FREE ROVEY
EmailSpecial Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has apparently decided that Karl Rove is off the hook.
This despite several breathless predictions over the past few weeks and months, from CABLE TV (MSNBC’s David Shuster: "I am convinced that Karl Rove will, in fact, be indicted."); to a POPULAR LIBERAL WEBSITE called, interestingly, "truthout," that declared "Karl Rove Indicted on Charges of Perjury, Lying to Investigators" (which I was accused on more than one occasion of being part of an immense corporate-GOP-media plot for ignoring).
This despite calls for Rove’s head from Ambassador Joe Wilson, to various liberal groups and Democrats (MOVEON) and Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-NY, came up with a plan TO FLOOD THE WHITE HOUSE with "pink slips" as a mass nudge) — including the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which one might think could be better focused on issues more resonant with the American people. (Outside of D.C., I still have yet to meet more than five people who really, truly understand all the machinations of this confusing scandal.)
Of course, absence of law-breaking is not evidence of ethical behavior, and there are arguments to be held about Mr. Rove’s behavior, how forthcoming he was with Mr. Fitzgerald, and whether Mr. Rove’s involvement in the disclosure of Valerie Plame’s identity violated the President’s pledge to fire anyone found to have broken the law.
The latter gets a bit hinkey, because the President’s pledges on the matter were repeatedly quite specific to a legal finding that a law had been broken — "If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of … If somebody did leak classified information," he said in September 2003; "If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration," he said in July 2005 — with the exception of one time when a reporter interrupted him to ask him about a pledge the president had not made.
This is the exchange, from JUNE 10 2004
Q Given — given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President Cheney’s discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent’s name?
THE PRESIDENT: That’s up to —
Q And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. And that’s up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts.
It is on that hook that partisans say the President pledged to fire anyone "who leaked the agent’s name." Given the president’s specificity in the past, and his addition above that it’s "up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts," I do not think he has pledged to fire anyone who leaked the agent’s name. (Whether the President should have made such a pledge, given his hopes that the Bush Administration would abide by the highest ethical standards, is another matter.)
Despite the snipes of organizations who try to raise money by hiring partisan hacks to find conservative media bias in every reporter’s ampersand, this is not an attempt by a reporter to protect crimes, this is an attempt to be fair and ethical and to discern the truth.
And a wary information-consumer should be as wary of the claims by such groups as they hopefully were of cable nets and liberal websites that breathlessly, erroneously, reported that Karl Rove was about to be frog-marched off to jail.
– jt
USS Gabrielle Giffords Honors Courage 
Mitt Romney's Full Speech at CPAC 2012
Clearly, anyone who has a political ax to grind will find fault with the prosecutor’s decision not to pursue Mr. Rove. I also think it’s clear that the President would never fire the political mastermind behind so many of his successes, unless he were pressured to do so. To paraphrase F. Scott Fitzgerald, “The politicos are very different from you and me.”
Posted by: chuck | June 13, 2006, 10:08 am 10:08 am
The fact that Rove will not be indicted means only that; it’s not an admission that Rove is absolutely innocent of any wrongdoing.
We won’t know if W would have invited Karl to leave the White House if he had been indicted on this issue, will we? What we do know is that W was very careful with his words — interesting for a guy who often sounds inarticulate (I’m the decider and I get to decide??).
We also know that this White House (especially Mr. Cheney) appears to be extraordinarily secretive, with a very expansive view of executive power than may well date to Mr. Cheney’s experience in the Ford Adminstration when executive privilege was limited in the first post-Watergate Presidency.
Paul O’Neil’s book tells us that the Bush Administration was interested in going to war with Iraq from the beginning of the administration, and not beginning after 9/11, or, in response to some “new evidence” that Saddam had WMD –evidence we now know does not exist.
The Bush Administration made a collasal mistake in going into Iraq. They know it. They have tried to silence critics using a variety of means, and some in the press have helped them do it.
The fact that Rove was not indicted does not make me trust the Bush Administration more.
If we had taken all of the money we have spent on the Iraq War and invested it alternative energy technology, we would be a lot further ahead on the route to energy independence. Reducing fossil fuel emissions would help stop global warming. And, of course, the thousands and thousands of innocent lives lost in the Iraq War would have been saved.
Concerns about Rove in the “liberal” press mask a greater concern by most Americans regarding the trustworthiness of this administration and their competency when it comes to unraveling the mess they have created in Iraq.
