Yes There Is A God

[mylanta]

Rove Informs White House He Will Be Indicted
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Report
Friday 12 May 2006
Within the last week, Karl Rove told President Bush and Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten, as well as a few other high level administration officials, that he will be indicted in the CIA leak case and will immediately resign his White House job when the special counsel publicly announces the charges against him, according to sources.
Details of Rove's discussions with the president and Bolten have spread through the corridors of the White House where low-level staffers and senior officials were trying to determine how the indictment would impact an administration that has been mired in a number of high-profile political scandals for nearly a year, said a half-dozen White House aides and two senior officials who work at the Republican National Committee.
Speaking on condition of anonymity, sources confirmed Rove's indictment is imminent. These individuals requested anonymity saying they were not authorized to speak publicly about Rove's situation. A spokesman in the White House press office said they would not comment on "wildly speculative rumors."
Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, did not return a call for comment Friday.
Rove's announcement to President Bush and Bolten comes more than a month after he alerted the new chief of staff to a meeting his attorney had with Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald in which Fitzgerald told Luskin that his case against Rove would soon be coming to a close and that he was leaning toward charging Rove with perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to investigators, according to sources close to the investigation.
A few weeks after he spoke with Fitzgerald, Luskin arranged for Rove to return to the grand jury for a fifth time to testify in hopes of fending off an indictment related to Rove's role in the CIA leak, sources said.
That meeting was followed almost immediately by an announcement by newly-appointed White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten of changes in the responsibilities of some White House officials, including Rove, who was stripped of his policy duties and would no longer hold the title of deputy White House chief of staff.
The White House said Rove would focus on the November elections and his change in status in no way reflected his fifth appearance before the grand jury or the possibility of an indictment.
But since Rove testified two weeks ago, the White House has been coordinating a response to what is sure to be the biggest political scandal it has faced thus far: the loss of a key political operative who has been instrumental in shaping White House policy on a wide range of domestic issues.
Late Thursday afternoon and early Friday morning, several White House officials were bracing for the possibility that Fitzgerald would call a news conference and announce a Rove indictment today following the prosecutor's meeting with the grand jury this morning. However, sources close to the probe said that is unlikely to happen, despite the fact that Fitzgerald has already presented the grand jury with a list of charges against Rove. If an indictment is returned by the grand jury, it will be filed under seal.
Rove is said to have told Bolten that he will be charged with perjury regarding when he was asked how and when he discovered that covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson worked for the agency, and whether he discussed her job with reporters.
Rove testified that he first found out about Plame Wilson from reading a newspaper report in July 2003 and only after the story was published did he share damaging information about her CIA status with other reporters.
However, evidence has surfaced during the course of the two-year-old investigation that shows Rove spoke with at least two reporters about Plame Wilson prior to the publication of the column.
The explanation Rove provided to the grand jury - that he was dealing with more urgent White House matters and therefore forgot - has not convinced Fitzgerald that Rove has been entirely truthful in his testimony.
Sources close to the case said there is a strong chance Rove will also face an additional charge of obstruction of justice, adding that Fitzgerald has been working meticulously over the past few months to build an obstruction case against Rove because it "carries more weight" in a jury trial and is considered a more serious crime.
Some White House staffers said it's the uncertainty of Rove's status in the leak case that has made it difficult for the administration's domestic policy agenda and the announcement of an indictment and Rove's subsequent resignation, while serious, would allow the administration to move forward on a wide range of issues.
"We need to start fresh and we can't do that with the uncertainty of Karl's case hanging over our heads," said one White House aide. "There's no doubt that it will be front page news if and when (an indictment) happens. But eventually it will become old news quickly. The key issue here is that the president or Mr. Bolten respond to the charges immediately, make a statement and then move on to other important policy issues and keep that as the main focus going forward."

Jason Leopold (http://truthout.org/contactjl.php) spent two years covering California's electricity crisis as Los Angeles bureau chief of Dow Jones Newswires. Jason has spent the last year cultivating sources close to the CIA leak investigation, and is a regular contributor to t r u t h o u t. He is the author of the new book NEWS JUNKIE. Visit www.newsjunkiebook.com (http://www.newsjunkiebook.com/) for a preview.

[RAK]

:peace: :cheer2: :party: :hail:

[RAK]

Strange, though, that I can't find confirmation on any other news or blog sight. Nothing on CNN or MSNBC. Do I have to take my Fox-Filter off? IS everybody out gettin' drunk tonight? Guess we'll hear tommorrow.

[mylanta]

I wondered the same thing....

[casey]

WILDLY SPECULATIVE RUMOR WATCH....I have no idea if this is true, but here's what Jason Leopold says today: (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051206Y.shtml) Within the last week, Karl Rove told President Bush and Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten, as well as a few other high level administration officials, that he will be indicted in the CIA leak case and will immediately resign his White House job when the special counsel publicly announces the charges against him, according to sources.
....Speaking on condition of anonymity, sources confirmed Rove's indictment is imminent. These individuals requested anonymity saying they were not authorized to speak publicly about Rove's situation. A spokesman in the White House press office said they would not comment on "wildly speculative rumors."
Sure, and that's certainly the responsible thing to do. But what the hell. It's Friday evening, and that's a good time for some blog porn. Consider this your wildly speculative rumor kickstart for the weekend.
—Kevin Drum (calpundit@cox.net) 8:07 PM Permalink (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_05/008803.php) | Trackbacks (http://www.google.com/blogsearch?as_epq=http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_05/008803.php) | Comments (66 (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=8803)

[mylanta]

Crap...we need this to be true!!!!

[jcampi]

I'm also wishing this is true, but indicting Rove has not been announced or confirmed by any news agencies I read. If or when this is confirmed it will be the end of the Bush era.

