Karl Rove NOT GUILTY...
...according to the facts as I see them. You see, the first step in charging a criminal is to determine what crime they committed. That determination is based on comparing the situation under investigation to all of the criteria included in the statute. Unfortunately for the administration's enemies, it appears that the statute under which Rove might be charged is so narrowly crafted that the situation just does not fit the criminal definition. (Sorry, but that's not my unique idea. I got it from Dr. Steven Taylor's post On Plame and Criminality)What I really want to address is those who say the "Rove not guilty..." perspective is "clintonesque" and smacks of "determining what the definition of 'is' is."
To them I say, "Give me a break!" The parsing that Mr. Clinton engaged in resulted in losing his law license for a year. It is readily apparent to all that Mr. Clinton's situation actually DID fit a criminal definition. Karl Rove's situation DOES NOT fit a criminal definition.
And no amount of liberal whining is going to make it so!
BTW. While your at PoliBlogger, read the other Rove posts. Maybe you will come to the same conclusion that the whole Rove issue is really much ado about nothing.
posted by VARepublicMan @ 10:13 PM
Awarded for
<< Home