sumac wrote:Can you use the 5th in grand jury testimony?
Yes .... the 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination ("
no person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself") applies to any statement that might tend to incriminate a witness, even in the context of a grand jury proceeding. It is also worth noting that the privilege serves to protect both the innocent witness as well as the guilty. :wink:
Can you refuse to testify before a grand jury, citing executive privilege or some such reason?
sumac wrote:Can you refuse to testify before a grand jury, citing executive privilege or some such reason?
They certainly can.
Whether the courts would uphold the executive privilege is one concern.
Whether the administration could withstand the political fallout is another one.
Bernard,
Podhoretz's article is a shell game. It argues that Bush didn't lie then only shows how he didn't lie in a limited fashion.
It would be like arguing that someone didn't rob a liquor store by pointing to a liquor store that wasn't robbed then claiming that as proof that their client didn't commit any robbery.
Podhoretz fails to address all the specifics about Bush's lies. He addresses some outlandish claims that are relatively easy to shoot down then claims it proves there were no lies. I saw no reason to address the silliness of the article but you can't seem to see it. Now can you? Or are you going to go on and on in the same manner?
Podhoretz wrong premise is that disproving one lie disproves all lies. It is faulty logic.
I am so sorry, Mr. Parados. I guess I am not as brilliant as you are.
Would you please be so good as to show me specifically how "it shows that Bush didn't lie and then only shows how he didn't lie in a limited fashion". I have no idea of what you mean and therefore, your comment is meaningless unless you flesh it out. Somehow, I feel that you cannot flesh it out.
Podxhoretz fails to address all the specifics about Bush's lies, you say.
Which specifics does he not address?
The title of his article is "Who is lying about Iraq"
Now, I am probably not as brilliant as you are, Mr, Parados,but I do know what a lie is, Do you know what a lie is? Did you know that when Bill Clinton was deposed, he was not exposed to prosecution for perjury because the lawyers in the deposition did not ask him about specific sex acts?
You may think we are all as well informed as you are, bu t we are not. I don't understand what you are saying and I am asking that you address my questions above.
Thank you, sir!!!
CIA LEAK INVESTIGATION
What Ashcroft Was Told
By Murray Waas, National Journal
© National Journal Group Inc.
Thursday, June 8, 2006
Then-Attorney General John Ashcroft continued to oversee the Valerie Plame-CIA leak probe for more than two months in late 2003 after he learned in extensive briefings that FBI agents suspected White House aides Karl Rove and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby of trying to mislead the FBI to conceal their roles in the leak, according to government records and interviews. Despite these briefings, which took place between October and December 2003, and despite the fact that senior White House aides might become central to the leak case, Ashcroft did not recuse himself from the matter until December 30, when he allowed the appointment of a special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, to take over the investigation.
http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0608nj1.htm
blueflame1 wrote:CIA LEAK INVESTIGATION
What Ashcroft Was Told
By Murray Waas, National Journal
© National Journal Group Inc.
Thursday, June 8, 2006
Then-Attorney General John Ashcroft continued to oversee the Valerie Plame-CIA leak probe for more than two months in late 2003 after he learned in extensive briefings that FBI agents suspected White House aides Karl Rove and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby of trying to mislead the FBI to conceal their roles in the leak, according to government records and interviews. Despite these briefings, which took place between October and December 2003, and despite the fact that senior White House aides might become central to the leak case, Ashcroft did not recuse himself from the matter until December 30, when he allowed the appointment of a special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, to take over the investigation.
http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0608nj1.htm
But still NO INDICTMENTS!!!
Why not?
You were psoitive that there would have been mass indictments by now.
AS usual,you were wrong.
BernardR wrote:I am so sorry, Mr. Parados. I guess I am not as brilliant as you are.
Would you please be so good as to show me specifically how "it shows that Bush didn't lie and then only shows how he didn't lie in a limited fashion". I have no idea of what you mean and therefore, your comment is meaningless unless you flesh it out. Somehow, I feel that you cannot flesh it out.
Podxhoretz fails to address all the specifics about Bush's lies, you say.
Which specifics does he not address?
Doesn't address the issue of Bush's statements on missiles capable of hitting Israel for one..
Doesn't address the issue of the trailers and the claim that they were still claimed to be for bio weapons after it was found they weren't.
There's 2 to start with Bernie. Address those then we can move to the next ones.
Quote:
The title of his article is "Who is lying about Iraq"
Now, I am probably not as brilliant as you are, