Jeb Says Rove Couldn’t Have Done It

Trish

A report from a Florida news service today quotes Jeb’s take on the party line, including the requisite “if’s” and “who cares” and “what’s the big deals.”

Capitol News Service:

“If it’s illegal to out a covert operator, then Karl didn’t do it and he’s not a target of the investigation.”

How’s that for logic? If it’s illegal (a question only bandied about on FOX News), then Karl didn’t do it. If it’s not illegal, well now, it could be Karl after all. Wait, there’s more.

“But it’s really kind of a symptom of the putrid nature of Washington D.C. to pile it on without any facts. There’s a special prosecutor doing this investigation. Karl’s not a subject to that probe. I don’t think…I think it’s much to do [sic] about nothing, but we’ll see. Let the process work.”

Yeah, it’s just those D.C. types hitting a man when he’s down. And it’s not very important anyway.

It’s gratifying that so far, Bush and his Brain (does that make Cheney his Dick?) aren’t getting away with it this time. I mean these guys made a gay male prostitute in the White House briefing room disappear, so I figured they’d ooze their way of this one too. Heh.

Connect:
fb-share-icon
Tweet

One thought on “Jeb Says Rove Couldn’t Have Done It”

  1. Jeb is lying. Rove is definitely a “subject” of the investigtion:

    Here’s what rightwing reporter Byron York says in the National Review Online:

    [Rove’s attorney Robert] Luskin also addressed the question of whether Rove is a “subject” of the investigation. Luskin says Fitzgerald has told Rove he is not a “target” of the investigation, but, according to Luskin, Fitzgerald has also made it clear that virtually anyone whose conduct falls within the scope of the investigation, including Rove, is considered a “subject” of the probe. “‘Target’ is something we all understand, a very alarming term,” Luskin says. On the other hand, Fitzgerald “has indicated to us that he takes a very broad view of what a subject is.”

    Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo explains the difference between being a “subject” and a “target” of an investigation:

    Cut through the mumbojumbo in the excerpted graf above and you can see that Fitzgerald has told Luskin that Rove is a ‘subject’ of the investigation.

    What does that mean? The next level up is being a ‘target’ of the investigation, in which case you get a ‘target letter’. Now, I’ll defer to the members of the defense bar in the audience. But my understanding is that when you get the target letter you’re in deep trouble, at least in terms of getting indicted. And being a ‘subject’ means just that: you’re one of the people they’re investigating.

    So Rove is one of the people the grand jury is investigating.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.