Looks like the surprise announcement of Roberts as SCOTUS' newest member bumped the Frog March matter off of the front pages, for a moment. However, public opinion has no real bearing on enforcement of the law, so it doesn't really matter what I think, or you think, or Fox News, blah blah blah. Mr. Rove, just go ahead and restore dignity to the White House now, and don't let the cell door hit you in the ass....
Froomkin: Look Over There!:From the LAT:
The stonewall's not working so well. Neither is the legalistic parsing. The furor over who leaked a CIA operative's name shows no sign of abating.Two options present themselves to the White House: Go public with all the facts -- or try to change the subject.
Signs are pointing toward the latter.Today's news includes:· A new poll showing that the public is increasingly skeptical that the White House is cooperating with the federal investigation into who leaked Valerie Plame's identity, and wants Karl Rove fired if it turns out to be him.· A shifting stance by President Bush over what he considers a firing offense -- one that clashes with his vow to bring back high ethical standards to the White House.· A new report that the classified State Department memo that may have played a role in the leak made clear that information identifying Plame was sensitive and shouldn't be shared.· Word that President Bush is expediting his announcement of a Supreme Court nominee to deflect attention from the leak story.
... Here is the text of Bush's remarks at the swearing-in ceremony for senior members of the White House staff on Jan. 22, 2001. An excerpt: “We have all taken an oath, and from this moment on it is our jobs to honor it. . . . ”[W]e must remember the high standards that come with high office. This begins with careful adherence to the rules. I expect every member of this administration to stay well within the boundaries that define legal and ethical conduct. This means avoiding even the appearance of problems. This means checking and, if need be, doublechecking that the rules have been obeyed. This means never compromising those rules
On Monday, a person familiar with the investigation confirmed a report in the latest issue of Newsweek magazine that, when first interviewed by the FBI about the leak, Rove did not mention a conversation he had about Plame with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper in the days before Plame's name surfaced in the news media.The source said Rove later mentioned the conversation to investigators, who did not appear to be aware of it when Rove made the revelation.
It is not known whether Rove initially mentioned a conversation he had with Novak days before Novak published his column unmasking Plame.
Failing to disclose material facts to investigators can, under some circumstances, be a violation of federal law.
It is not known what Rove was asked by investigators and how he responded in the early days of the investigation, and legal experts said the specific circumstances of the questioning were crucial in determining whether a crime had been committed.
“It really depends on the questions asked, how probing the questions were and how categorical the responses were,” said Henry E. Hockeimer Jr., a former federal prosecutor who is a defense lawyer in Philadelphia. In general, Hockeimer said, it is difficult to prosecute individuals for failing to disclose information to investigators, unless their later statements contradict earlier statements that seemed to be made emphatically.
