Mr. Parados- You are an expert at throwing garbage at the wall to see if it will stick.
Trailers? What trailers?
Missles capable of hitting Israel?
Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles -- far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations
What speech was that in?
Do you then accept all of the other statements made in Podhoretz' article? If not, which ones are mistaken?
More specificity, Please, Mr. Parados.
Note that I asked five questions. Please be so good as to answer all five of them.
I will understand if you are unable to do so.
PS.I blew your Duelfer nonsense out of the water with my reply on another thread!!!
Why on earth would Rove volunteer to testify a fourth time???
Sounds suicidal to me.
Or, he thinks he's so "all that" that he can pull the wool over everyones eyes if he gets another shot at spinning.
The notion that Rove helpfully and selflessly invited himself back for further testimony (rather than having been called back or ordered back) was advanced several days ago by Rove's lawyer, Luskin. Easy enough to craft one's sentences and public defense such that that isn't an outright lie even if it is an outwrong lie...one just needs to have voiced earlier to the GJ something like, "We are happy to have been here, helping you get to the bottom of this mystery, and be assured that my client will be available as you need him and that he will not rest until the real murderer of Nicole has been found."
I doubt Rove has noble reasons for another testimony session. Rather, I think it will give him an opportunity to correct some of his earlier statements under oath to the Grand Jury to avoid charges of perjury. For example, "I meant to say", "I now recall", "I've referred to my records and find I", etc.
That's the only logical reason Rove would agree to voluntarily appear.
BBB
Ticomaya wrote:BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:That's the only logical reason Rove would agree to voluntarily appear.
The words "nothing to hide" come to mind.
Well, perhaps to certain sorts of minds where Santa and wishing-wells and 'my mommy and daddy never did it' also find a happy home.
I would enjoy seeing this administration crumble under its own deceits and lies.
If anything, though, I believe whatever Fitzgerald concludes will be the correct one - even if it disappoints some of us.
RawStory wrote:... there remains a chance that Rove will not be charged.
Ticomaya wrote:snood wrote:Ticomaya wrote:RawStory wrote:... there remains a chance that Rove will not be charged.
Just curious Tico - if there is evidence Rove broke the law, you do agree he should be charged, right?
Of course. Why would you wonder about that?
You mean you don't realize that you appear to be an apologist for Bush?
At any rate Rove seems to be facing indictment for real this time. Hadley too. And who knows who else.
au, one step closer to Bushie if Rove gets indicted.
ofcoarse we all want to know who the culprit is; and I'm hoping it's Rove. Go straight to jail, do not collect 2oo.
It does make you wonder why Karl Rove is still working at the WH since revelations to the press of classified information is "very serious."
FOCUS | Jason Leopold: Last Question is Obstruction for Fitzgerald, Rove
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/050706Z.shtml
Jason Leopold reports that hundreds of pages of emails and memos "discovered" by the White House in February and turned over to Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald show that Karl Rove played a much larger role in the Valerie Plame Wilson leak case than he had previously disclosed to a grand jury and FBI investigators.
More ancient history:
Quote:Tonight on Countdown with Keith Olbermann, MSNBC reporter David Shuster said he was "convinced that Karl Rove will, in fact, be indicted." He made three points to support his position:
1. Rove wouldn't have testified for the 5th time unless he believed it was the only way he could avoid indictment. At this point, according to Shuster, the burden is on Rove to stop it.
2. It's been 13 days since Rove testified and he has not heard that he is clear. Lawyers Shuster talked to say that if Rove would have gotten himself out of the jam, he would have heard by now.
3. Rove is referred to in the Libby indictment as "Official A." According to Schuster, every time Fitzgerald has named somebody as "Official A" that person has been indicted.
Shuster also says Rove's lawyers expect a decision from Fitzgerald within the next two weeks.
Transcript:
OLBERMANN: What are you gathering on this? Is the decision by Mr. Fitzgerald coming soon? Will it be an indictment?
SHUSTER: Well, Karl Rove's legal team has told me they expect a decision will come some time in the next two weeks. I am convinced that Karl Rove will, in fact, be indicted and there are a couple of reasons why. First of all, you don't put somebody in front of a grand jury at the end of an investigation or for the fifth time as Karl Rove testified a week and a half ago unless you feel that's your only chance of avoiding indictment. So, in other words, the burden starts with Karl Rove to stop the charges. Secondly, it's now been 13 days since Rove testified. After testifying for three and a half hours, prosecutors refused to give him any indication that he was clear. He has not gotten any indication since then and the lawyers that I have spoken with outside of this case say that if Rove had gotten himself out of the jam, he would have heard something by now. And then the third issue is one we have talked about before, and that is in the Scooter Libby indictment Karl Rove was identified as "Official A." It's the term that prosecutors use when they try to get around restrictions on naming somebody in an indictment. We have locked through the records of Patrick Fitzgerald from when he was prosecuting cases in New York and from when he has been U.S. attorney in Chicago. And in every single investigation, whenever Fitzgerald has identified as somebody as "Official A," that person eventually gets indicted themselves in every single investigation. Will Karl Rove defy history in this particular case? I suppose anything is possible when you are dealing with a White House official. But the lawyers that I have been speaking with who know this stuff say don't bet on Karl Rove getting out of this.
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 business hours to get his affairs in order, high level sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said Saturday morning.
...
From the same source:
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.
timberlandko wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:Awww, because it is fun to speculate. We could 'wait' for everything to happen, but then we'd be nothing but a news reporting site, and that's boring.
Cycloptichorn
Yup.
BTW thank you for the kind words concerning my surgery. But will you go on the record that you don't think there will be further indictments and that Rove wil not be (assuming he hasn't been) indicted.
