Some good questions about that NYT article I just put up.
Better Luck Next Week!
By DB on Media Bias
More wishing, hoping and praying from the Democrats’ house organ, the New York Times:
Message 21812455
Who are these "lawyers" who are breaking the law and talking to the New York Times? Or are they just made up, like so many of the Times’ "sources" and "stories"?
By the way, this report claims that Rove and Libby have been "have been advised that they may be in serious legal jeopardy." How does the Times reporter know that? He later says that both Rove’s and Libby’s attorneys "declined to comment on their legal status."
Are we supposed to believe that Fitzgerald told the NY Times this information? Sure he did.
Actually, if you pare away the reporter’s outrageous bias and the inner contradictions and try to puzzle out what little "facts" are actually being related, it actually sounds like indictments against Rove or Libby aren’t all that likely.
Mr. Fitzgerald is "skeptical" about Rove not remembering the details of a conversation with Cooper? Fitzgerald "has doubts" about where Libby first heard about Plame?
You don’t indict people on hunches and skepticism. Not unless you are a political hack who is embarrassed at having squandered so much time and money on nothing.
All in all, just going from this bizarre report, I think it sounds like there will be no indictments. But I never believe anything I read in the NY Times, even if it might be good news.
Instead, it is just as likely to be the Times positioning the story so that when there are no indictments handed down, the moonbats can scream that Fitzgerald wanted to indict Rove and Libby, but was pressured out it by the White House.
Never mind that even the Solons at the Times couldn’t come up with an even slightly plausible charge.
Heck, if Fitzgerald starts indicting people with bad memories, nobody will be safe. Not even Judy "I can’t remember my source who I for 84 days rather than reveal" Miller of the New York Times. |
