Pages Menu
Categories Menu

Posted by on Apr 27, 2006 in At TMV | 2 comments

Rove testifies again and again and again and again — that’s five times, if you’re counting

I haven’t done one of these in a while, but how about a round-up of blogospheric reaction to Karl Rove’s fifth appearance before the federal grand jury looking into the Plame case?

See here.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2006 The Moderate Voice
  • Ah, yes, when all else fails there is the “that would have been stupid defenseâ€?. It appears that Karl Rove has chosen this to be a piece of his final efforts to avoid indictment. I’ve always found the very notion of this defense flawed. The premise of the defense is that smart people wouldn’t do stupid things or make decisions that could rationally be expected to lead to negative consequences. In Rove’s case, as I understand the issue, the argument is being used to explain an oversight to reveal all the details of his conversation with Matt Cooper (specifically the part about Valerie Plame)…in essence he simply forgot that portion of the conversation but to lie would have been stupid…and Rove knows people don’t think he is stupid.

    The unspoken assertion by those who use this defense (Tom DeLay comes to mind) is that they may use their intelligence to walk right up to the line, but they are also smart enough to never cross that line…basically they know the rules so well they can navigate them like a skilled tightrope walker. On the surface it sounds reasonable and plausible.

    Unfortunately, history often seems to contradict this defense and the premise upon which it is founded. That’s not to say these individuals are stupid…they are actually quite bright. However, what people may miss is an understanding that whatever these people possess in terms of smarts sometimes pales in comparison to the zeal with which they seek wealth, prestige, or power. In essence, smart people, not unlike others who lie and manipulate, are not above self-deceit in order to augment lofty goals, obtuse egos, and an unbridled hunger for power.

    In the end, it’s a mistake to evaluate these situations on the basis of the individual’s intelligence…and historically juries often don’t. It’s not difficult to understand that a jury also evaluates where arrogance, greed and the desire for power sit in relation to intelligence. One’s desire for the former has a direct impact upon the amount of intelligence that is applied to any particular activity to achieve the latter.

    The mathematical genius who abandons math for theater is not necessarily stupid. He is simply motivated by other interests and the application of his intellect may or may not be the dominating part of his life equation. Those who know this individual may know that he is smart but they may also know that a passion for theater, despite its failure to be a reasonable and rational calculation, is able to override the application of intelligence. He may well fail in theater while still being a very smart man.

    Why would anyone assume the actions of politicians are any different? A better analysis of how these individuals and their scandals unfold is described by the “choose your poison principle�…what compels; controls. In looking at Karl Rove there is little doubt he is passionate and motivated. His history is littered with demonstrations of aggressively pursuing his objectives. To presume he would never cross the line, given his obvious intensity, would shift the use of the “that would be stupid defense� to Patrick Fitzgerald and a full Grand Jury. That would likely require a lot of smart people to look stupid. Is Karl Rove smart enough to pull that off? Perhaps.

    read more observations here:

  • kritter

    Karl Rove is very smart, obviously ethically challenged, and in general, seems to be as slippery as an eel. For the life of me I don’t understand why he’s not already under indictment—he seems to have committed the same offenses as Scooter Libby, and isn’t it a bit unusual to testify 5 times in front of a grand jury if you’re not going to be indicted?
    The Republicans are counting on his considerable political talents to minimize the fallout of this administration in the 2006 mid-terms, so maybe his legal strategy is to delay, delay, delay……….hmmm reminds me of another Republican under indictment and investigation by a grand jury! Will Fitzgerald delay indicting Rove until after November? Will there ever be any transparency when it comes to this issue??? This has already dragged on three times as long as Watergate!

Twitter Auto Publish Powered By :