erynthered Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 Rove in the clear. Just heard it on the radio................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted October 28, 2005 Author Share Posted October 28, 2005 http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/poli..._webleak28.html http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n.../w060932D81.DTL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 Sounds like Rove isn't exactly in the clear, rather still under investigation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 Just a prediction but I fully expect Rove to be indicted, too. His lawyer issued a statement today saying Fitzgerald told them "Nothing has changed", he just needs more time. He still could decide against recommending indictment, but to me that is fairly unlikely. This guy is tough, and straight, and if he didnt have something strong right now he would have just stopped with Libby. It is smart for Rove and the White House to act like nothing is wrong or not worried, but that doesn't change it anyway. My perception is that new news came up a little late contradicting some of Rove's statements and Fitzgerald didnt have the time to get all his ducks in a row. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 It will be interesting to see if Rove will try to save himself by implicating Cheney. Give them all the Rigas perp walk. I predict that before his term is up, even if he's not implicated as a non-indicted co-conspirator, Cheney will resign for "health reasons", and the new VP will be whoever the White House wants to push as their next presidental nominee so they can have the advantages that being in office offer, someone like George Allen or Condi Rice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave in VA Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 It will be interesting to see if Rove will try to save himself by implicating Cheney. Give them all the Rigas perp walk. I predict that before his term is up, even if he's not implicated as a non-indicted co-conspirator, Cheney will resign for "health reasons", and the new VP will be whoever the White House wants to push as their next presidental nominee so they can have the advantages that being in office offer, someone like George Allen or Condi Rice. 488547[/snapback] Oh please not George "Don't I remind you of Ronald Reagan" Allen. Anyone but him. We're still driving around in circles in VA thanks to good ol back slapping aw schawks George slashing VDOT like a watermelon. Don't get me started. Condi would be better by default. Or my lab. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 Oh please not George "Don't I remind you of Ronald Reagan" Allen. Anyone but him. We're still driving around in circles in VA thanks to good ol back slapping aw schawks George slashing VDOT like a watermelon. Don't get me started. Condi would be better by default. Or my lab. 488557[/snapback] They're not my choices, but I think they could be the White House's. It seems like every time Allen is interviewed, he has to remind us of a quote that his coach father said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 Just saw Russert being interviewed. He said that he spoke to FBI investigators for only 20 minutes. They asked him what were his discussions with Libby on the Plame affair. Russert said he never discussed her with Libby, who had called him on that day on a different matter (to complain about programming on MSNBC). They never even discussed Joe Wilson let alone Valerie Plame. Libby, of course, told the FBI that he had heard her name from Russert, plus other reporters. That, to me, especially considering Russert's credibility, does NOT seem like just forgetting or misstating a conversation. That sounds a lot like a blatant lie. Especially because Cooper's story is pretty much the same as Russert's. While not really altogether new information, it is a public statement by Russert on camera that eliminates a lot of conjecture. I had thought at least they were discussing the Wilson affair but that Russert and Libby never spoke of Valerie Plame by name, but it seems they weren't even in the ballpark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 Oh please not George "Don't I remind you of Ronald Reagan" Allen. Anyone but him. We're still driving around in circles in VA thanks to good ol back slapping aw schawks George slashing VDOT like a watermelon. Don't get me started. Condi would be better by default. Or my lab. 488557[/snapback] You do realize Allen has no say in that. He is not in the state legislature. That VDOT crap is because of the worthless Chichester and the idiot governor. You US Congressman and US Senator have no say in the state house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 Double standard? • Lying under oath to a federal judge - a crime U.S. District Court Judge Susan Webber Wright determined that President Clinton committed in the Paula Jones sexual harasssment case. Legal resolution: No criminal indictment. • Lying under oath to a federal grand jury - as Independent Counsel Ken Starr found President Clinton had done in the Monica Lewinsky investigation. Legal resolution: No criminal indictment. • Lying under oath both to Congress and to federal investigators - as Independent Counsel Robert Ray concluded that Mrs. Clinton had done in the Travel Office probe. Legal resolution: No indictment • Hiding evidence from Starr's Whitewater investigation - as the Senate Banking Committee concluded Mrs. Clinton did in the case of her missing Rose Law firm billing records. Legal resolution: No criminal referral, no indictments. If what you said about Russert is right, where is the proof. It is he said, he said. Does Russert have a recording? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 Here is a link to the actual indictment against Libby which contains 5 counts, two for perjury, two for false statements and one for obstruction. Libby Indictment Essentially, it looks to me like it will be Cooper and Russert vs. Libby. Libby testified that he told them that he didn't know himself about Wilson's wife that he had just heard that from other reporters. He also testified that Russert asked him about Wilson, told him she worked at the CIA and that all reporters knew that. The problem for Libby is that Cooper and Russert testified and their recollections are totally different. Cooper said that Libby told him Wilson's wife worked at the CIA without any qualification. None of that crap about hearing it from other reporters. Russert testified that they didn't talk about Wilson's wife at all. Not a word. Soooo, if a jury believes Russert and/or Cooper, Libby could be in trouble. The indictment mentions "Official A" as the person who spoke to Novak about Wilson's wife, I wonder who the heck that is? Also, who was the Under Secretary of State in June 2003? The anatomy of how you start a smear campaign when some of your info might be classifed is illustrated here quite nicely. You leak it to just a trusted few and when another reporter calls you to ask about it looking for confirmation, you say something like "...that is what we are hearing..." From that point on, as you starte getting all sorts of calls from reporters, you can tell them all that you are hearing this info from other reporters. Then you just watch the snowball roll down hill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 Double standard?