| Author |
Message |
    
Eats Shoots & Leaves
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 3427
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 13, 2006 - 8:05 am: | 
|
Rove Won't Be Charged in CIA Leak Case
By DAVID JOHNSTON, The New York Times
WASHINGTON (June 13) -- The prosecutor in the C.I.A. leak case on Monday advised Karl Rove, the senior White House adviser, that he would not be charged with any wrongdoing, effectively ending the nearly three-year criminal investigation that had at times focused intensely on Mr. Rove.
The decision by the prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, announced in a letter to Mr. Rove's lawyer, Robert D. Luskin, lifted a pall that had hung over Mr. Rove who testified on five occasions to a federal grand jury about his involvement in the disclosure of an intelligence officer's identity.
In a statement, Mr. Luskin said, "On June 12, 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove."
Mr. Fitzgerald's spokesman, Randall Samborn, said he would not comment on Mr. Rove's status.
For months Mr. Fitzgerald's investigation appeared to threaten Mr. Rove's standing as Mr. Bush's closest political adviser as the prosecutor riveted his focus on whether Mr. Rove tried to intentionally conceal a conversation he had with a Time magazine reporter in the week before the name of intelligence officer, Valerie Plame Wilson, became public.
The decision not to pursue any charges removes a potential political stumbling block for a White House that is heading into a long and difficult election season for Republicans in Congress.
Mr. Fitzgerald's decision should help the White House in what has been an unsuccessful effort to put the leak case behind it. Still ahead, however, is the trial of Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby Jr., on charges for perjury and obstruction of justice, and the prospect that Mr. Cheney could be called to testify in that case.
In his statement Mr. Luskin said he would not address other legal questions surrounding Mr. Fitzgerald's decision. He added, "In deference to the pending case, we will not make any further public statements about the subject matter of the investigation. We believe that the Special Counsel's decision should put an end to the baseless speculation about Mr. Rove's conduct."
But it was evident that Mr. Fitzgerald's decision followed an exhaustive inquiry into Mr. Rove's activities that had brought the political strategist dangerously close to possible charges. In October, when Mr. Libby was indicted, people close to Mr. Rove had suggested that his involvement in the case would soon be over; speculation about Mr. Rove's legal situation flared again in April when he made his fifth appearance before the grand jury.
A series of meetings between Mr. Luskin and Mr. Fitzgerald and his team proved pivotal in dissuading the prosecutor from bringing charges. On one occasion Mr. Luskin himself became a witness in the case, giving sworn testimony that was beneficial to Mr. Rove.
As the case stands now, Mr. Fitzgerald has brought only one indictment against Mr. Libby. The prosecutor accused Mr. Libby of telling the grand jury that he learned of Ms. Wilson from reporters, when in reality, the prosecutor said he was told about her by Mr. Cheney and others in the government. Mr. Libby has pleaded not guilty in the case, which is scheduled to begin trial early next year.
Ms. Wilson is married to Joseph C. Wilson IV, the former ambassador who wrote in an Op-Ed column in the New York Times on July 6, 2003 that White House officials, including Mr. Bush, had exaggerated assertions that Iraq had sought to purchase nuclear fuel from Africa. Mr. Wilson wrote that such claims were "highly dubious."
He said his conclusions were based on a trip he had made in early 2002 to Niger, a fact-finding mission that he said had been "instigated" by Mr. Cheney's office.
It is now known that the column upset Mr. Cheney and that within his office it was viewed as an attack on the Vice President's credibility, according to legal briefs filed in the Libby case by Mr. Fitzgerald. In his filings, Mr. Fitzgerald depicts Mr. Cheney as actively engaged in an effort with Mr. Libby to rebut Mr. Wilson's assertions.
After the Wilson column was published, Mr. Cheney wrote notes on a copy asking whether Ms. Wilson played a role in sending her husband to Africa and whether the trip was a "junket." At the same time, Mr. Fitzgerald has said, the vice president dispatched Mr. Libby to challenge Mr. Wilson in conversations with reporters.
It was during that effort, Mr. Fitzgerald has alleged, that Mr. Libby disclosed Ms. Wilson's employment at the C.I.A. along with the possibility that it was she who sent him to Niger.
