But there are a lot of clammouring voices crying that Fitzgerald was motivated by partisanship and dislike for Rove. If that were true, or he was less concientous, then he probably could have gotten an indictment. But not a conviction.
Of course, have we heard officially from the prosecutors office that Rove will not be charged, or still just from the defense team? Unlikely, but it could just be a defense smoke screen to then allow them to claim a broken promise or retaliation or partisanship. >From what little I know of the facts, Rove should not have been indicted. But I don't have all of the juicy (more likely boring) tidbits from the investigation. On 6/13/06, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:209096 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=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