[mylanta]

Karl Rove Indicted on Charges of Perjury, Lying to Investigators
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Report
Saturday 13 May 2006
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald spent more than half a day Friday at the offices of Patton Boggs, the law firm representing Karl Rove.
During the course of that meeting, Fitzgerald served attorneys for former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove with an indictment charging the embattled White House official with perjury and lying to investigators related to his role in the CIA leak case, and instructed one of the attorneys to tell Rove that he has 24 hours to get his affairs in order, high level sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said Saturday morning.
Robert Luskin, Rove's attorney, did not return a call for comment. Sources said Fitzgerald was in Washington, DC, Friday and met with Luskin for about 15 hours to go over the charges against Rove, which include perjury and lying to investigators about how and when Rove discovered that Valerie Plame Wilson was a covert CIA operative and whether he shared that information with reporters, sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said.
It was still unknown Saturday whether Fitzgerald charged Rove with a more serious obstruction of justice charge. Sources close to the case said Friday that it appeared very likely that an obstruction charge against Rove would be included with charges of perjury and lying to investigators.
An announcement by Fitzgerald is expected to come this week, sources close to the case said. However, the day and time is unknown. Randall Samborn, a spokesman for the special prosecutor was unavailable for comment. In the past, Samborn said he could not comment on the case.
The grand jury hearing evidence in the Plame Wilson case met Friday on other matters while Fitzgerald spent the entire day at Luskin's office. The meeting was a closely guarded secret and seems to have taken place without the knowledge of the media.
As TruthOut reported Friday (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051206Y.shtml) evening, Rove told President Bush and Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten, as well as a few other high level administration officials, that he will be indicted in the CIA leak case and will
immediately resign his White House job when the special counsel publicly announces the charges against him, according to sources.
Details of Rove's discussions with the president and Bolten have spread through the corridors of the White House, where low-level staffers and senior officials were trying to determine how the indictment would impact an administration that has been mired in a number of high-profile political scandals for nearly a year, said a half-dozen White House aides and two senior officials who work at the Republican National Committee.

Speaking on condition of anonymity Friday night, sources confirmed Rove's indictment was imminent. These individuals requested anonymity saying they were not authorized to speak publicly about Rove's situation. A spokesman in the White House press office said they would not comment on "wildly speculative rumors."
Rove's announcement to President Bush and Bolten comes more than a month after he alerted the new chief of staff to a meeting his attorney had with Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald in which Fitzgerald told Luskin that his case against Rove would soon be coming to a close and that he was leaning toward charging Rove with perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to investigators, according to sources close to the investigation.
A few weeks after he spoke with Fitzgerald, Luskin arranged for Rove to return to the grand jury for a fifth time to testify in hopes of fending off an indictment related to Rove's role in the CIA leak, sources said.
That meeting was followed almost immediately by an announcement by newly-appointed White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten of changes in the responsibilities of some White House officials, including Rove, who was stripped of his policy duties and would no longer hold the title of deputy White House chief of staff.
The White House said Rove would focus on the November elections and his change in status in no way reflected his fifth appearance before the grand jury or the possibility of an indictment.
But since Rove testified two weeks ago, the White House has been
coordinating a response to what is sure to be the biggest political scandal it has faced thus far: the loss of a key political operative who has been instrumental in shaping White House policy on a wide range of domestic issues.
Rove testified that he first found out about Plame Wilson from reading a newspaper report in July 2003 and only after the story was published did he share damaging information about her CIA status with other reporters.
However, evidence has surfaced during the course of the two-year-old investigation that shows Rove spoke with at least two reporters about Plame Wilson prior to the publication of the column.
The explanation Rove provided to the grand jury - that he was dealing with more urgent White House matters and therefore forgot - has not convinced Fitzgerald that Rove has been entirely truthful in his testimony and resulted in the indictment.
Some White House staffers said it's the uncertainty of Rove's status in the leak case that has made it difficult for the administration's domestic policy agenda and that the announcement of an indictment and Rove's subsequent resignation, while serious, would allow the administration to move forward on a wide range of issues.
"We need to start fresh and we can't do that with the uncertainty of Karl's case hanging over our heads," said one White House aide. "There's no doubt that it will be front page news if and when (an indictment) happens. But eventually it will become old news quickly. The key issue here is that the president or Mr. Bolten respond to the charges immediately, make a statement and then move on to other important policy issues and keep that as the main focus going forward."

Jason Leopold (http://truthout.org/contactjl.php) spent two years covering California's electricity crisis as Los Angeles bureau chief of Dow Jones Newswires. Jason has spent the last year cultivating sources close to the CIA leak investigation, and is a regular contributor to t r u t h o u t. He is the author of the new book NEWS JUNKIE. Visit www.newsjunkiebook.com (http://www.newsjunkiebook.com/) for a preview.

[RAK]

Still no second confirmation, so mainstream press won't touch it; or their sitting on this story to get past the Sunday shows. Matthews was hinting at this all day Friday, on Imus and his own show. Also looks like Cheney's getting more wrapped up in this now, too. All we can hope for is an early Fitz-mas to all, and all a good night.
RAK

[Terry Hanushek]

This morning on CNN Headline News there was a report that the current activity by Patrick Fitzgerald may result in the possible indictment of Rove on perjury and obstruction of justice charges. It was part of the larger story linking Cheney and his handwritten notes to the investigation.

This is the first mention in the media other than Matthew's hints last week that further indictments may be imminent.

Terry

[RAK]

Welp, looks like "mission accomplished". Here's a sample of the Sunday Blah-Blah" schedule:


THIS WEEK (ABC)....: Sens. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), actress Reese Witherspoon(?) and Bush .

FACE THE NATION (CBS)...: Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and national secuity adviser Stephen J. Hadley .

MEET THE PRESS (NBC)...: Former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and journalists John Harwood , Judy Woodruff and Jon Meacham .

LATE EDITION (CNN), 11 a.m.: Sens. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.); Jordanian Foreign Minister Abdul-Ilah al-Khatib , former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski and Hadley .

FOX NEWS SUNDAY...: First lady Laura Bush , author Mary Cheney and columnist Art Buchwald .( Fox must be furious that ABC scooped up Reese Witherspoon first)

I do notice a lot more interest in Cheney's notes to Libby, and his initial inclination after 9/11 to institute this trolling project. Could it be the White House is more willing to throw the Dark Lord under the bus to protect Rove?

[mylanta]

Woo hooooo hang-em high!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[RAK]

Easy now, Rich; you just woke up General Hayden:spy: :phone:

[RAK]

I'm beginning to see a little more clarification, thogh no second confirmation, of the original story on other blogs:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1186820

During the course of that meeting, Fitzgerald served attorneys for former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove with an indictment charging the embattled White House official with perjury and lying to investigators related to his role in the CIA leak case, and instructed one of the attorneys to tell Rove that he has 24 hours to get his affairs in order, high level sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said Saturday morning."

In point of fact, those 24 hours are "business hours," i.e. starting on Monday.

I would surmise that the president's address on the phony immigration issue was set to coincide with any announcement to the mainstream "typists", er, I mean "media"(heck, probably right the first time). Nothing like sending 10,000 Guardsmen down to Texas to back up a bunch of crazy Rednecks with badges to distract from bad news.

[mylanta]

My point exactly! Other point. This has been out since Friday night, and they have to know it is out and no denial either! No one is saying there is a rumor and it is untrue.