In Mr. Rove's case, Mr. Fitzgerald centered his inquiry on why Mr. Rove did not admit early in the investigation that he had a conversation with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper about Ms. Wilson and whether Mr. Rove was forthcoming about the later discovery of an internal e-mail message that confirmed his conversation with Mr. Cooper, to whom Mr. Rove had mentioned the existence of the C.I.A. officer.
Mr. Rove told the grand jury that he forgot the conversation with Mr. Cooper and volunteered it to Mr. Fitzgerald as soon as he recalled it, when his memory was jogged by the e-mail to Stephen J. Hadley, then deputy national security adviser, in which Mr. Rove referred to his discussion with Mr. Cooper.
At the center of the inquiry involving Mr. Rove are the circumstances surrounding a July 11, 2003, telephone conversation between Mr. Rove and Mr. Cooper, who turned the interview to questions about the trip to Africa by Mr. Wilson.
In his testimony to the grand jury in February 2004, Mr. Rove did not disclose the conversation with Mr. Cooper, saying later that he had forgotten it among the hundreds of calls he received on a daily basis. But there was a record of the call in the form of Mr. Rove's message to Mr. Hadley, the deputy national security adviser, which confirmed the conversation.
One lawyer with a client in the case said Mr. Fitzgerald was skeptical of Mr. Rove's account because the message was not discovered until the fall of 2004 — a year after Mr. Rove first talked to investigators. It was at about the same time that Mr. Fitzgerald had begun to compel reporters to cooperate with his inquiry, among them Mr. Cooper. The prosecutors legal thrust at reporters, in effect, put White House aides like Mr. Rove on notice that any conversations might become known.
Associates of Mr. Rove said the e-mail message was turned over immediately after it was found at the White House. They said Mr. Rove never intended to withhold details of a conversation with a reporter from Mr. Fitzgerald, noting that Mr. Rove had signed a legal waiver to allow reporters to reveal to prosecutors their discussions with confidential sources. In addition, they said, Mr. Rove testified about his conversation with Mr. Cooper — long before Mr. Cooper did — acknowledging that it was possible that the subject of Mr. Wilson's trip had come up.
It is now known that Mr. Fitzgerald and the grand jury have questioned Mr. Rove about two conversations with reporters. The first, which he admitted to investigators from the outset, took place on July 9, 2003, in a telephone call initiated by Robert D. Novak, the syndicated columnist. In a column about Mr. Wilson's trip four days after the call to Mr. Rove, Mr. Novak disclosed the identity of Ms. Wilson, who was said by Mr. Novak to have had a role in arranging her husband's trip. Mr. Novak identified her as Valerie Plame, Ms. Wilson's maiden name.
|
Guy
Supporter
Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 1725
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 13, 2006 - 8:40 am: |
|
First Zarqawi now this. I don't think Bush has had two positive news events back to back in years.
Sorry guys, no Fitzmas in July. |
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 3001
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 13, 2006 - 11:13 am: |
|
Why now? It is an interesting development to be sure. I don't know any more than any one else about what various people have testified to, but Rove appears (from what I've read) to have told a set of whoppers that are parallel to the ones Libby told. Setting aside Plame's status, whether a crime was committed, etc (which makes sense since it isn't the basis for any charges at this time) you have, I guess, pretty strong evidence of obstruction and perjury - strong enough to warrant an indictment and vigorous prosecution.
So why no charges for Rove? Is Fitzgerald being unfair? Did the case become to murky to get a good prosecution? Did Rove do less lying? Or, did Rove work out a deal? Is his anticipated testimony important in the Libby, or some other, case? Why did it take so long to reach the "no anticipated charges" point?
Very hard to say. I am satisfied, in any case, that a non-partisan, competent prosecutor looked into this thoroughly, and I can live with any outcome consistent with that.
Far from being disappointed, I am intrigued. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 2158
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 13, 2006 - 11:23 am: |
|
it would appear that in his multiple appearances before the grand jury, he corrected his initial testimony, which is perfectly legitimate. you can't be indicted for perjury or obstruction of justice if you eventually set the record straight before the grand jury wraps up. Rove is smart enough to know not to lie to a grand jury, or at least smart enough to correct himself if he told a lie initially. I was always unclear as to why Rove would have been centrally involved in this from the start when it was obvioulsy being directed out of Cheney's office. That's probably also the reason he's not being indicted - he wasn't the original source for the story, Libby was. And once that info was out, confirming it (or not disconfirming it), really wasn't a crime. |
ae35unit
Citizen
Username: Ae35unit
Post Number: 98
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 13, 2006 - 11:51 am: |
|
"Far from being disappointed, I am intrigued."