• Lying under oath to a federal judge - a crime U.S. District Court Judge Susan Webber Wright determined that President Clinton committed in the Paula Jones sexual harasssment case. Legal resolution: No criminal indictment. • Lying under oath to a federal grand jury - as Independent Counsel Ken Starr found President Clinton had done in the Monica Lewinsky investigation. Legal resolution: No criminal indictment. • Lying under oath both to Congress and to federal investigators - as Independent Counsel Robert Ray concluded that Mrs. Clinton had done in the Travel Office probe. Legal resolution: No indictment • Hiding evidence from Starr's Whitewater investigation - as the Senate Banking Committee concluded Mrs. Clinton did in the case of her missing Rose Law firm billing records. Legal resolution: No criminal referral, no indictments. If what you said about Russert is right, where is the proof. It is he said, he said. Does Russert have a recording? 488760[/snapback] Copying and pasting the talking points these days? Next time delete the bullets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 Double standard?• Lying under oath to a federal judge - a crime U.S. District Court Judge Susan Webber Wright determined that President Clinton committed in the Paula Jones sexual harasssment case. Legal resolution: No criminal indictment. • Lying under oath to a federal grand jury - as Independent Counsel Ken Starr found President Clinton had done in the Monica Lewinsky investigation. Legal resolution: No criminal indictment. • Lying under oath both to Congress and to federal investigators - as Independent Counsel Robert Ray concluded that Mrs. Clinton had done in the Travel Office probe. Legal resolution: No indictment • Hiding evidence from Starr's Whitewater investigation - as the Senate Banking Committee concluded Mrs. Clinton did in the case of her missing Rose Law firm billing records. Legal resolution: No criminal referral, no indictments. If what you said about Russert is right, where is the proof. It is he said, he said. Does Russert have a recording? 488760[/snapback] You're right. I totally agree. Because of one unrelated case of perjury and lying, on totally unrelated matters, no one should be held accountable for lying to the FBI or perjury to a Grand jury or obstructing justice. They should just wipe those laws off the books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 So he's indicted for lying about something that wasn't even a crime ("outing" Valerie Plame). Fitzgerald had nothing on the "leaking" so he had to indict someone for something to not look like a fool. This is analagous to Martha Stewart. They couldn't get her on insider trading, so they got her on lying. I found the things with the bullet points and was too lazy to retype them myself. Doesn't make them untrue though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 So he's indicted for lying about something that wasn't even a crime ("outing" Valerie Plame). Fitzgerald had nothing on the "leaking" so he had to indict someone for something to not look like a fool. 488798[/snapback] During an investigation, people who lie and mislead, obstruct justice and perjer themselves while under oath are most certainly committing crimes, regardless of the outcome of the rest of the investigation. Nobody is saying all GOP is bad, corrupt, or rife with liars (at least not any more than the Dems). But if a guy blocks a criminal investigation as Libby did, those are felonies. If it's not too late, try not to let your loyalty to all things GOP taint your ability to observe fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 So he's indicted for lying about something that wasn't even a crime ("outing" Valerie Plame). Fitzgerald had nothing on the "leaking" so he had to indict someone for something to not look like a fool. This is analagous to Martha Stewart. They couldn't get her on insider trading, so they got her on lying. I found the things with the bullet points and was too lazy to retype them myself. Doesn't make them untrue though. 488798[/snapback] Why isn't it analagous to Al Capone? Or Richard Nixon? Or anyone else that was clearly guilty of crimes but prosecutors couldn't nail them on certain charges so they nailed him on others? I am not saying that Libby is clearly guilty, because he deserves a fair trial. But just because prosecutors are not able to convict certain people on obvious charges doesn't mean they are not guilty of them, and should not be jailed because of it. Even if they are not the obvious charges and crimes. If Martha Stewart did not lie, she would have gotten away with her insider trading, which they couldn't prove. Michael Jackson, though clearly guilty in my eyes, does deserve to "get away with it" because they couldn't prove anything against him in that particular case. OJ got away with it because they couldn't prove anything against him because they botched the case. That is not the case with Stewart, or Capone, etc., and perhaps not Libby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 Nice try going on by the Bush administration right now at 2:50 EST. Bush himself and Cheney himself are both speaking publicly, obviously trying to get people on TV to watch them instead of Fitzpatrick, who is still speaking to reporters live and carried live on the cable news networks. Have to admire them even though it's pretty transparent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 This administration is the most corrupt in US history. And yet there are people who will make excuses, mince words, and deflect criticism for them. Ironically it's mostly the people who say they "love" America. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 Nice try going on by the Bush administration right now at 2:50 EST. Bush himself and Cheney himself are both speaking publicly, obviously trying to get people on TV to watch them instead of Fitzpatrick, who is still speaking to reporters live and carried live on the cable news networks. Have to admire them even though it's pretty transparent. 488822[/snapback] I note that the Dem big-wigs are being circumspect with this, as well as with DeLay. And the press are asking some things that seems to be making Fitzpartick defensive. Let's see how this plays out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 This administration is the most corrupt in US history. And yet there are people who will make excuses, mince words, and deflect criticism for them. Ironically it's mostly the people who say they "love" America. PTR 488863[/snapback] How many administrations in US history are you actually familiar with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts