« Now That Ms. Huffington Has Come Out and Said It... | Main | Grover Lust »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


"I need to get my head out of the weeds of this thing..."

Everyone loves a good mystery.

Rob W

"Once you've heard something from several reporters, it's pretty much in the public domain. That's a reasonable defense, if it's true."

Unfortunately for Rove, its not a reasonable defense at all. First, I'd like to point out that the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 is not the only statute which Rove and or Libby might face criminal liability. There are several others, most of which are far easier for the prosecutor to use to go after the leakers.

Second, it does not matter whether or not the "CIA has done a good job" of protecting someone's identity. It merely needs to be taking a single step of any kind to protect the identity of the agent. That's it. There is no "everybody knew it" defense written into the law. The whole thing is a gigantic red herring.

One has to remember that these hoops that have to be jumped through are big and set low to the ground deliberately to make it easy for prosecutors to do their job--prosecute criminals.

Fitzgerald is probably the best prosecutor in the U.S. today--he's convicted bin Laden, mobsters, you name it. He wouldn't be doing all of this unless he really had something.


Re: "also reason to suspect that the Times doesn't know for sure what they're paying Floyd Abrams to protect"

What do you base your suspicion on?

My intuition was the same, from their editorials and the passionate way they fought the case, UNTIL this editorial:

"A Few Thoughts on Karl Rove
Published: July 13, 2005

.....Mr. Rove could clear all this up quickly. All he has to do is call a press conference and tell everyone what conversations he had and with whom. While we like government officials who are willing to whisper vital information, we like even more government officials who tell the truth in public."

That's when it seemed to me like they knew. It's just a guess on my part from being a long-time reader. Was just curious why you thought the same.

Oh, also, does anyone know if Joe Wilson ever changed his tune on Judith Miller from his initial response to her sentencing? In that public letter, implies she is "collateral damage" and a victim like his wife.

"...Thus has Ms Miller joined my wife, Valerie, and her twenty years of service to this nation as collateral damage in the smear campaign...."

I thought that was odd; that still bothers me--he should have had a sense if she was "enemy."

The comments to this entry are closed.