Rove Said to Testify in CIA Leak Case

AP ^ | October 6, 2005 | JOHN SOLOMON

[txrangerette]

From your information, one COULD conclude that Rove's voluntary appearance is the reason Fitzgerald is not compelling him to testify, but that Fitz really is after an indictment of Rove, but surrepticiously, not openly and above board.

To believe this scenario, just for argument sake, you've got to believe that Rove has a terrible attorney, or that Rove lied to his own attorney or covered something up so deeply that his own attorney could not get to the truth. Otherwise, Rove would not be going voluntarily before the GJ IF he or his attorney truly believed he is vulnerable to being indicted, whether openly or surrepticiously, by the GJ.

Now, we can't know the full truth here, because attorneys can be bad and clients can lie and cover up to their own attorneys. But I agree with you that from what we do know, it does not look that bad for Rove.

The Media, and I include Fox in this, are just all atwitter that Rove is hanging on the sheer precipice of indictment. Not one of them that I have heard have analyzed this from the perspective of your information and the known facts. Even those giving a slight benefit of the doubt will only say things such as that Rove was never sent a target letter (but they will always add that he was sent a letter that said there would be no guarantee he could not be indicted in the future, in return for his voluntary testimony). Or they will simply quote Rove's attorney.

That is supposed to pass for fair reporting these days.

A pox on all their houses!!!