tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post115020002704129236..comments2024-03-26T12:23:29.784-04:00Comments on Philosoraptor: Winston Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08780746334199630779noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1150241891953828322006-06-13T19:38:00.000-04:002006-06-13T19:38:00.000-04:00My take is that he's "guilty" of the act. What's ...My take is that he's "guilty" of the act. What's unclear is whether it was a crime.<BR/><BR/>That was Fitz' conundrum.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1150235351671749522006-06-13T17:49:00.000-04:002006-06-13T17:49:00.000-04:00My revision:Karl Rove is a sonofabitch who puts pa...My revision:<BR/><BR/>Karl Rove is a sonofabitch who puts party above country. And the wrong party to boot. He's done lots of crooked things we know about, and, no doubt, at least some that we don't know about. It would not surprise me if he did this, too. But the honest peole (i.e. the people outside the administration) who know most about the case have apparently concluded that there's Winston Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08780746334199630779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1150220907850815092006-06-13T13:48:00.000-04:002006-06-13T13:48:00.000-04:00We do know that Rove revealed Plame's identity to ...We do know that Rove revealed Plame's identity to Matthew Cooper of <I>Time</I>, that Duhbya said he would fire anyone in the White House who did this, that Rove still works there, and that Rove had convenient memory lapses about exactly what he said to whom.<BR/><BR/>We also know that Fitzgerald has not confirmed Rove's attorney's claim, nor released any letter that shows details.<BR/><BR/>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1150207290594672162006-06-13T10:01:00.000-04:002006-06-13T10:01:00.000-04:00If they're not going to charge him, it's likely th...<I>If they're not going to charge him, it's likely that, in their estimation, he didn't do it.</I><BR/><BR/>Not quite: it means that, in their estimation, they can't prove he did it to the satisfaction of a court. And this is very much the sort of case where he could have been very involved without leaving any solid evidence around.<BR/><BR/>Or he could be innocent.James Redekophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05833355144832388008noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1150203045085061762006-06-13T08:50:00.000-04:002006-06-13T08:50:00.000-04:001. Legally speaking, if he's not proven guilty, h...1. Legally speaking, if he's not proven guilty, he's innocent.<BR/><BR/>2. More importantly: the prosecutors in this case know more about it than we ever will. If they're not going to charge him, it's likely that, in their estimation, he didn't do it.Winston Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08780746334199630779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1150201397432255842006-06-13T08:23:00.000-04:002006-06-13T08:23:00.000-04:00I was going to say the same thing.I was going to say the same thing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1150200219722401232006-06-13T08:03:00.000-04:002006-06-13T08:03:00.000-04:00The sgtory says he won't be charged. It doesn't sa...The sgtory says he won't be charged. It doesn't say he's innocent.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com