Here’s a Rose Garden Press Conference Haiku for you:
On a warm spring day
W skipped the Rose Garden Press
For bigger headlines
Posted by: Lisa | June 13, 2006, 10:49 am 10:49 am
Jake:
Do the world a favor; please call yourself a political commentator, not a correspondent.
There is not one bit of objectivity anywhere in your reporting; if a story comes out in the future that makes this Admin look bad, will you report it or spin it?
Posted by: SPENCER ADAMS | June 13, 2006, 7:35 pm 7:35 pm
Is the Washington Post one of the “snip[ing] organizations that Tapper is referring to?
In the September 30, 2003 edition on page A01, Mike Allen and Dana Milbank quote White House Spokesperson Scott McClellan:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A17129-2003Sep29
“There’s been nothing, absolutely nothing, brought to our attention to suggest any White House involvement, and that includes the vice president’s office, as well,” said Scott McClellan, Bush’s press secretary. He said that “if anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration.”
Or the White House?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030929-7.html
If Tapper is interested in “discern[ing] the truth, he must acknowledge that the White House made it explicit that a violation of the law was not a prerequisite to a firing. His repeated omission of McClellan’s statments is telling.
Posted by: A_B | June 13, 2006, 7:46 pm 7:46 pm
Jake, it’s disappointing to see you blogging again if you’re just going to use it as a venue to be defensive and attack organizations that simply stick to the FACTS.
Of course everyone should be wary of pundits and armchair prognosticators who predicted that Rove would be indicted. People should be aware of the difference between reporting and punditry.
Assuming you’re referring to Media Matters in your defensive post, however, all you need to do is go to their web site and examine the source material yourself. They give you links, dates, sources, and often the exact audio or video clips involved. You are free to examine the primary source materials and accept or reject their conclusion yourself.
I’ve read the source material. And it’s quite clear that the Bush administration has said they’d fire anyone involved in the leaking. To cover their asses, they LATER tried to tighten the language to say anyone who broke the law would be fired.
Since George Bush seems to feel free to decide which laws he needs to follow, anyway, this certainly leaves him a heck of a lot of wiggle-room.
You’re not perfect, Jake. No one is attacking you when you make mistakes. Admit them, move on.
Posted by: Maura | June 13, 2006, 10:34 pm 10:34 pm
“absence of law-breaking” — Not Proven
better
“absence of prosecution” — More Accurate
but let’s just wait until we see the proof of Fitz’s decision
Posted by: wisedup | June 14, 2006, 8:14 am 8:14 am
Once again, Media Matters has made you out to be the fool and the bootlicker, using actual quotes and links to the source material. Unlike you, who provide no such documentation for your whiny little tirade. How’d you get that job, anyway?
Posted by: James | June 14, 2006, 8:23 am 8:23 am
Good ol’ Jake, out there fighting truth, justice and the American way! He’s going to fight the truth until it gives in and surrenders to his fantasy world where GWB is a popular president and Karl Rove is not a creep who outed a CIA agent working on WMDs.
Posted by: db | June 14, 2006, 8:39 am 8:39 am
“Despite the snipes of organizations who try to raise money by hiring partisan hacks to find conservative media bias in every reporter’s ampersand, this is not an attempt by a reporter to protect crimes, this is an attempt to be fair and ethical and to discern the truth.”
That’s not true, Jake. And you know it.
BTW, a better title for this column would be “Political Kool-Aid.” It’s obviously what you’re drinking.
Posted by: dave | June 14, 2006, 10:30 am 10:30 am
All I know, is that back in 2000, Jake Tapper was one of my favorite witers on the web. The 2000 model of Jake Tapper would never be caught dead writing what the 2006 model of Jake Tapper writes.
I have a feeling if I walked into his house, there would be a giant empty pod sitting next to his bed!
Posted by: TOM | June 14, 2006, 11:16 am 11:16 am
Jake must protect his access to the white house.
This can be the only reason he is splitting hairs to let Bush off the hook. Remember fokes that reporters can be cut off if thet don’t toe the line. Why is someone who is called “turd muffen” even employed at the white house? ( Bushes nickname for Rove) If Jake ask’s tough questions he will get the Hellen Thomas treatment.
Bob K
Posted by: bob | June 14, 2006, 12:42 pm 12:42 pm
It wasn’t absence of law-breaking, but absence of admissible evidence of law-breaking, that kept Fitagerald from indicting Rove. It may seem like a distinction without a difference, but it’s not. Plenty if lawbreakers never get indicted or convicted because of, of, say — obstruction of justice, spoliation of evidence or just plain old lying. Just because he wasn’t indicted doesn’t mean he wasn’t involved in the leak. It just means he was more careful about covering his tracks than Scooter Libby.
