On evidence

There's this new article out that claims Rove was told by Novak. And what amazes me is the number of people treating it as the REAL gospel.

Let's ignore for a moment that folk speaking on Rove's behalf have had several contradictory statements (ranging from he never said anything through he only started after the article was out and he never said her name and never heard anything about here before Novak asked him...).

This article alleges to be reporting on what Rove told the Grand Jury. Let's apply a reality check - not definitive I admit but certainly strongly indicative.

There are four bodies of people who might have known Rove's testimony - three directly, one tightly. The first is the staff of the prosecutor. Prior to this, how many times have they discussed details of what was said or done in the Grand Jury? (I believe that would be none - to include the President and Vice President's testimony.) There is the Jury itself - same question, same answer. There is the court staff - the stenographer(s) and bailiff(s) and all that sort of folk - and again the same question generates the same response. And then there is Rove's attorney and support. Same question gets the answer, "several."

So we have one group in which leaking is historical MO and three where this is a severe aberration. It doesn't prove the so-called leak is just another attempt to soothe Rove's image in the public eye. It does make it likely, however.

Again and again - we do not know what testimony and evidence has been presented to the Grand Jury, that Fitzgerald has found relevant and reliable. We know some of the subpoenas presented. We know what some of the witnesses SAY they have said. And that is it.

It may come up "no charges are justified". It may be "everybody in the government not protected by Constitutional articles is facing charges." I suspect it's somewhere in between.