Wednesday, October 26, 2005

To indict, or not to indict... that is the question....

The Washington Post reports that Rove's attorneys are "engaged in a furious effort to persuade Fitzgerald to not indict Rove. Well, Duh. Of course Karl Rove's attorneys are trying to keep their client from being indicted. Isn't that what Rove is paying his attorneys for, for them to keep him from getting in trouble for whatever he may have done? And since Rove remains in jeopardy until either the grand jury disbands or Fitzgerald notifies Rove's attorney that Rove will not be indicted, it's no surprise that his attorneys would continue their efforts to keep Rove from being indicted up until he is no longer at risk of indictment.

So count me as unsurprised and unimpressed with the story the Post is bringing to all in the morning. In fact, I would be more surprised if the storyline was Rove's attorneys were not trying to keep Rove from being indicted.

And, in a somewhat related note, I am starting to question Fitzgerald's reputation for being so good. He's been on the job for the better part of two years and he's just now having the FBI talk to Plame's neighbors? What, the thought never occured to him that might be something worth doing? And he's just now having his team talk to a Rove colleague about a conversation the two of them had back in July 2003? Why weren't those details nailed down long ago? And I wonder about this last minute maneuvering.... what's going on with Fitzgerald waiting to issue indictments until right before the end of the grand jury's term? Miller testified weeks ago and Rove came back for a fourth appearance a while back now. And Fitzgerald is playing Hamlet.