[mylanta]

UPDATE:
How Accurate Was the 'Rove Indicted' Story?

On Saturday afternoon, we ran a breaking story titled, "Karl Rove Indicted on Charges of Perjury, Lying to Investigators." We assumed that we were well ahead of the mainstream media and that we would be subsequently questioned. Right on both counts.

What everyone is asking right now is how accurate is the story? Has Rove in fact been indicted? The story is accurate, and Karl Rove's attorneys have been served with an indictment.

In short, we had two sources close to the Fitzgerald investigation who were explicit about the information that we published, and a former high-ranking state department official who reported communication with a source who had "direct knowledge" of the meeting at Patton Boggs. In both instances, substantial detail was provided and matched.

We had confirmation. We ran the story.

[RAK]

Well, Rove has suceeded to change the subject once more; Bush's plan of sending Guard troops down to the border to help the Minutemen build their wall of beercans, along with "New High-Tech Initiatives"( no mention of funding, of course; "Ah, 'Datta mean new taxes,heh-heh. Cain't do dat!") gives them an amazing load of crap to hide behind. If we don't hear anything today, it's a good possibility that Leopold got "punked" by his sources. It may have been bait to find out who is leaking info. As for his "Prime-Time" smoke-and-mirrors act, I like what the boys from Dub'ya D 40 wrote:

Since The National Guard Has Nothing Better To Do At The Moment...
posted by Wally
7:35 AM

Now that all the other problems in the world have been solved, now that the mission has been accomplished in Iraq and all our troops are sitting around twiddling their thumbs at home with their families, now that we no longer need to worry about another hurricane or earthquake or tornado or heaven forbid, flood anywhere in the country, now that peace and prosperity reign worldwide, and that their wives, husbands, and children are sick of having them around all the time, Bush has found a way to keep our bored, overpaid, underworked, overappreciated National Guard troops busy. He's putting them on the U.S. - Mexico border as Deputy Border Patrol. 6,000 of 'em.

So boys and girls, when you come home from your 2nd or 3rd tour of baking in the 110 degree desert heat while having rose petals thrown at you by adoring Iraqis and Afghans in the middle east, don't bother unpacking that desert camo gear, because now you get to go spend another tour baking in the 110 degree desert heat of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California.

I have an idea. Instead of militarizing the border patrol (a law enforcement activity), why don't we listen to Mayor Elizabeth Flores of Laredo, TX - someone who knows a thing or two about problems at the border. "We have over 300 Border Patrol officers from here serving in Iraq. Why doesn't [President Bush] bring them home to do the job they were trained to do?" If we need more border patrol, why not hire and train more instead of using the military to do domestic law enforcement. It's not like this is an emergency requiring rapid massive mobilization - like, say, a massive hurricane wiping out a major U.S. city and entire region of the country. This problem has been going on for decades. We can address it in ways that don't involve our already overstretched, underpaid, underequipped, overstressed troops.

Dubya, you've asked too much and given too little to our troops already. Multiple extended tours of duty in a war we didn't need to fight. Poor equipment. Inadequate armor. Nonexistent post-war planning. Low pay. Reduced medical benefits when they return. Stop-loss orders. The list goes on and on. Dammit, bring them home and let them stay HOME. Let the border patrol do the job of patrolling the frikking border. If they need more bodies, set an example for a change - drag your daughters out of the bar and send them off to Mexico to help out first.

Nice try, but talking about immigration isn't going to distract us from the price at the pump, the war in Iraq, or all the corruption and criminal proceedings surrounding your administration and your party. We have an idea for your next speech, one that will distract us and really get our attention.
Resign.:usa2: :clap2:

[Terry Hanushek]

Yesterday in his American Debate blog, Philadelphia Inquirer National Political Analyst Dick Polman cast significant doubt on the Rove indictment rumors.

Mark Twain once had a line about how reports of his death were greatly exaggerated. We can say the same about Karl Rove.

Last Friday, a report on a website -- which I will not link here, because I didn't believe it (TH - Jason Leopold?)-- insisted that not only has President Bush's political swami been secretly indicted, but that he already has informed a number of White House officials in advance. The rumor was so hot by Saturday that an announcement of Rove's indictment was made from the podium at a Michigan trial lawyers association dinner, prompting a standing ovation.

But there he was earlier today, still innocent of any charges that may or may not be brought, speaking in Washington to one of his favorite conservative groups, the American Enterprise Institute.

His entire commentary is at: http://dickpolman.blogspot.com/2006/05/karl-is-still-rove-ing-land.html#links

If only wishing could make it so .....:frusty:

Terry

[casey]

