I am a bear of little brain
I was moved this morning to make a comment on this by SusanUnPC at No Quarter . And I know I'm not supposed to cross-post, but I reckon if nobody's reading this, it's only for the record.
Dear Susan,
I'm trying to suppress my fervent hope that Rover rolled over, and that he's fingered the big fish (no, silly, not Bush, Cheney). At this point, that's the only news that would cure the melancholy that settled on me when I saw this mornings posts in the blogoverse.
Having professed to my effort to suppress unfounded hope, I would hasten to add that, indeed, when Fitz says that he does "not anticipate seeking charges" he doesn't mean that Rover isn't as guilty as sin, or that, under different circumstances Fitz wouldn't decide to seek an indictment. It means what it says. And then of course, there's the hope that, after all this time, and long before the right are finished with their "nyah, nyah, Karl's innocent" taunts of the progressives who were waiting for an indictment, there will be Deadeye, at the defense table, looking resolute and defiant while, one by one, his colleagues pile on the logs and Fitz lights the match. Burn, baby, burn.
And later,
SusanUnPC,
This is so complicated that it's hard for this bear of little brain to think about the ins and outs. But here's a thought: Couldn't all of the reports be true? I don't want to sound like an apologist for a possible administration dupe (J. Leopold), or worse (an apologist for my wishful thinking), but even with this morning's news, and the antipathy coupled with skepticism regarding Leopold's lastest claims, couldn't
A) J. Leopold be essentially right, still, in claiming that there is a sealed Grand Jury indictment naming Rove for lying, at the same time as
B) Fitzgerald is saying that he doesn't anticipate seeking charges (in other words he doesn't anticipate unsealing Sealed vs. Sealed) if Rover is a good boy on the stand, at the same time as
C) Luskin says his boy's off the hook, at the same time as
D) Luskin tells Jeralyn over at TalkLeft that Rover did not negotiate, rollover or make any deals, ever (which could easily be an apt description of events if Fitz said simply, "This is my indictment based on slam dunk evidence to the effect that you have lied repeatedly," if Fitz then said to Rove tell the truth on the stand about what you know and it will never be unsealed, which would thus entail, on Rove's part, no negotiating, no rolling over, no dealing, since Fitz offered no room to negotiation, no invitation to roll over on anyone, and no deal--because until and unless Rove refuses to testify or lies again under oath, there is no deal)?
I realize that I'm no lawyer, but I am familiar with the ways that politicians and lawyers split hairs and parse words.
It could all be true.
And Susan said some nice things in response. So, I guess I can put away the tinfoil hat for a time. I just may be getting the hang of it.
Dear Susan,
I'm trying to suppress my fervent hope that Rover rolled over, and that he's fingered the big fish (no, silly, not Bush, Cheney). At this point, that's the only news that would cure the melancholy that settled on me when I saw this mornings posts in the blogoverse.
Having professed to my effort to suppress unfounded hope, I would hasten to add that, indeed, when Fitz says that he does "not anticipate seeking charges" he doesn't mean that Rover isn't as guilty as sin, or that, under different circumstances Fitz wouldn't decide to seek an indictment. It means what it says. And then of course, there's the hope that, after all this time, and long before the right are finished with their "nyah, nyah, Karl's innocent" taunts of the progressives who were waiting for an indictment, there will be Deadeye, at the defense table, looking resolute and defiant while, one by one, his colleagues pile on the logs and Fitz lights the match. Burn, baby, burn.
And later,
SusanUnPC,
This is so complicated that it's hard for this bear of little brain to think about the ins and outs. But here's a thought: Couldn't all of the reports be true? I don't want to sound like an apologist for a possible administration dupe (J. Leopold), or worse (an apologist for my wishful thinking), but even with this morning's news, and the antipathy coupled with skepticism regarding Leopold's lastest claims, couldn't
A) J. Leopold be essentially right, still, in claiming that there is a sealed Grand Jury indictment naming Rove for lying, at the same time as
B) Fitzgerald is saying that he doesn't anticipate seeking charges (in other words he doesn't anticipate unsealing Sealed vs. Sealed) if Rover is a good boy on the stand, at the same time as
C) Luskin says his boy's off the hook, at the same time as
D) Luskin tells Jeralyn over at TalkLeft that Rover did not negotiate, rollover or make any deals, ever (which could easily be an apt description of events if Fitz said simply, "This is my indictment based on slam dunk evidence to the effect that you have lied repeatedly," if Fitz then said to Rove tell the truth on the stand about what you know and it will never be unsealed, which would thus entail, on Rove's part, no negotiating, no rolling over, no dealing, since Fitz offered no room to negotiation, no invitation to roll over on anyone, and no deal--because until and unless Rove refuses to testify or lies again under oath, there is no deal)?
I realize that I'm no lawyer, but I am familiar with the ways that politicians and lawyers split hairs and parse words.
It could all be true.
And Susan said some nice things in response. So, I guess I can put away the tinfoil hat for a time. I just may be getting the hang of it.
posted by The Subversive Archaeologist at 4:20 p.m.
0 comments