Me too. The WaPo article doesn't say definitively that he won't be charged the way the Times article does. The whole thing smells a little Rovian to me. We kill a terrist, Rove's "off the hook" and a major PR trip to the war zone by the president. Things just happen to be falling into place a little? Maybe.
Check out the article, a different tone for sure:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/13/AR2006061300267. html
"Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald has told White House aide Karl Rove that he does not expect to seek charges against him in connection with the CIA leak case, Rove's lawyer said today."
Rove's lawyer said, Fitzgerald's office didn't comment.
Hmmm…..
|
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 5088
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 13, 2006 - 12:21 pm: |
|
So he ultimately told the truth ... I wonder who it will lead to? |
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 3002
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 13, 2006 - 1:34 pm: |
|
They never comment. I wouldn't start daydreaming about Cheney getting indicted or anything. The frustrating thing is that there will be no final report ( like with Ken Starr) so we will never know outside of the indictments what the heck really happened, but it was clearly more than nothing.
It's ironic that so many people assert that nothing illegal happened, because by lying about what happened, the parties involved lost the opportunity to have that argument. Maybe they could have won on those grounds alone. I think they would have gotten a lot of leeway in asserting a right to leak for national security purposes. It must have been the case that the leak was very coordinated and would have looked really bad. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5714
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 13, 2006 - 8:22 pm: |
|
themp -- no one has been charged with the supposed reason this investigation was authorized. I'm not aware that Fitzpatrick definitively said that Plame was a covert CIA operative.
Now, there are other leaks awaiting your outrage. The problem is they don't suit your political purposes. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 2159
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 13, 2006 - 8:45 pm: |
|
You must have missed it. Fitzgerald's court filings indeed said Plame was covert. And if he didn't find evidence of the crime he was originally investigating, the alleged obstruction of justice may have had something to do with that. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5716
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 13, 2006 - 8:58 pm: |
|
"But special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA "was making specific efforts to conceal" her identity, according to newly released portions of a judge's opinion. (A CIA spokesman at the time is quoted as saying Plame was "unlikely" to take further trips overseas, though.)"
Well.....that's clear.
Why isn't there a slam-dunk quote saying "Valerie Plame was a covert CIA operative at the time her indentity was leaked to the public"? How hard is that if that is indeed the case? |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 2160
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 13, 2006 - 9:08 pm: |
|
if you aren't trying to make it difficult, it's pretty easy to understand. she was working as part of a front corporation that the CIA was trying to keep secret. so even if she herself was unlikely to go overseas again, revealing her identity endangered the operation she was working on.
proving criminality in this case was always something of a long shot because the statute requires that the leaker do so with intent. in this case, proving intent was next to impossible, particularly if the witnesses are lying. but someone outed Plame, and even if it wasn't criminal, it was something that should result in the pulling of security clearance, if not outright firing. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 1124
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 13, 2006 - 9:14 pm: |
|
Where is everyone? Where are you Foj? Where are my liberal friends who wasted many posts and many minutes lambasting Rove. Why do you disappear when this type of news comes out? Most of you have been wrong from day one. You were wrong about Gore in 2000, wrong about the Congressional elections, wrong about Kerry, and wrong about the war. As I stated last year, you Dems peaked to early. And yes, I love this. Politics sure are fun. |
S.L.K. 2.0
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1689
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - 8:23 am: |
|
Southerner-
Another circle jerk has been interrupted, so don't expect FOJ and company to apologize. The former is to busy looking for links to obscure websites to justify his hatred of Dubya.
The funny thing is these folks actually believed Rove was going to be indicted over this (and foaming at the mouth over the possibility).
-SLK |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 5095
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - 9:56 am: |
|
Rove is out there raising money for a convicted felon's legal fees, no doubt on a taxpayer-funded expense account. http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/jun/13/mr_rove_is_ready_for_his_clo se_up |
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 3003
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - 10:39 am: |
|
"themp -- no one has been charged with the supposed reason this investigation was authorized. I'm not aware that Fitzpatrick definitively said that Plame was a covert CIA operative. "
Too bad Libby didn't know that before he started lying.
