rove became such a high profile target is because he IS effective, at among other things, gathering votes.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  6. Rove won’t be indicted…

    Via the NYT:
    WASHINGTON, June 13 — The prosecutor in the C.I.A. leak case on Monday advised Karl Rove, the senior White House adviser, that he would not be charged with any wrongdoing, effectively ending the nearly three-year criminal investigation t…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  7. Jason Leopold, Call Your Office…

    Truthout.org, June 12 2006: Four weeks ago, during the time when we reported that White House political adviser Karl Rove was indicted for crimes related to his role in the leak of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson, the grand……

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  8. [...] Here’s Alex Knapp’s take on the situation: This will no doubt come as a surprise to some pundits out there, who were expecting Fitzgerald to indict Rove. I’d also be willing to bet that there’s quite a few people in the Republican Party who aren’t happy about this turn of events, either. No charges against Rove means that he’s still going to be around, and it’s pretty clear that following the Rove playbook isn’t likely to equal any gains for Republicans in the upcoming elections. [...]

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  9. Alex Knapp says:

    Bithead,

    Rove was definitely effective in the short-term. But in the long term I think he’s pretty much shattered the Republican coalition.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  10. Richard Gardner says:

    Valarie Plame’s lawyer (Christopher Wolf) stated this morning that they are considering civil action against Rove. And this isn’t a partisan action? (AmericaBlog)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  11. No Charges For Rove Means He Focuses Full Attention On Political Role…

    A lot of the news and weblog assumptions of the past few months have been swept away with news that White House political guru Karl Rove will not be indicted in the Plamegate case — a case that many reports had suggested had distracted Rove from full-…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  12. Cleared and No Charges for Karl Rove…

    Another bad day or should I say week for liberals, boo hoo!! (smiling) President Bush’s Adviser Karl Rove will not be indicted or charged in the “Valerie Plame Case.” Oh let us not forget the liberal media has to report it with their teeth grindi …..

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  13. Rove Will Not Be Charged…

    I am among those who thought Rove could be indicted. In fact, if Rove was involved in the leaking of Plame’s identity, I feel he should be indicted. Jeapordizing (the job of) a CIA-agent is unacceptable. Especially if one only acts out of political mo…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  14. Bithead says:

    Alex;

    Let’s just say the argument is less than convincing.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  15. John says:

    Suggesting that some Republicans will be unhappy about this is a bigger stretch than the blogmeisters who think Karl Rove is pointing the finger at Dick Cheney in Fitzgerald’s investigation. Whether he’s effective or ineffective these days, he and the party are better off if he stays unindicted.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  16. Len says:

    I believe I heard this on CSI Miami last night (one of my all-time favorite shows, by the way)…

    “A verdict of not guilty does not prove innocence.”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  17. Anderson says:

    “Suicide watch”? What Dems are doing more than shrugging?

    Rove may have been totally innocent; he may have been guilty, but the evidence wasn’t there. That’s the thing about lying to investigators and the grand jury–it makes it hard to catch you, unless you can be caught in your own web, as happened to Libby.

    Being a certified moonbat who checks many such blogs (though not Kos), I can say that the general attitude about a Rove indictment was “too sweet, it can’t really happen.”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  18. LG says:

    Rove was efective and civil action is so they don’t get into more trouble. Like treason charges or criminal conspiracy; now that Fitz is out.

    ‘No charges does not prove innocence.’

    mycoke rewards.com

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  19. RA says:

    Shummer wants Fitzgerald to break the law by devulging grand jury testimony. They want to break the law to continue their jihad against Bush.

    We need congressional hearings to see if Shummer has broken the law.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  20. Steven Plunk says:

    While it’s true a not guilty verdict doesn’t mean innocent Rove wasn’t even charged with a crime. To make the stretch that Rove is still guilty of something makes no sense.

    How about the simple answer. Rove did nothing wrong and the whole affair was a waste of time and money.

    In an attempt to set the record straight concerning Niger and uranium the administration angered certain elements of the opposition party and career bureaucrats more interested in themselves than the welfare of the country. Those malcontents then attacked with these false charges. Let’s hope it wraps up completely soon.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  21. RA says:

    Melhman’s only mistake on CNN was to refute the idea that polls tell how people are going to vote. The left-wing media has been fixing polls for 25 years to convince people they are right. That is why the Democrats go bonkers when they are told Ohio is in their pocket and they loose big time. The moonbats believe their own propaganda machine and then are shocked when elections show these polls to be false.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  22. Fersboo says:

    Free Mumia Abu-Jamal!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  23. Bithead says:

    â??Suicide watchâ??? What Dems are doing more than shrugging?

    My, we ARE isolated, aren’t we?

    Or perhaps it’s just denial, as I see most of those I’ve linked here, are engaged in?

    The emotional spectrum runs the gambit from anger and denial to utter despondancy.

    It’s like I said at my place this morning; this is shaping up to being an entertaining summer.

    And I’m considering taking bets as to how long it will be before we see the usual suspects taking up the chant that Fitz is just another tool of George Bush.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  24. Anderson says:

    Bithead’s usual intellectual honesty at work, it seems. I clicked on the two links to sites I’d heard of before, TalkLeft and David Corn.

    Bithead characterized the responses he linked as “The emotional spectrum runs the gambit from anger and denial to utter despondancy.” Apparently, he doesn’t understand the meaning of the polysyllabic words in that sentence. Or he just doesn’t care.

    TalkLeft:

    It’s over, folks. Karl Rove will not be charged with a crime. He’s cooperated with Fitzgerald by testifying to the grand jury five times and providing whatever information he had without a safety net. Without a 5k. Without assurances he would not be indicted. That’s a hell of a risk, but Luskin pulled it off. My hat’s off to Luskin.

    I opined repeatedly on TalkLeft and HuffPo that Karl Rove would be charged at least with making a false statement to investigators in the fall of 2003 before a grand jury was convened — the Martha Stewart crime. That was wrong.

    I’m ready to put this to bed. Karl Rove walked. He’s one of the rare subjects of an investigation who was able to talk his way out of an Indictment.

    And yes, I think Jason needs to out his sources. If there was and will be no Indictment of Rove, his sources lied. If any are lawyers at Patton Boggs, I hope they lose their jobs and their law licenses.

    Where’s the anger? the denial? the utter despondency? anything in between?

    David Corn is too long to quote, but he reminds us of the facts about Rove’s concealment of his role in the Plame leak. No anger, denial, etc.–if you can go to the link and quote examples, be my guest.

    Rove walks, on terms that his lawyer won’t make public. Hurray for him. He can go back to being his normal hateful self. If it’s a victory for the White House that “only” Cheney’s chief of staff is indicted, then I hope we’re using a more robust definition of “victory” for what we hope to achieve in Iraq.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  25. Bithead says:

    So, Anderson… You’re not getting from both of them,anger because they think(?) Rove got away with something?

    What Amazing comprehensional skills.

    Or is it, perhaps, that you think he “got away” with with something too, and therefore figure their comments justified?

    The fact is that the only people who ‘got away’ with anything were the Democrats, here.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0