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-focus on President George W. Bush’s political ills.
No more. Because the bottom line is that under the American system of justice, the fact that he wasn’t indicted will trump any other allegations or charges of what he might have done in the CIA leak case. Rove’s foes, most notably in the Democratic Party, will say he escaped indictment; but to many Americans they’ll read a report like the New York Times report below and simply conclude there was not enough proof (evidence) to indict him so he is in the clear:
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 that had at times focused intensely on Mr. Rove.
The decision by the prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, announced in a letter to Mr. Rove’s lawyer, Robert D. Luskin, lifted a pall that had hung over Mr. Rove who testified on five occasions to a federal grand jury about his involvement in the disclosure of an intelligence officer’s identity.
In a statement, Mr. Luskin said, “On June 12, 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove.”
Mr. Fitzgerald’s spokesman, Randall Samborn, said he would not comment on Mr. Rove’s status.
What Fitzgerald says could have some impact in an election year: if he issues a statement that takes a swipe at Rove, it’ll be used to bolster the view that Rove escaped legal consequences. If not, Rove’s critics will be hard-pressed to use the investigation effectively against Rove in political terms since for months news and blog reports have stressed that Fitzgerald is a painstaking prosecutor who exhaustively investigates before he acts. More from the Times:
For months Mr. Fitzgerald’s investigation appeared to threaten Mr. Rove’s standing as Mr. Bush’s closest political adviser as the prosecutor riveted his focus on whether Mr. Rove tried to intentionally conceal a conversation he had with a Time magazine reporter in the week before the name of intelligence officer, Valerie Plame Wilson, became public.
The decision not to pursue any charges removes a potential political stumbling block for a White House that is heading into a long and difficult election season for Republicans in Congress.
Mr. Fitzgerald’s decision should help the White House in what has been an unsuccessful effort to put the leak case behind it. Still ahead, however, is the trial of Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby Jr., on charges for perjury and obstruction of justice, and the prospect that Mr. Cheney could be called to testify in that case.
Indeed, the White House seems to have gotten a political break the past few weeks:
–The Bilbray-Busby race to fill the jailed Randy Cunningham’s Congress seat ended in GOPer Bilbray’s election.
–Terror bigwig Zarqawi went out with a bang in Iraq. Four recent polls show a split: two say Zarqawi’s death helped Bush; two say it didn’t help at all.
–Rove not being indicted removes a major problem. If the President’s political alter-ego was indicted it has a far different image among the general population if he was NOT indicted.
In practical terms:
- Not being indicted is the same as exoneration to many Americans who read, listen to and watch the news. That’s why any comment by Fitzgerald negative to Rove in the final announcement on what happens in this case could have some consequences. To be sure, there have been cases where someone is not indicted or convicted in a trial and became a pariah. Look at the OJ Simpson case. But that was a murder trial with a variety of dynamics thrown in. To many Americans who are not Democratic or Republican partisans, it’s a complicated case — a complicated case in which Rove is not being indicted.
- Rove can now focus all his energy on trying to help the GOP hold on to keeping both houses of Congress which means it’s going to be a long, divisive and tempestuous election year.
- The focus now shifts even more so away from Rove to Libby and, more specifically, to what role Cheney may have played in the Plame case events.
So this is good news for the GOP. Or is it entirely? Outside the Beltway’s Alex Knapp has an interesting analysis which includes this:
This [the non-indictment] 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.
And, indeed, if Rove returns to full strength does he return to the same easy-to-define political landscape? Even some of the things we pointed to aren’t as they may seem at first glance:
- Most stories on the Bilbray-Busby race ignored the fact that Bilbray has extremely high name recognition in San Diego County and has had it for more than 20 years. He was not just some GOPer plucked out of the crowd. Returns show the Democrats made a very slight gain over 2004 in that district. Democrats might not have done enough, and Republicans may have done enough, but there were other factors in play there as well.
- The polls on whether Bush benefited from Zarqawi are contradictory but show some movement up on two of them. Bush made a surprise visit to Baghdad today. But events in Iraq remain unscriptable and spin will only work if there is something substantive to spin (like Zarqawi’s death and a new Iraq government).
- The GOP is split on some key issues. However, Bush’s poll numbers going up might do just do wonders for GOP unity — if it happens.
In a larger sense, in terms of political impact, you get the feeling that the White House and the Republicans are being battered by and reacting to events, then scrambling to recover from events and quickly trying to go on the offensive. And the Democrats are waiting for the events to sink the GOP with fewer specific ideas than to present the party as an alternative. Which strategy sounds more likely to work in an election year? One thing: Rove will now be out there working to keep the GOP on track.
UPDATE: The Washington Post‘s Howard Kurtz:
So after five grand jury appearances and many months of twisting in the wind, Karl Rove dodges an indictment bullet in the Valerie Plame leak case. I wonder if Truthout.org, which reported that Rove had already been charged, will be issuing a full retraction.
BUT THAT’S JUST OUR VIEW. HERE ARE SOME OTHER VIEWS ON ROVE:
—Glenn Reynolds is starting a roundup that begins “FROM FITZMAS TO FIZZLEMAS”
I’ve been rather doubtful all along that anything would ever come of this investigation that will touch the Whitehouse. Whatever anyone might think of the Bush administration, they’re a not stupid bunch. While all of us were hoping that with the Plame case, their reach might have exceeded their grasp, it’s always been a better than 50-50 proposition that they would get away with the highly treasonous case of outing a covert CIA agent, and that Joe Wilson wouldn’t get his frogmarch.
