Rove Lives to Slime Again Another Day

The big news this morning is that Karl Rove's attorney has received a letter indicating that Patrick Fitzgerald has decided not to indict Rove. I'd be lying if I said that I wasn't disappointed. Rove has single-handedly done more to cheapen and polarize American politics than perhaps anyone else in modern times. But alas, that alone is not a crime.

Patrick Fitzgerald, whom I have enormous respect for as an attorney, has evidently decided that Rove's conduct either 1) did not rise to the level of warranting criminal charges or 2) did warrant charges, but would be too difficult to prove. Given the length of this investigation, I highly suspect it's the latter, though the beauty of our grand jury system is that we'll probably never know. And that's the way it should be. People who are not criminally charged should not have to live under the burden of unproven or unprovable official accusations.

That said, it's unfortunate that the specter of a criminal indictment has obscured the fact that Rove's acknowledged conduct in this matter is more than enough to warrant immediate dismissal from his job. It is undisputed that Rove was centrally involved in the events leading to the outing of Valerie Plame. He disclosed classified information (even if it was unknowingly) to at least two reporters, both of whom published it. And whether or not Rove intentionally misled investigators and a federal grand jury (and I strongly suspect he did), he clearly misled Scott McClellan, causing him to make public statements that Rove knew to be untrue. If that's not a fireable offense, then what is?

And finally, I want to address this assertion, by John Podhoretz at the Corner:

Karl Rove won't say it, and his lawyer won't say it,
but I'll say it: Patrick Fitzgerald's conduct in the
Rove matter has been disgraceful. He kept Rove
hanging for eight months with his bizarre game
of keeping the Rove case "open" even though
he claimed he did not expect any more
indictments. I'd guess this cost Rove several
hundred thousand dollars in legal fees and
months of sleepless nights. Nice work, Patrick.
You have once again reminded us why the
misbegotten term "special prosecutor" should
be considered an obscenity.

What rubbish. Rove is no victim here. He brought all of this on himself. He would not have had to testify five times had he been more forthcoming to the grand jury. And Fitzgerald's conduct demonstrates restraint and discretion, not overzealousness. I'm sure Fitzgerald could have secured an indictment of Rove if he wanted to, and he likely would have had a decent circumstantial case. But, after a thorough investigation, Fitzgerald ultimately decided that the case wasn't worth bringing. That's admirable, not disgraceful conduct.

Plus, I suspect Rove's freedom from charges is conditioned on his continued cooperation with the prosecutor's office, i.e., being willing to testify truthfully on behalf of the prosecution whenever called upon to do so. [Update: According to Jeralyn, Luskin has confirmed that there is no deal in place between Rove and Fitzgerald. This is apparently a unilateral decision by Fitzgerald not to prosecute. Rove will still have to testify if called upon to do so, as anyone would, but he will not face any heightened exposure based on a cooperation clause.]