The American Spectator

Print Email

Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

If the Washington Post's report on Rove is frothy, the New York Times's is seemingly coldly specific. "Some lawyers in the case said they were persuaded that Mr. Fitzgerald had all but made up his mind to seek indictments." But whose lawyers? "Lawyers involved in the case," the story says at an earlier point. But apparently these aren't Rove's and Scooter Libby's lawyers, because, the story says, "Lawyers for the two men declined to comment on their legal status." The Times's sources couldn't be lawyers working under Fitzgerald, could they? Presumably leaks from Fitzgerald would be highly improper, if not illegal. What about lawyers for other possible targets? Their motivation presumably would be to shift attention away from their own clients. But it's unlikely they'd be in a position to know as much as Fitzgerald's own team does. And who but Fitzgerald's team would be on the same page?

To add insult to injury, the story also notes that "...some lawyers in the case said they were persuaded that Mr. Fitzgerald had all but made up his mind to seek indictments." Yet right after that, we're told: "None of the lawyers would speak on the record, citing the prosecutor's requests not to talk about the case." So talking on background is not a violation of the prosecutor's requests? Or are they talking on background with the prosecutor's tacit if not full approval?

The rule of law works in mysterious ways. Kafka never had it so good.

topics:
Law