Leopold Responds to Corallo's Denial of Fitzgerald - Luskin Meeting

http://talkleft.com/rove-trapped.jpg
Last night, I spoke to Jason Leopold on the phone for a half hour or so. Here's what he had to say about Byron York's article (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjQ4MzljZjIzYTFhNGY2NTIzMWY0MTRlZTI0MDEyYzM=) stating that Karl Rove's spokesman Mark Corallo told him that Jason's article (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051306W.shtml)Saturday reporting sources told him Fitzgerald met with Luskin Friday and told him Rove has been indicted is false.
1. Jason says he spoke with Josh Gerstein of the New York Sun (http://www.nysun.com/) and Gerstein told him Corallo called both York and Gerstein, not the other way around. In other words, Corallo reached out to a few select reporters to debunk Jason's article. Corallo told Gerstein, as he told York, Jason's article reporting Rove has been indicted is a baseless lie. A New York Sun article today (http://www.nysun.com/article/32727) reports Carollo's comments to the paper.
2. Before Jason published his article, he left messages with both Corallo and Luskin offering an opportunity to respond. Neither returned his calls.
3. Jason spoke to Corallo twice on Saturday and twice on Sunday. The first time they spoke Saturday was after Jason's article was published. Corallo told Jason the article was lies and hung up. As I reported here (http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014835.html), I e-mailed with Jason Saturday evening. Jason had provided me with two numbers each for Mark Corallo and Robert Luskin. After my non-conversation with Robert Luskin, I e-mailed Jason that I had also left a message for Corallo at his office, since no one answered at the other number he gave me.
Jason told me last night that after he got this e-mail, he called Corallo at home, which was the first number he had given me. (Interesting aside: Jason called Corallo after 10 pm Virginia time, the time Luskin had told me was inappropriately late to call someone in Washington.) Jason said Corallo answered his call (and was wide awake) and told him his article was false, that it bordered on defamation, that Fitzgerald was not in Washington on Friday and that Luskin was not in his office on Friday.
On Sunday, during their first conversation, Jason says Corallo changed his account from Luskin was not in the office on Friday to Luskin was only not in his office Friday morning. As Jason stated on the radio Sunday (and e-mailed me Saturday night) Fitzgerald arrived at Luskin's office at about 11:30 a.m.
During their second conversation Sunday, Corallo told Jason he wasn't sure that Fitzgerald had not been in D.C. Friday, it was just what he had been told.
4. Josh Gerstein told Jason that after speaking with Corallo he called Russell Samborn, Fitz's media guy, to ask if Fitzgerald had been in D.C. or Chicago Friday. Samborn reportedly said, "No Comment."
5. Jason said he is sure of his sources and he has multiple sources for his article. He continues to maintain there was a meeting at Luskin's office Friday with Fitzgerald that began around 11:30 am and that Fitzgerald gave Luskin a copy of the charges and said Rove had 24 hours (which everyone present understood to be business hours since the courts are closed on the weekend) to get his affairs in order. Jason's sources said the Indictment was already voted on by the grand jury.
6. Jason says he was told the meeting lasted 14 1/2 hours and Rove was present with Secret Service detail. Jason did not ask the sources whether Fitzgerald or Rove was there the whole time. In other words, Rove and his lawyers may have met for hours after Fitzgerald left to discuss an offer from Fitzgerald. Jason believes the offer was ultimately rejected by Rove.
7. Jason does not believe his sources are setting him up. He thinks Corallo is not being truthful with York and Gerstein.
8. Jason thinks the announcement of Rove's indictment will come any time after Tuesday of this week.
I'm wondering: Did Jason's sources understand the difference between Fitzgerald handing over a copy of the charges he said Rove would be indicted on if he refused the offer Fitz was making and an already voted-on Indictment? Was the "24 business hours" reference regarding Rove's window to finalize his affairs really a warning that if Rove didn't accept Fitzgerald's offer by Monday it would be too late for Rove to do anything but make arrangements to surrender on the anticipated Indictment?
From a legal standpoint (and keep in mind Jason, and for all I know, his sources are not lawyers) it makes more sense to me that Fitz would want a final answer from Rove Monday so that he could prepare his final argument for the grand jury on Tuesday and seek its approval of the Indictment Wednesday. Even if Fitz submitted charges to the grand jury last week for its consideration, it doesn't mean they actually voted on them. Perhaps they began discussion last week and continued deliberations until they met again this week.
I say this because legally, I just can't understand how Fitz would not be violating Rule 6(e) (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/Rule6.htm) pertaining to disclosures of matters before the grand jury by sharing a returned (voted on) Indictment with Luskin before it was filed or unsealed. Unless, as one lawyer commenter (http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014833.html#comment-215896) in an earlier TL thread noted, Fitz also filed a motion and obtained a court order to share it with Luskin and Rove. I've never seen such an order in my practice, but I also don't see any reason why a Judge couldn't grant such a motion at the request of a prosecutor.
Then again, perhaps Jason's sources have it exactly right.
Bottom line: I believe Jason's sources told him what he reported. Were the sources accurate? Were they basically right but just mistaken on a few of the legal technicalities due to an unfamiliarity with the jargon? Time will tell. If they lied, Jason has promised to disclose their identities.
I would just caution everyone not to be impatient. Let it play out.
If the return of the Indictment is made public this week,then regardless of whether Fitz was at Luskin's office for one hour or many hours this past Friday, or whether the Indictment was voted on last week or this week, I think it proves Jason's sources, and his reporting, substantially correct.
On the other hand, should it turn out that Fitzgerald was not in D.C. at all on Friday, that he was not at Luskin's office and neither was Rove, then Jason will disclose his sources and we can discuss whether Jason was set up and why.
One last note on former CIA Analyst Larry Johnson's comment on Democratic Underground (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1183131&mesg_id=1183804)that Joseph Wilson received the same information as Jason: Some have questioned whether Larry really wrote the comment, or whether it was an imposter. I e-mailed Larry, and he responded, indeed it was him. He added,
Joe heard the same things but not from Jason. If these multiple sources are lying then I certainly hope Jason outs their a*s.
Background:

Breaking Report: Karl Rove Indicted (http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014833.html)
My Non-Conversation With Robert Luskin (http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014835.html)
Byron York Reports Corallo Denies Leopold's Karl Rove Article (http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014841.html)Update: 5/15: My subsequent conversation with Mark Corallo refuting the contents of Jason's article is here. (http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014843.html)

Posted Monday :: May 15, 2006| Valerie Plame Leak (http://talkleft.com/new_archives/cat_valerie_plame_leak.html)
22 comments to "Leopold Responds to Corallo's Denial of Fitzgerald - Luskin Meeting

[RAK]

Strange; I woke up with the same paranoia that I went to bed with.:peep: :spy: This story has "smokescreen" written all over it; especially since the Grand Jury doesn't meet until today. And that "get his affairs in order" is rather Romanesque: IS Fitzgerald giving Rove time to do the "honourable thing"? Leopold doesn't help matters with his threats to "out" his sources if it turns out false. He has to take into account that his sources may have been had, too. This may be one hook in a larger "phishing" scheme. It looks like the Plumbers are back in town. From Daily Kos:

Nixonesque
by Hunter
Tue May 16, 2006 at 06:21:27 PM PDT

Billmon:

It appears the "terrorist surveillance program" has undergone a bit of mission creep. And it's not Ross who needs a bunch of disposable cellphones -- Big Brother already knows who he is -- but his sources.

That "creep" reference was actually a lame attempt at a pun. Watergate buffs probably recall the origin and history of the original Plumbers Unit, created by the Nixon White House in 1971 to track down (and punish) Daniel Ellsberg, the guy who leaked the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times. (I know this is all may be Greek to a lot of Gen-Xers, but bear with me here.)

The creation of the Plumbers Unit (officially: the White House Special Investigations Unit) was just one of a series of semi-legal or flat-out illegal steps taken by the Nixon cabal to investigate leaks of classified information. Others included the wiretapping of 11 of Henry Kissinger's top aides and four of their suspected journalistic contacts, and tapping the phone of Joseph Kraft -- one of the celebrity columnists of the day.

The original goal -- or at least, the stated goal -- of these efforts was to plug leaks. But the program quickly metastasized into an all-purpose domestic spying/political dirty tricks operation, beginning with the burglery of Ellberg's psychiatrist's office in an effort to find dirt that could be used to blackmail and/or discredit him. The entire operation was eventually transferred to CREEP (Nixon's 1972 reelection committee), where it generated an increasingly bizarre array of schemes [...]