Posted by: PunditMom | June 14, 2006, 3:16 pm 3:16 pm
If Tapper’s casuistry were truly an “attempt to be fair and ethical and to discern the truth,” he would start with the “partisan hacks” at ABCNews who “repeatedly” carried news reports recalling “the President’s [changing] pledge on the matter” of firing leakers; pledges that were not initially based on “a legal finding that a law had been broken” but repeatedly and generally applicable to any staff member who was “involved,” “culpable” found or admitted to leaking Plame’s name.
ABCNews.com | Associated Press | 9/30/2005 [ http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=nation_world&id=3491627 ]:
President Bush has given varying accounts of the circumstances under which he would fire leakers in the Plame probe.
In September 2003, Bush said “we’ll take the appropriate action” [against those "involved" {http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030929-7.html)] and his spokesman [McClellan] said “they [those "involved"] would no longer be in this administration.” In June 2004, Bush reiterated the pledge, answering “yes” when asked if he would fire anyone in his administration who leaked Plame’s name. In July, amid revelations that Rove and Libby had been involved in the leaks, Bush said that “if someone committed a crime” he would be fired.
ABCNews.com | The Note | July 15, 2005 [ http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/story?id=959245 ]:
Reports the Wall Street Journal’s John McKinnon, “Some longtime Bush watchers think the outlines of serious damage are clear in the contradiction between Mr. Rove’s conversation with Time reporter Matt Cooper about Ms. Plame’s employment and earlier White House assurances that he wasn’t involved. What is more, Mr. Bush has previously pledged to fire anyone culpable in the leak.”
ABCNews.com | The Note | October 4, 2005 [ http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/story?id=1202824 ]:
In a piece that looks at why some Republicans are worried by the idea of a White House without Karl Rove, the Wall Street Journal’s John McKinnon charts the evolution of President Bush’s statements on the CIA leak case. “Early on in the controversy over the disclosure of Ms. Plame’s identity, the President vowed to fire anyone involved. Later, after testimony implicating Mr. Rove became public, Mr. Bush expressed a looser standard, saying he would remove aides who committed crimes. Last week, amid speculation that Mr. Rove might face charges from special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, Mr. Bush wouldn’t say whether he would remove an aide under indictment.”
ABCNews.com | Associated Press | October 14, 2005 [ http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1213149 ]:
For the White House in 2004, the good news about Fitzgerald’s probe was that it didn’t become an issue during the presidential election year….The president promised to fire any leakers.
ABCNews.com | ABC 7 | November 4, 2005 [ http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=nation_world&id=3604706 ]:
In June 2004, Bush said he stood by his previous pledge to “fire anybody” in his administration shown to have leaked Plame’s name. His press secretary, after checking with Libby and Rove, assured the public that neither man had anything to do with the leak.
Which brings us back to this — ABCNews.com | Tapper interview with Wilson | July 7, 2005 [ http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=942622&page=2 ]:
Tapper: President Bush said that if anybody was found to have broken the law, they would be fired or dealt with. Do you think that phrasing was purposeful? The idea that he would say if they had broken the law as opposed to just if they had been involved in some sort of contribution to the leak?
Wilson: My understanding is last year he actually said that anybody who was involved in the leak would be fired… But I don’t have the transcript of what he may have said … The fact remains, however, that the president has indicated, in my judgment he indicated, that anybody involved in the leak would be fired…
Tapper: Well, I think his pledge actually was specifically if the law had been broken.
And this — ABCNews.com | Tapper on Agee | October 1, 2003 [ http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=129392 ]:
Tapper: Agee says his intention was to disrupt — not harm — the lives of CIA agents. But the law to prevent future Philip Agees does not distinguish between the two. Whatever the motivation, simply revealing the identity of intelligence agents is a crime — thanks to the president’s father and Philip Agee.
Ergo –
The president, according to Tapper: “If anybody was found to have broken the law, they would be fired.”
Tapper, according to Tapper: “Whatever the motivation, simply revealing the identity of intelligence agents is a crime.”
Thanks for playing Jake.
Posted by: reticulant | June 14, 2006, 7:11 pm 7:11 pm
I just do not understand why Mr. Tapper habitually misquotes the president on this matter. JAKE! Bush DID NOT set the bar at law breaking for firing people. Is it too much to expect a journalist to get his GD facts straight? Sheesh!
Posted by: Mickey Finn | June 14, 2006, 8:10 pm 8:10 pm