Funny thing about obstruction of justice: it works. That's why they have to charge people with it. I don't think a cautious, and by most accounts, probably republican-voting Fitzpatrick would have waded through this whole mess if there were early indications that there was nothing there. Love Rove or hate him, it's pretty hard to make the case that this investigation was a witch hunt. Libby was lying his face off from the get go. I think everyone should be pleased that one scumbag will face trial for lying. |
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 3004
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - 10:55 am: |
|
I meant Fitz-whatever-his-name-is. |
Guy
Supporter
Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 1726
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - 10:58 am: |
|
"Themp, I never faced trial"
 |
Scully
Citizen
Username: Scully
Post Number: 625
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - 12:07 pm: |
|
So why did a journalist serve time for this, and how come the one who
actually outed a covert agent didn't? Couldn't Novak have simply told
who his source was? |
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 3005
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - 12:22 pm: |
|
Rove once lost a job with Bush senior over a leak to Novak. He vowed not to let that happen again. He and Rove cooked up a story and stuck with it resolutely. It was better than the one Libby and Judy what's-her-face cooked up, which fell apart.
This is pretty funny:
http://washingtonesquire.wordpress.com/2006/06/13/20/ |
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 3006
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - 12:44 pm: |
|
Oh, I get it. Clinton.
During the Clinton proceedings, I thought that removing a president through such a clearly partisan initiative was a disasterous idea.
Fitzgerald isn't partisan, but when I hear people talk about Cheney getting indicted, I can't help but think it is out of the question for the prosecutor to go after an elected constitutional official over this. Despite the fact that I think these guys are incompetent and crooked, i'm not sure I would feel great about such a prosecution. But it raises an interesting question: where is the heat coming from? If Fitzgerald could have answered a more-or-less academic legal question ealy on by saying this doesn't rise to the levbel of a crime, I think he would have been happy to do so and move on with his life. I think there is a lot here that we will never know, or will learn much later. And I think conservatives have to be honest and admit they really don't know what happened behind the scenes.
|
S.L.K. 2.0
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1691
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - 12:56 pm: |
|
LOL, I love those guys at WSJ/Opinion Journal.com
It Ain't So, Joe
On the first day of Fitzmas
Fitzgerald gave to me
An indictment of Scooter Libby
On the second day of Fitzmas
Fitzgerald gave to me
Uh, nothing! Damn it!
Well, that was quite a kerfuffle, wasn't it? Let's flash back to July 2003, when The Nation's David Corn relayed Joe Wilson's claim that the White House had "leaked" the name of his wife, Valerie Plame:
Without acknowledging whether she is a deep-cover CIA employee, Wilson says, "Naming her this way would have compromised every operation, every relationship, every network with which she had been associated in her entire career. This is the stuff of Kim Philby and Aldrich Ames." . . .
Under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, it is a crime for anyone who has access to classified information to disclose intentionally information identifying a covert agent. The punishment for such an offense is a fine of up to $50,000 and/or up to ten years in prison.
Wilson famously said he would like to "get Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs." The New York Times and other liberal editorial pages demanded the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate who gave accurate information to journalists, though it apparently didn't occur to them that finding that out would entail calling journalists to testify. (Now they are vigorously defending their First Amendment right to disclose things that really are secret.) The Justice Department complied.
Today Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, told the Times that the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, had formally advised Rove that he will not be charged. It appears the investigation is over, except for the forthcoming trial of Scooter Libby on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice--wrongdoing that allegedly took place entirely after the investigation began.
This has got to be the worst day for the Angry Left since at least last Thursday. It would not be an exaggeration to call the left's enthusiasm over the Plame kerfuffle a case of mass hysteria. For months they have been awaiting "Fitzmas," the day that the grand jury handed up indictments of Rove and--who knows?--maybe even the vice president himself.
Sorry, guys.
Anyway, look around the Web and you can find examples of the Angry Left going through the five stages of grieving (we should note that this guy beat us to the idea):
Denial. Truthout.org (motto: "If you want the truth, get out of here") "reports" that Rove actually has been indicted. "As of Friday afternoon that indictment, returned by the grand jury the week of May 10th, remains under seal--more than a month after it was handed up by the grand jury. The case number is "06 cr 128." On the federal court's electronic database, '06 cr 128' is listed along with a succinct summary: 'No further information is available.' " Says blogress Christy Smith: "Unless and until I hear it from Patrick Fitzgerald, the investigation continues to be ongoing. Which means that there are still potential developments down the road."
