Does anyone care about language and spin? "Doesn't anticipate"

[bigtree]

an indictment isn't the same as 'won't be indicted', or even 'isn't likely to be indicted', or the larger leap, "Rove cleared".

Rove's lawyer carefully extracted that phrase from a larger statement that he has yet to reveal for scrutiny. The media and others have adopted more conclusive language than the snippet Rove's lawyer claims that Fitz gave him.

Why do some on our side insist on making that stretch from "doesn't anticipate" to a certainty? Isn't that what Rove's lawyer intended?

And, why hasn't Rove shown his face? I think the statement by his lawyer succeeded beyond their expectations in taking public heat off of Rove. But, the brief and open-ended account of what Fitz supposedly told Rove's lawyer is far from an exoneration in an ongoing investigation.

[BurtWorm]

1. You're exactly right about that.

It also doesn't mean "has been indicted," either, of course.

[bigtree]

3. you've been so patient with me

I have no trouble in agreeing with that. :hi:

[BurtWorm]

5. I still hold out a slim hope that Rove will be indicted.

I think Cheney is the guy Libby is taking a fall for. I thought Rove might be forced to take a fall too. Maybe he will yet. But I'm very pessimistic that they'll ever get the real criminal behind most of the Bushist crimes.

:hi:

[idgiehkt]

2. wow.

I didn't catch that one.

coming from an attorney that is no accident. I think the length of time between the Leopold story and this statement points to something having been going on during this time. Rove turning like a pig on a barbecue spit, maybe?

[The Deacon]

4. If Rove was REALLY cooperating with Fitz

Do you think he'd still be breathing? Cheney would have invited him out on a quail hunt by now.

[Lars39]

6. I said it earlier..."I don't anticipate" leaves a whole lot of wiggle room

Even if there was a letter.
"I don't anticipate" having to go to the grocery store this week. Oops. Company's coming, need some X.
Everybody is sooo impatient. :D

[Geoff R. Casavant]

7. My guess? Rove squealed like a pink oily pig.

Criminal law isn't my specialty, but I'd wager it's fairly unprecedented for anyone to make five separate appearances before a grand jury, with some sessions lasting hours. A truly innocent man doesn't need that long to explain why he's innocent.

Even if there are no anticipated indictments of Rove, anyone with half a brain can see he did what he had to to save his soft buttery ass, and the whole "Rove the boy genius" sham has been blown out of the water.

His effectiveness is ruined, I expect he's gonna be in debt for a long while, and everyone else involved in the whole affair can no longer trust that he didn't just serve them up on a platter. Plus, I wouldn't be surprised if it is not eventually revealed that he lied to this grand jury too, leading to further indictment eventually.

[Igel]

8. It's obvious "does not anticipate" doesn't mean "won't".

But it does mean that given what Fitzgerald has, he doesn't see grounds for seeking an indictment; perhaps he'd get one, but he may just be reasoning that the evidence is insufficient for 'beyond reasonable doubt.'

The question has to be: Is it likely that he'll discover grounds for seeking an indictment that could lead to conviction?

IMHO, no, unless they continue to bring in witnesses for more testimony. That doesn't appear to be happening. They've talked to staff and employees, to the people that might have committed it, to people (no doubt) in the CIA; they've got newspaper records and e-mails and files and transcripts.

Granted, somebody may look over old testimony and make a discovery. Fitz doesn't think so. Libby's housekeeper may call up Fitz and say she emptied a trash can in Libby's office after Rove visited him one Sunday afternoon ... and kept some documents that might be of interest.

So Fitzgerald isn't going to say he's *not* going to seek an indictment ever; that would be foolish, in other words, something I would say. But, after considering his options, he's saying he's not planning on seeking an indictment given what he has now or what he can reasonably expect to have. This is the inference Rove's lawyer intended.

Why do you want Rove show his face? Do you really like looking at it? Apparently Rove was in transit to a speaking engagement when the letter was received, i.e., out of town. He has a life, at least more than I do; downplaying this entire thing is to his advantage if he wants to keep his life. Nobody likes him, and the less media exposure he gets, the better for him and his. I don't watch tv, so it doesn't matter to me if CNN has the Let's Watch Rove's Face Hour or not, but I have sympathy for others. The newspapers are likely to use stock photos ...

[bigtree]

9. they got precise language. Others are changing it to suit their own agenda

As for when/if Rove got/didn't get, indicted, I don't have any more than speculation to back up any assertion. I personally think there's more to the statement Rove was given than was revealed. There's bound to be more to this than we're all able to explain without an accounting from the prosecutor, so . . .

. . . weird crap about looking at Rove. lol

[Igel]

10. No assertion's warranted.

The best thing given lack of evidence is to sit and wait.

OLL liked to say, Nobody knows anything.

We apparently know a few somethings now; but they're limited. Libby's indicted, and apparently Rove isn't ... at least for now.

For the rest ... :beer: