Could "Sealed v. Sealed" be "Wilson v. Rove"?

[nickgutierrez]

Given Joe Wilson's "he may still face the music" statement, the fact that they sealed the left side of the case, and the revelation today that - according to Rove's lawyer - Fitz doesn't intend to indict Rove, how likely does this seem to you?

[benburch]

1. I think we established...

That Madsen made that up. Didn't we?

[nickgutierrez]

2. Madsen made what up?

The new Rove story? I don't pay any attention to Madsen, so I don't know where this story is coming from. If that is the way it developed, I'll add yet another disclaimer-type statement to my OP.

[benburch]

4. Sealed v Sealed was a Madsen story a while back. nt

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

3. Wilson is talking about a civil law suit which was reported in

the Wall Street Journal, late last year.

[leftofthedial]

5. This is Murka!

it probably is Rove vs. Wilson.

and the victims of the repuke conspiracy will be made to pay for having been aggrieved by our royal masters.

[Igel]

6. One bit of a letter or press release

has the quote that Rove "may" yet face trial over it.

That's been taken as indicating that Wilson's suit will go forward. It makes the idea that the suit's already filed seem a little iffy; but inferences in legal writing are difficult to draw, and there's usually motions to dismiss that could moot any suit. (American definition of 'moot'.)

It's unclear it would be sealed. That would be Rove's doing, Wilson would only stand to gain from it; I don't know if Wilson could make the existence of the suit public or not in that case.