Bargaining. "This latest news doesn't prove or disprove the basic question of whether Fitzgerald was ready to indict Rove," claims Duncan "Atrios" Black. "It's quite likely Rove has cut a deal of some sort. It's quite possible that Fitz's letter to Luskin, which hasn't been made public as far as I can tell, says something along the lines of 'as long as you cooperate as promised your ••• is safe for now.' " Black's employer, Media Mutters, says maybe Rove will lose his security clearance for--well, for what isn't quite clear.
Anger. "He doesn't belong in the White House. If the president valued America more than he valued his connection to Karl Rove, Karl Rove would have been fired a long time ago," says Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean on the "Today" show. "So I think this is probably good news for the White House, but it's not very good news for America."
Despair. "My Heart Is Broken, My Spirit Crushed, My Faith in America Destroyed," declares "Dementer" on DemocraticUnderground.com. "On the other hand, I am sure that there are numerous other criminal enterprises that Kkkarl [sic] has participated in, so we just have to keep digging. Perhaps Fitz is doing just that--he has the license to do so. Or am I approaching the definition of insanity, here?"
Acceptance. "I think the chances are nil that Luskin is making this up since that'd be practically daring Patrick Fitzgerald to indict his client," says Josh Marshall, who had been one of the most credulous cheerleaders. "Whatever else he may be . . ., he's no fool." Though Marshall must be feeling quite foolish for having been one of Wilson's most enthusiastic and credulous cheerleaders way back when.
Drudge notes that many Angry Left Web sites have been strangely quiet, though MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, who according to Drudge has predicted Rove's indictment at least 26 times, does comment: "It is the 'Perfect Storm' of baseball scandals."
|
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 3007
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - 1:11 pm: |
|
Yes, you have a hero to be proud of. The man who avoided indictment after 5 contradictory visits to the jury room. What nobility of spirit you must posess to gloat about it. |
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 1947
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - 1:32 pm: |
|
I've said it before and I'll say it again: we expect nothing from this administration. They have managed this country's expectations beautifully when the best news to come out of the White House in, literally, years is that one of their own WON'T be indicted. Guess what, ma, I wasn't arrested today! Isn't that great news!? Aren't you proud? |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1466
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - 1:40 pm: |
|
themp - comeon man, let them have their day. For them its a win win when the news comes that they are not indicted. They admit to having actually outed Mrs. Wilson for political purposes and destroying the CIA front company Brewster Jennings which was actively pursuing loose nuclear weapons and was really Americas only outlet for this type of espionage. And for them that consequece is meaningless, so thats OK. They just dont care.
No indictments = good day. |
ae35unit
Citizen
Username: Ae35unit
Post Number: 99
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - 1:43 pm: |
|
SLK, I can only speak for myself, but I think there's a lot of truth in what you wrote. My problem with the right wing is that, I agree with Howard Dean, I think they're bad for America. I believe in the America that was created in the spirit of the founders of this country. I think the people who don't understand why a corporate media is allowed to let unelected officials who lie about things as important as their reason for war and systematically divide the nation for their own fun and profit, I think these people are more interested in what's good for America, the community and the environment than the right is, pure and simple. (sorry, too busy for good sentence structure)
As CJC has already done in this post, right wing pundits are going to attempt to send the Plame outing, a treason by definition, down the memory hole, by pretending that because Rove wasn't indicted, no crime happened. This dude by definition is a traitor, they just couldn't charge him with anything, and he's your man. Kind of telling about you right wing guys.