With or without Rove’s involvement / indictment, the case isn’t over by a longshot, even though the corporate media will now effectively close the books on this investigation (Libby doesn’t go to trial until 2007).
—Right Wing Nut House looks at wrong original Internet reporting on this issue and bloggers jumping the gun.
Let us not forget, however, that Lewis Libby remains under indictment, and increasingly seems to be turning against Vice President Dick Cheney in an effort to save his own skin. We’ll see what comes of that.
But, in spite of everything, it’s not looking good for the effort to bring George W. Bush to justice for his crimes. Even the Democrats in Congress seem cowed by Bush, and eager to let the whole thing go… let the Bill of Rights go… let habeas corpus go… let the balance of powers go… let the rule of law go.
—Centerfield: “From everything I’ve seen, Fitzgerald is a very thorough, meticulous prosecutor. He’s made a couple of minor mistakes, but on the whole he’s done a professional job all the way around.”
Now that Rove has been cleared of any legal action, he can concentrate on the upcoming midterms. He might find some extra motivation to pull one more rabbit out of the hat after experiencing the venomous coverage of this non-event for the past two years. The rest of us will continue to shake our heads at yet another useless special-prosecutor investigation and wonder when we will finally stop creating these extra-Constitutional witch hunts and force the Department of Justice and Congress to do its own dirty work.
In terms of quick reactions, here are a few points to consider: a) resist the temptation to believe dubious reports from Truthout; b) Scooter Libby’s trial may still turn out to be an embarrassing debacle for the Bush White House; c) Rove may get out of this mess without an indictment, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t do anything wrong; and d) if you really want to make Rove’s professional life tough, help elect a Democratic Congress in five months.
Oh, and e) if Rove is in the clear, maybe now the White House can comment on exactly what top presidential aides did to leak the identity of an undercover CIA agent to spite her husband?
—Blue Crab Boulevard: “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.”
I have to say that immunity in exchange for cooperation is certainly something that has crossed my mind after the unusual multiple testimonial appearances before the grand jury that Rove made. And I have to wonder what that does mean, if so. And when we’ll find out.
This is much harder on the outside looking in, even though it’s much less work in terms of juggling evidence and the grand jury secrecy issues versus the public’s right to know questions that I head to deal with when I was prosecuting cases. Bottom line for me: it’s not over until Fitzgerald says it is over.
—Wonkette: “It’s a sad, sad day for indictment fans everywhere tonight. But Rove has shown precisely how much you’re allowed to lie to a grand jury and get away with it, a boon to future Atwaterian fixers.”
—Vodka Pundit: “It’s really too bad this news didn’t come out on Friday. The reactions from the wackos at the Kos Konvention would have been priceless.”
—Classical Values: “Not that I expected cheering. Oddly enough, I’m not seeing much cheering among Republicans…I’m not surprised by the subdued reaction [on the left] today. I think that, despite the hatred of Karl Rove, the fact that this whole thing was so stretched out made it die with a whimper instead of a bang. So it’s anticlimactic. It might also indicate that the left has learned from experience that Karl Rove is like a tar baby — a subject best avoided.”
—Great White Snark: “I wonder if the Lefty bloggers who praised Peter Fitzgerald months ago for upholding the rule of law will turn on him for not “getting Rove.” If so, it only shows that they didn’t give a damn about the rule of law in the first place. At least, they prioritized it below bringing down this Administration by any means necessary.”
—Real Clear Politics blog: “This removes the specter of what would have been another damaging round of extremely bad PR for the White House had Bush’s longtime political consigliere been indicted and it also gives Rove the peace of mind to pour all of his focus on November’s elections.”
President George W. Bush’s chief political adviser and the “architect” of his political career, Karl ‘Turd Blossom’ Rove, escaped indictment in the Valerie Plame-Wilson CIA leak case, according a statement by his lawyer.
Attorney Robert Luskin said he heard the news from special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald on Monday. The news ends months of speculation about Rove’s fate in the case, fed most recently by a story that originated on the left-leaning, non-profit news Web site Truthout in a story written by Jason Leopold.
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 motives.
Whether or not he had something to do with it, has now, of course, become legally irrelevant.
—Michelle Malkin starts a graphic and link-filled roundup.
–Pajamas Media has an extensive roundup.
—Josh Marshall: “I think the chances are nil that Luskin is making this up since that’d be practically daring Patrick Fitzgerald to indict his client. Whatever else he may be (amateur precious metal dealer?), he’s no fool.”
—ClammyC at Daily Kos sees a lesson on the need for confirmed reporting:
It is no secret that DKos has a target on its back, even moreso now that our profile has been raised higher after this past weekend. And it is no secret that one of the things that make this a great community is the fact that we take pride in our accuracy and sourcing. This is one of the biggest differentiators between us, most of our right-wing counterpart communities, as well as some of the other left-leaning communities.
Because of this, it is IMPERATIVE that we don’t get caught in the trap of wanting to be first to report something here or see our names on the recommended list, only to ultimately have egg on our face because of sloppiness or inaccuracies in OUR reporting.
(Thanks to Andrew Sullivan for that tip)
Please read all trackbacks to this post for additional viewpoints.
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.