1. Anonymous says:

    He mentioned a "case," not an "investigation." So he may be referring simply to Libby’s upcoming trial. But I don’t think so. I think his comments might support the argument that Karl Big-C Cooperated,

    Rove has told his story the prosecutor under oath (many times) and now he is almost sure to be a witness in a criminal trial where the defendant will want to make it look to a DC jury like Rove himself is the real evildoer. 

    Call it still being a target, call it being a "cooperating" witness, or call it  keeping his cards close to his vest.  Anything he says in public about this will get right back to the defendant and his lawyer (who are eager  to know as much as they can about exactly what Rove has told the prosecutor)  And of course the prosecutor has  probably warned  Rove that any such communications might be treated as an obstruction of justice. 

    Under the conditions I don’t see how Rove’s avoiding all question in the area gives anyone any new information at all.

  2. Anonymous says:

    It’s not the avoiding questions. It’s the discussion of an ongoing anything, which is more than Luskin or Corallo have said about anything â€ongoing.†(Indeed, Corallo said â€it was over.â€)

    And it’s that he suggests â€the process†will result in nabbing the guy who is â€responsible.†Again, Rove’s team has suggested the game is over. It’s not if it still has to nab the guy who’s responsible.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Rove then said that after a â€careful, thoughtful, aggressive investigation,†then the person responsible should be fired.

    It’s tempting to ask, What on earth is he talking about? It’s also tempting to think it’s just a joke, the content of which is either, the person responsible can’t be fired, he’s long gone; or, and we fired his ass, along with his wimp boss’!

    But don’t disount the fact that this is mostly, and pivotally, not a direct quotation. Did Rove say â€person responsibleâ€? What did he actually say? All the descriptions of Rove’s comments are weird and obscure, if you ask me, except for the bit about the ongoing case, and even that might just be a joke. I’d like to see what he actually said.

  5. Anonymous says:

    oh yes, let’s get straight and certain another few words worth of what the prince of lies hands off to public junketeers. gimme a break.

  6. Anonymous says:

    Heya. Nice post; interesting. MAkes me want to light a cigar.

    Anyway, I was thinking of you today, not having bumped into you in a while. Wanted to come and say hi.

    xo

  7. Anonymous says:

    bianco – Yeah, skepticism about Rove’s public statements was roughly one half of my point. Not taken to the unhelpful and thoughtless lengths you want to take it, though. Don’t forget, you can learn from anyone, even someone like Rove. Hence the other half of the comment.

  8. Anonymous says:

    jeff, thank you so much for your helpful and thoughtful adjectives.

    and yes — i have ’learned from someone like rove’ that 5 trips to the Grand Jury Grill can make a mean man skinny.

    well .. skinnier.

  9. Anonymous says:

    Bill Kimball at the Huffington Post:

    Delivering a question posed by Bill Clinton two nights before, Walter asked Rove what Rove would have done if Clinton’s Chief of Staff had blown the cover of a CIA covert operative in order to punish her husband for telling the public a truth that the Administration preferred it not know. Rove took his recent toothskin thin exoneration and ran with it, saying that, had such a thing occurred, he would have condemned it in the strongest terms and demanded that the hypothetical Chief of Staff be summarily fired. If on the other hand, such a charge had been thoroughly investigated and found to be utterly groundless, then people of good faith should respect the judgment fairly rendered by our system and get on with their lives. An attempt to follow up was lazily rebuffed with the standard-issue â€can’t comment on an on-going investigation†routine.

    See what I mean?

  10. Anonymous says:

    Well done Jeff. Damnit, why don’t these reporters who don’t cover this normally do a better job of those covering it full time who STILL can’t get a full quote? /snark