"Here is another truth: those of us outside the (plame) case can have no earthly way of knowing what exactly is going on inside (unless of course you are Murray Waas, who seems to be omniscient at times). But here is what I do know: the GOP spinmeisters are working overtime to get their side of the story cemented as the conventional wisdom on this case. Why, you ask?* luskin on TO, via jeralyn:
Because something is going on that they do not want us to know about — and I, for one, sure as hell want to know what that is. (You want more on this, read this from EPU. Interesting, no?)
No one works that hard to suppress or downplay or manipulate public opinion unless there is a very good reason to do so. Here are a few: (1) Information that is bound to come out in testimony during the Libby trial is very damning, and they are trying to get out in front of it. (2) No one wants Dick Cheney under oath and on the stand in front of the public. (3) Karl Rove may not have an official deal, but he does have an obligation to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth on the stand — or face perjury charges. And that is not something he wants to do under any circumstances. (See Number 2 above.) (4) The investigation is continuing, Fitzgerald is chipping away at the evidence, and the spinmeisters want to turn public opinion against him before he goes much further. (5) The WHIG is restless….well, you get the point."
""It is insane and nonsensical, equal parts bizarre innuendo and alleged facts that do not square with reality or the American legal system. Truthout's stubborn nuttiness to the contrary, some times things are simply as they appear: Mr. Fitzgerald completed his investigation, reviewed the evidence, and concluded that it simply does not support a charge. There never was -- not for a second -- any secret meetings at my office, plea negotiations, secret sealed (or not so sealed, as the case may be) indictments, or last minute concessions.""
* jeralyn on Sealed v Sealed:
"...That argument falls apart for me not because of the dates, but because I think it would be improper for a proseutor to obtain an indictment only to engage in plea bargaining, with no intent of prosecuting if the defendant accepts his offer. And it would seem likewise improper for a judge to be complicit in such a scheme by withholding it from the Clerk's office while the parties negotiated."* btw, someone in the comments (viget?) asked about kathleen's observation that there was more than one sealed case. perhaps kathleen was referring to this comment by jeralyn:
"So there remain two sealed cases, one in District Court and one in Magistrate court that could be for Joe Schmo or for someone connected to PlameGate."