There is one reason and one reason only that Rove is not under indictment- Fitzgerald didn't have a case he felt he could win. Either he could not pin any crime on Rove, or he could not provide evidence he felt would lead to a conviction. Since no one, including Libby, is under indictment for the actual leak of Plame's identity, I assume that Fitzgerald just didn't have anything on Rove. If Fitzgerald wanted to get Rove on the lying charge (like Libby), all he had to do was go through all the testimony and find inconsistencies. Apparently he couldn't do that, or earlier inconsistencies were clarified in later testimony.
Lots of people dislike Rove and wanted to see him indicted out of personal spite. That is not a reason for an indictment, and it trivializes our justice system. On 6/13/06, Jerry wrote: > > The grand jury will never get a swing at indicting, since the special > prosecutor declined to send charges against Rove to the grand jury. > > He COULD probably get an indictment, but it is doubtful (based on his > actions) that he could win a conviction. > > From the outside without any real knowledge, I would bet that the > tesimony Rove has given lately corrected some previous testimony, or > fleshed out some earlier testimony, that made him less of a target. > And that Fitzgerald is either done with him, or struck a deal to not > charge him in exchange for further testimony. > > I think, thought that in this case, we WILL know some day what > Fitzgerald was looking for. > -- --------------- Robert Munn www.funkymojo.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:209092 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