This really has been remarkable. It's all out of a playbook we've seen before -- it's so Watergate, we don't really even need a new name for it.

One of the problems, of course, is that the more hardcore of the Nixonites never really learned anything -- or thought they had done anything wrong -- in Watergate or the penumbra of scandals that led to those final botched moments of a presidency. The actors of those times may have been met with press investigations, belated government investigations, and even jailtime, but the core of the Republican and conservative movements never quite repudiated Watergate; they simply looked upon those acts as unfortunate but understandable sins of enthusiasm.

And so as the Nixonites themselves moved on, continuing to show up in administration after administration and in the halls of what nowadays passes for punditry, the same behaviors followed them. Prominent among them are, of course, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. Even the jailed G. Gordon Liddy himself was fully "rehabilitated", in that he is now a prominent conservative radio voice, and is a frequent vessel for conservative thought on Fox News and other bastions of nuttery.

The only error, Nixonites and their broad base of supporters determined, was getting caught. And so the difference between then and now is that this administration is even more secretive, using the War on Terror to claim preemptive legitimacy and secrecy over every action, no matter how absurd the supposed justification seems. They intend to circumvent the mistakes of the past. They don't intend to give any institution -- the Congress, the FISA court, the press -- the slightest hint of sunlight through which the new but familiar, ever-expanding "programs" can be illuminated.

This is all part and parcel, of course, of the notion of the Imperial Presidency or Unitary Executive or whatever other absurd name we or they or John Yoo or anyone else cares to give to the silly and monarchial notion that the president is above laws or petty Constitutional concerns. It was believed in the Nixon administration; it was believed in the Reagan administration; it was believed in the Bush administration; it is believed now. Of course, and hilariously, any half-birthed glimmer of the same notion was fought bitterly in the Clinton years -- would have been unthinkable, in the Clinton years -- because there's no actual philosophical tenet of conservatism at work here. It is just the more crass, primal conservative gut notion that you have the right and imperative to do something illegal if you've got a good shot of getting away with it. The sin is in not trying... or in getting caught.

From Liddy to Libby, from Limbaugh to DeLay to Abramoff to Tobin to Rove, laws are very fungible things, and you can count on an entire establishment of conservative hacks and true believers to rise up in bitter opposition to the notion that someone would dare try to find out about your illegal acts, or even worse that some leaker, somewhere, would expose them. A mere thirty minute exposure to Fox News demonstrates perfectly the phenomenon of Republicanism: the actual legality of an action is, to Republicans, irrelevant, and such concerns can be dismissed with no more concern than you would give to a passing street beggar. The real question, we are told, is who dared to expose it.

Billmon briefly notes the Plame affair, which in and of itself points to an almost eerily Nixonesque mindset in the White House (at least on Cheney's desk): quick to lash out against enemies and not nearly as quick to ponder the implications of the act. The premise of now targeting "leakers" by monitoring the press -- or targeting the press by monitoring leakers? -- is chilling, and given the bitterness and vindictiveness with which this administration has publicly attacked even the most petty of perceived disloyalties, it is decidedly unclear what the definition of supposed "leaker" actually is. I expect, as at this point a very wide range of administration observers do, that the next revelation will be that the definition of leaker is very broad indeed -- a list consisting almost entirely of perceived political threats to the administration's claims and agendas. I also expect, despite the iron curtains of secrecy that this administration finds absolutely necessary to carry out every action, we will soon find out.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/5/16/212127/489

When you look at it, this Rove story is rather silly and inconsequential compared to the larger reports of domestic spying. Its shelf-life has already expired. But it may be part of a larger conspiracy to spread disinformation in an attempt to flush out the "leakers" in this administration. It's gotta be hell to work in the atmosphere of this administration.

[mylanta]

Still Alive Folks.....

Update on the Rove Indictment Story



By Marc Ash (http://www.kickenhardware.net/blog/user/Marc%20Ash),

Wed May 17th, 2006 at 12:52:48 PM EDT :: Fitzgerald Investigation (http://www.kickenhardware.net/blog/?op=search&topic=fitzgerald)

For the past few days, we have endured non-stop attacks on our credibility, and we have fought hard to defend our reputation. In addition, we have worked around the clock to provide additional information to our readership. People want to know more about this, and our job is to keep them informed. We take that responsibility seriously.
Here's what we now know: I spoke personally yesterday with both Rove's spokesman Mark Corallo and Rove's attorney Robert Luskin. Both men categorically denied all key points of our recent reporting on this issue. Both said, "Rove is not a target," "Rove did not inform the White House late last week that he would be indicted," and "Rove has not been indicted." Further, both Corallo and Luskin denied Leopold's account of events at the offices of Patton Boggs, the law firm that represents Karl Rove. They specifically stated again that no such meeting ever occurred, that Fitzgerald was not there, that Rove was not there, and that a major meeting did not take place. Both men were unequivocal on that point.
We can now report, however, that we have additional, independent sources that refute those denials by Corallo and Luskin. While we had only our own sources to work with in the beginning, additional sources have now come forward and offered corroboration to us.
We have been contacted by at least three reporters from mainstream media - network level organizations - who shared with us off-the-record confirmation and moral support. When we asked why they were not going public with this information, in each case they expressed frustration with superiors who would not allow it.




We also learned the following: The events at the office building that houses the law firm of Patton Boggs were not in fact a very well-guarded secret. Despite denials by Corallo and Luskin, there was intense activity at the office building. In fact, the building was staked out by at least two major network news crews. Further, although Corallo and Luskin are not prepared to talk about what happened in the offices of Patton Boggs, others emerging from the building were, both on background and off-the-record. There were a lot of talkers, and they confirmed our accounts. We do have more information, but want additional confirmation before going public with it.
THE 24 HOUR THING
We reported that Patrick Fitzgerald had, "instructed one of the attorneys to tell Rove that he has 24 business hours to get his affairs in order...." That does not mean that at the end of that 24-hour period, Fitzgerald is obliged to hold a press conference and make an announcement. It just means that he has given Rove a 24-hour formal notification. Fitzgerald is not obliged to make an announcement at any point; he does so at his own discretion, and not if it compromises his case. So we're all stuck waiting here. Grab some coffee.