I read Orwell's 1984 and wanted to do whatever I could to make sure that never happened here. Rove read 1984 and wondered how he could subject America to it. What kind of person is that? Your hero?
|
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 1125
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - 2:06 pm: |
|
AE,
Rove is not a hero. He was someone targeted by the libs because he is good at his job which is pushing the conservative agenda. I have no problem with your post. Replace right wing with left wing and I feel the same way. I believe the liberal philosophy is bad for this country, etc, etc. That is why we have elections. I'm not mad at you or other liberals who feel the way you do and I hope you guys aren't mad at me. It's a simple disagreement which we resolve through elections. Most of the Bush bashing has taken on such an immature tone by the losing side that it has become almost a lampoon of itself. What I love is now that Repubs are fighting back and the polls are moving up, the libs on this board have seemed to disappear. The liberal feeding frenzy of 2005 is long gone with nothing gained by the Dems. Oh yeah, Libby and Rove are gone. I guess something was accomplished but nothing of lasting effect. I'll trade Libby and Delay for another two years of a conservative Congress anyday of the week. |
S.L.K. 2.0
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1693
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - 2:27 pm: |
|
Rove read 1984 and wondered how he could subject America to it. What kind of person is that? Your hero?
any proof?
-SLK |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1468
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - 2:35 pm: |
|
SLK is right. Rove probably only looked at the Cliff Notes. |
Strawberry
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 7420
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - 2:45 pm: |
|
This is just another in a long line of defeats for the left. Attempting to destroy lives and careers won't help them in November. |
John Davies
Citizen
Username: 07079
Post Number: 7
Registered: 3-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - 2:51 pm: |
|
Why not, it worked for the Republicans in November 2004 |
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 3008
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - 3:01 pm: |
|
"This is just another in a long line of defeats for the left."
Yeah, Libby is gloating his heart out right now. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 1127
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - 3:08 pm: |
|
Whose life and career did they destroy? If you are talking about Kerry, he is still a Senator and it is his own political stupidity (Schrum) that kept him from fighting back against the Swiftboaters. Most of the intelligent Kerry supporters I know acknowledge Kerry's blunder in not responding. It was very similar to Bush 41 not taking Clinton seriously early on. Political blunders are costly. Ask nominee Dean. |
S.L.K. 2.0
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1695
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - 3:29 pm: |
|
Hoops-
You READ cliffnotes, not LOOK at them silly...
-SLK |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 3432
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 9:48 am: |
|
Something about this really smells. Rove strikes me as the kind of guy who would arrange for somebody to plant an 8-ball in Fitz's glove compartment or something like that in order to escape prosecution. He's too wily to sit around and wait to be indicted. It's too bad we'll probably never know the real story about what's going on. |
Strawberry
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 7424
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 10:13 am: |
|
"It's too bad we'll probably never know the real story about what's going on."
Exactly how most Americans feel about Whitewater..
|
GOP Man
Citizen
Username: Headsup
Post Number: 408
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 10:26 am: |
|
exactly. I've always been burned up at the way the Clintons managed to keep anyone from really investigating Whitewater. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 5101
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 12:14 pm: |
|
"Most Americans?"  |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1517
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 16, 2006 - 6:48 pm: |
|
Too bad for Jason Leopold. Oh well. And I dont think Rove really seriously read 1984, he probably did read up on his grandfather though.................. |
anon
Supporter
Username: Anon
Post Number: 2789
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, June 17, 2006 - 11:16 pm: |
|
Maybe the person who outed CIA agent Plame is the same person who murdered Nicole Simpson. |
Larry Seltzer
Citizen
Username: Elvis
Post Number: 50
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Monday, June 19, 2006 - 7:46 am: |
|
Here's some background on the Rove-will-be-indicted story. Too bad for Jason Leopold indeed:As we learned last week, Rove isn't being indicted, and the supposed Truthout scoop by reporter Jason Leopold was wildly off the mark. It was but the latest installment in the tale of a troubled young reporter with a history of drug addiction whose aggressive disregard for the rules ended up embroiling me in a bizarre escapade -- and raised serious questions about journalistic ethics... |
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 3028
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 12:11 pm: |
|
Few interesting points:
Luskin won't show anyone the fax;
The GOP spin machine has not attacked Truthout in a Dan Rather like frenzy, as they usually do when they smell blood;
The "exoneration" came quick on the heels of the truthout story.
I don't know what's happening, but it is interesting. For the record, I can't imagine Cheney being indicted. I think Fitzgerald may have traded the indictment for information just for the sake of knowing what happened, but I still can't see why he would, even with ample evidence, try to unseat the VP. I think he just wanted the whole story, and by gum I think he got it. Doesn't mean we ever will.
Read this before you make up your mind:http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2006/6/19/185947/499 |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page