Display: ThreadedMinimalNestedFlatFlat UnthreadedDynamic ThreadedDynamic Minimal
Update on the Rove Indictment Story (http://www.kickenhardware.net/blog/story/2006/5/17/125248/099)

[mylanta]

http://forum.truthout.org/blog/images/2.lgo.tm_01.jpg (http://kickenhardware.net/blog/)
http://www.truthout.org/imgs.site_01/2.TO.Needs.Help_01_sm.gif (https://secure.entango.com/donate/pkXd5Fr9GE4)
Information Sharing on the Rove Indictment Story



By Marc Ash (http://kickenhardware.net/blog/user/Marc%20Ash),

Sun May 21st, 2006 at 11:58:26 AM EDT :: Fitzgerald Investigation (http://kickenhardware.net/blog/?op=search&topic=fitzgerald)

I'd like to break this posting into two categories: What we know, and what we believe. They will be clearly marked.
We know that we have now three independent sources confirming that attorneys for Karl Rove were handed an indictment either late in the night of May 12 or early in the morning of May 13. We know that each source was in a position to know what they were talking about. We know that the office of Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald will not confirm, will not deny, will not comment on its investigation or on our report. We know that both Rove's attorney Robert Luskin and Rove's spokesman Mark Corallo have categorically denied all key facts we have set forth. We know we have information that directly contradicts Luskin and Corallo's denials. (http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2006/5/17/125248/099) We know that there were two network news crews outside of the building in Washington, DC that houses the offices of Patton Boggs, the law firm that represents Karl Rove. We know that the 4th floor of that building (where the Patton Boggs offices are located) was locked down all day Friday and into Saturday night. We know that we have not received a request for a retraction from anyone. And we know that White House spokesman Tony Snow now refuses to discuss Karl Rove - at all.
Further, we know - and we want our readers to know - that we are dependent on confidential sources. We know that a report based solely on information obtained from confidential sources bears some inherent risks. We know that this is - by far - the biggest story we have ever covered, and that we are learning some things as we go along. Finally, we know that we have the support of those who have always supported us, and that must now earn the support of those who have joined us as of late.
We now move on to what we believe. (If you are looking for any guarantees, please turn back now.)
We believe that we hit a nerve with our report. When I get calls on my cell phone from Karl Rove's attorney and spokesman, I have to wonder what's up. "I" believe - but cannot confirm - that Mark Corallo, Karl Rove's spokesman gave Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post my phone number. I believe Howard Kurtz contacted me with the intention of writing a piece critical of our organization. I know that Anne Marie Squeo of the Wall Street Journal attacked us and independent journalism as a whole in her piece titled, "Rove's Camp Takes Center of Web Storm / Bloggers Underscore How Net's Reporting, Dynamics Provide Grist for the Rumor Mill." (http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB114774060320053665-thX800H42zwJ_CbAllza7zwnpRE_20060614.html?mod=%20t ff_main_tff_top) We believe that rolling out that much conservative journalistic muscle to rebut this story is telling. And we believe that Rove's camp is making a concerted effort to discredit our story and our organization.
Further - and again this is "What We Believe" - Rove may be turning state's evidence. We suspect that the scope of Fitzgerald's investigation may have broadened - clearly to Cheney - and according to one "off the record source" to individuals and events not directly related to the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame. We believe that the indictment which does exist against Karl Rove is sealed. Finally, we believe that there is currently a great deal of activity in the Plame investigation.
We know that this story is of vital interest to the community, and that providing as much information as we can is very important to our readers. We want you to know that this is challenging territory and that we are proceeding with as much speed as the terrain will allow.
Marc Ash, Executive Director - t r u t h o u t
director@truthout.org

[Terry Hanushek]

In his American Debate blog, Philadelphia Inquirer National Political Analyst Dick Polman takes the 'blogosphere' to task for taking rumors, specifically the truthout / Leopold rumor about Rove's indictment and repeating is as if it were the absolute truth.

But here is my main beef with the blogosphere:

All its attributes aside, it still has the potential to debase journalistic standards that are worth preserving.

A classic case in point:
It has now been a week since an online report declared breathlessly that not only was GOP strategist Karl Rove facing imminent indictment, but that he had already shared that impending news with President Bush and numerous high-level administration officials. This report, according to a website called truthout.org, was supposedly based on the inside skinny from "a half-dozen White House aides and two senior officials who work at the Republican National Committee."
What happened next was the blogosphere at its worst. Even though the report was really no more than a rumor -- in the sense that no other news organization was able to confirm its veracity, or to determine why eight high-ranking sources would spill the beans to somebody named Jason Leopold and nobody else -- it nevertheless sped through the "new media" like a virulent disease.

Liberal blogs linked to the story, thus spreading the word, not because they had checked it out and found it to be true, but because they wanted it to be true. Last Friday, a few hours after Leopold's report appeared online, Kevin Drum of the respectable Washington Monthly blog provided a link and said, "What the hell. It's Friday evening, and that's a good time for some blog porn."
The complete blog entry and comments can be found at:
http://dickpolman.blogspot.com/2006/05/defending-karl-rove-from-perils-of.html

The absence of any announcement or confirming reports after ten days makes me very suspect of the original report. Rove may still be indicted (yes, I hope for this outcome also) but any such proceeding will be in spite of the Leopold report not in line with it.

My $.02

Terry

[RAK]

Rich, there's an all-out effort here to "protect the Brain". And I'm certain old "Turd Blossom" is behind it. These crooks are doomed if Rove goes down and they know it. I'm seeing some pretty scary things out there. You have the Attorney General of the United States publicly threatening journalists with prosecution on grounds that most certainly Unconstitutional. And even though this Jefferson guy from Louisiana is probably guilty as hell, never in the history of the United States has the Executive Branch raided the offices of a member of the Legislative Branch. This is a clear message to Democrats that if they push this issue, it's time for Hardball; speaking of which, David Shuster of MSNBC has been following this story and his information seems to back up that of Leopold:


MSNBC's David Shuster declared Monday evening that Karl Rove's legal team expects Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald to announce a decision "at any time" in the ongoing CIA leak investigation and that new documents put Cheney's former chief of staff in the hot seat.
Advertisement

Meanwhile, Rove spokesman Mark Corallo told TalkLeft, a progressive legal blog, the timing is still unknown.

"We have no expectation on timing anymore," Corallo said.

Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, added that "there has never been any discussion of any plea under any circumstances whatsoever."

"As a defense lawyer," Luskin told TalkLeft, "you'll understand that if a prosecutor hasn't figured out whether or not he thinks a charge is appropriate, plea discussions are a bit premature."

RAW STORY acquired a transcript of the MSNBC report, which follows.
http://www.rawstory.com/admin/dbscripts/printstory.php?story=2180

Whether it's Libby, Cheney or Rove who gets the short straw in the end, it doesn't matter. There'll be a nice, crisp pardon waiting at the end of the rainbow. This is Government RUN AMOK! And meanwhile, the country goes down the toilet. Thank you, Middle America. Even Mencken didn't think you'd be this stupid.

[mylanta]

See also:
"06 cr 128" (http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2006/6/12/9216/61823) •
Sealed vs. Sealed
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Report
Monday 12 June 2006
Four weeks ago, during the time when we reported that White House political adviser Karl Rove was indicted for crimes related to his role in the leak of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson, the grand jury empanelled in the case returned an indictment that was filed under seal in US District Court for the District of Columbia under the curious heading of Sealed vs. Sealed.
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."
We have not seen the contents of the indictment "06 cr 128". But the fact that this indictment was returned by the grand jury hearing evidence in the CIA leak case on a day that Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald met with the grand jury raised a number of questions about the identity of the defendant named in the indictment, whether it relates to the leak case, and why it has been under seal for a month under the heading Sealed vs. Sealed.
True, the grand jury in the CIA leak case also meets to hear evidence on other federal criminal cases, including at least one other high-profile case - crimes related to the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal.
The lead prosecutor on the Abramoff case is Peter Zeidenberg, who has worked alongside Patrick Fitzgerald in the CIA leak investigation for more than two years and has spent a considerable amount of time investigating Karl Rove's role in the leak. Zeidenberg is currently prosecuting David Safavian, who is on trial in US District Court, charged with obstruction and lying about his contacts with Abramoff.
Still, legal experts watching the Plame-Wilson investigation have been paying particularly close attention to Sealed vs. Sealed since the Karl Rove indictment story was published.
The legal scholars have said that a federal prosecutor can keep an indictment under seal for weeks or months - something that is commonplace in high-profile criminal cases - especially if an investigation, such as the CIA leak probe, is ongoing.
When told about the Sealed vs. Sealed indictment filed in US District Court, the legal experts became intrigued about the case because they say that most federal criminal indictments are filed under US vs. Sealed and that they rarely come across federal criminal indictments titled Sealed vs. Sealed, which to them suggests the prosecutor felt it necessary to add an extra layer of secrecy to an indictment to keep it out of public view.
"The question here is that nobody who I have spoken to - top criminal attorneys, law professors, etc. - is aware of the left part of the case title having been sealed," said one former federal criminal attorney. "That the right-hand side is sealed is almost pro-forma. But, what is not known is whether the US Attorney can seal the left hand part of the case title on his own."
The fact that the indictment has been under seal for more than a month also suggests that it involves a high-profile investigation, he said.
Additionally, it's entirely plausible for a federal prosecutor to obtain permission from a federal magistrate or a judge, have an indictment unsealed for the limited purpose of having parts of it read to a defendant and his or her attorneys in an attempt to have the defendant cooperate with an investigation to avoid facing further charges, legal experts said.

[Terry Hanushek]

Rove won't be charged in CIA leak case

WASHINGTON - Top White House aide Karl Rove has been told by prosecutors he won't be charged with any crimes in the investigation into the leak of a CIA officer's identity, his lawyer said Tuesday, lifting a heavy burden from one of President Bush's most trusted advisers.
Fitzgerald met with chief U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan before he notified Rove. Hogan has been overseeing the grand juries in the CIA leak case. Fitzgerald's spokesman, Randall Samborn, declined comment. Asked if the CIA leak investigation is still continuing, Samborn said, "I'm not commenting on that as well at this time."
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/14807139.htm

:mad: :frown: :mad:

Terry

[mylanta]

I know heard it today...

[RAK]

Two and a half more years behind the looking-glass, folks.:frusty:

[mylanta]

By Marc Ash (http://www.kickenhardware.net/blog/user/Marc%20Ash),

Mon Jun 19th, 2006 at 06:59:47 PM EDT :: Fitzgerald Investigation (http://www.kickenhardware.net/blog/?op=search&topic=fitzgerald)
(23 comments)
What will follow will be a rather frank discussion of our reporting of and involvement in the Rove indictment matter. If you like simple answers or quick resolutions, turn back now. This is our report to our readership. Our primary sources for this report are career federal law enforcement and federal government officials speaking on condition of anonymity. This report was developed under the supervision of all of Truthout's senior editors, which should be taken as an indication that we view this matter with the utmost seriousness.
For the record, we did reach Kimberly Nerheim, a spokesperson for Patrick Fitzgerald, and asked her these questions: Did a grand jury return an indictment of Karl Rove? Did Patrick Fitzgerald send a fax to Robert Luskin similar to that described in recent press reports? Is Patrick Fitzgerald's probe of the Plame matter still ongoing? Her response to each question was identical: "I have no comment."
The Rove indictment story is way beyond - in terms of complexity - any other story we have ever covered. In essence, we found out something we were not supposed to find out, and things exploded from there. We were not prepared for the backlash.
On Tuesday, June 13, when the mainstream media broke their stories that Karl Rove had been exonerated, there were frank discussions amongst our senior editors about retracting our stories outright. The problem we wrestled with was what exactly do we retract? Should we say that Rove had not in fact been indicted? Should we say that our sources provided us with false or misleading information? Had Truthout been used? Without a public statement from Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald we felt that it was premature to retract our report.
After spending the past month retracing our steps and confirming facts, we've come full circle. Our sources continue to maintain that a grand jury has in fact returned an indictment. Our sources said that parts of the indictment were read to Karl Rove and his attorney on Friday, May 12, 2006. Last week, we pointed to a sealed federal indictment, case number "06 cr 128," which is still sealed and we are still pointing to it. During lengthy conversations with our sources over the past month, they reiterated that the substance of our report on May 13, 2006, was correct, and immediately following our report, Karl Rove's status in the CIA leak probe changed. In summary, as we press our investigation we find indicators that more of our key facts are correct, not less.
That leaves the most important question: If our sources maintain that a grand jury has returned an indictment - and we have pointed to a criminal case number that we are told corresponds to it - then how is it possible that Patrick Fitzgerald is reported to have said that 'he does not anticipate seeking charges against Rove at this time?' That is a very troubling question, and the truth is, we do not yet have a definitive answer. We also continue to be very troubled that no one has seen the reported communication from Fitzgerald to Rove's attorney Robert Luskin, and more importantly, how so much public judgment could be based on a communication that Luskin will not put on the table. Before we can assess the glaring contradiction between what our sources say and what Luskin says Fitzgerald faxed to him, we need to be able to consider what was faxed - and in its entirety.
What appears to have happened is that - and this is where Truthout blundered - in our haste to report the indictment we never considered the possibility that Patrick Fitzgerald would not make an announcement. We simply assumed - and we should not have done so - that he would tell the press. He did not. Fitzgerald appears to have used the indictment, and more importantly, the fear that it would go public, to extract information about the Plame outing case from Rove.
Yes, it does appear that Truthout was used, but not lied to or misled. The facts appear to have been accurate. We reported them, and in so doing, apparently became an instrument. From all indications, our reports, first on May 13 that Rove had been indicted, and then on June 12 when we published case number "06 cr 128," forced Rove and Luskin back to the table with Fitzgerald, not once but twice. They apparently sought to avoid public disclosure and were prepared to do what they had to do to avoid it.
The electronic communication from Fitzgerald to Luskin, coming immediately on the heels of our Monday morning, June 12 article "Sealed vs. Sealed" that became the basis for the mainstream media's de facto exoneration of Karl Rove was, our sources told us, negotiated quickly over the phone later that afternoon. Luskin contacted Fitzgerald, reportedly providing concessions that Fitzgerald considered to be of high value, and Fitzgerald reportedly reciprocated with the political cover Rove wanted in the form of a letter that was faxed to Luskin's office.
Our sources provided us with additional detail, saying that Fitzgerald is apparently examining closely Dick Cheney's role in the Valerie Plame matter, and apparently sought information and evidence from Karl Rove that would provide documentation of Cheney's involvement. Rove apparently was reluctant to cooperate and Fitzgerald, it appears, was pressuring him to do so, our sources told us.
Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation is a unique chapter in American history. The probe has managed to shed light into the inner recesses of perhaps the most secretive presidential administration in US history. His mission is not political, and he will not allow it to be.
However, we call upon the Special Counsel to consider the right of the American people to know what has happened. Nothing, we believe, is more important to the survival of democracy than the light of justice, and nothing more damaging than the curtain of secrecy that today surrounds the highest office in the land.
Joe Lauria and The Washington Post's Attacks on Jason Leopold
We are well aware of the Lauria article and the series of attacks The Washington Post has launched against Jason Leopold and Truthout. As always, we will carefully consider all information and then publish a thoughtful response. In this case, we will publish our response on Wednesday, June 21, at 5:00 p.m. Pacific time.


Read and discuss >> (http://www.kickenhardware.net/blog/story/2006/6/19/185947/499)

[Terry Hanushek]

Rich

Very interesting.

Does the sealed indictment that Truthout reported put Rove on double secret probation? Is it being used a lever to pry out additional tidbits about Cheney? Would Rove give up Cheney to save his own hide? This is better than the afternoon soap operas.

The whole issue of Rove's 'exoneration' has seemed fishy from the moment that it was announced. It is intriguing that no one has seen the actual correspondence.

it certainly appears like there is more to come.

Terry

[RAK]

I believe their story was legit, Rich. David Shuster on MSNBC apparently was running a parallel investigation and had come to the same conclusion that Rove would be indicted. Even Matthews was wetting himself at the prospect. What most probably happened, and with this bunch of criminals, we'll probably never know, is that Fitzgerald's boss, "Speedy " Gonzales, informed him that his case was closed. Already the word is out that Libby will receive his "get out of jail" card and the whole thing will dissapear; and as usual, the Democratic Opposition will role over and let it die.
There has been only two people in Washington that will stand up to these thugs: John Murtha and Russ Fiengold. And even their own party holds them at arm's length. Everyone else is more concerned with keeping their cushy jobs, perks and privileges, free healthcare, fat pension, and the enviable position of being able to vote themselves a raise whenever they feel like it. Nobody outside of the two I named are ready to stick their necks out and do their job. Even a Democratic majority in Congress will change little as long as this party is represented by the Clintons, Bidens, Liebermans, Shumers and the rest of these gutless wonders. I will give Kerry credit for at least trying to light a fire under this party, but in the end, you just can't herd rats.

RAK

[jcampi]

The worst part of this to me is the way Democrats are behaving. EVERTHING is favoring their party, but I'm willing to bet they blow it in the mid term elections and for the next presidential election. They just don't get it. GW and the Republican team will get out the old tried and true propaganda on the war and needing to stay the course. This crap sounds like Vietnam all over again to me. Is it only me or does anyone else think Rumsfeld looks remarkably like Robert MacNamera? The only plan GW has is to stay the course. This is sickening. But, the Dems are pathetic.

[RAK]

The worst part of this to me is the way Democrats are behaving. EVERTHING is favoring their party, but I'm willing to bet they blow it in the mid term elections and for the next presidential election. They just don't get it. GW and the Republican team will get out the old tried and true propaganda on the war and needing to stay the course. This crap sounds like Vietnam all over again to me. Is it only me or does anyone else think Rumsfeld looks remarkably like Robert MacNamera? The only plan GW has is to stay the course. This is sickening. But, the Dems are pathetic.


That's the whole thing in a nutshell, John. It would be no surprise to me that, come November, the Dems wake up the morning after the November Elections to run their victory lap, only to find their Nikes' have been pinched once more by Karl Rove. Someone ought to sent them a history book on the Whig Party. In their case, staying the course led eventually to their demise and the Civil War. Staying the course doesn't mean lashing the wheel and sailing in circles.

[mylanta]

Rich

Very interesting.

Does the sealed indictment that Truthout reported put Rove on double secret probation? Is it being used a lever to pry out additional tidbits about Cheney? Would Rove give up Cheney to save his own hide? This is better than the afternoon soap operas.

The whole issue of Rove's 'exoneration' has seemed fishy from the moment that it was announced. It is intriguing that no one has seen the actual correspondence.

it certainly appears like there is more to come.

Terry

Terry,
I was really in Twilight Zone until the annoucement that Rove will not be prosecuted. Seems to me announcements occur when someone will be prosecuted, as is not the innocent really innocent until proven guilty?
That wreaked of "deal" and the real details of this are looking more and more intriguing. I cannot remember thye last time an official announcement was made that someone would not be prosecuted for something.

[mylanta]

Well it's a long time until November and a lot can happen. Personally I agree totally and find the Democratic leadership with the exception of Murtha, Kennedy and Feingold, and of course John Kerry who is still trying to stand up to the other side, as odious as I do the Republicans. Study the number of incumbents who have lost so far this year, and realize that inspite of the two groups, there is a movement afoot to remove all incumbents and both sides may well be surprised at the reults. Have you seen Joe Lieberman, 4 term Democratic senator trailing to an unknown in Conn now annouced he will run as an Independent if he loses the primary, which it seems certain he will. he needs to get it over with and become a Republican anyway as one of Bush best backers on most issues.
I am wondering if by 2008, a third party candiadte who can actually win doesn't show up. Suddenly in recent polls the price of gas and the economy isback as the primary issues before the public. It's just a question of time.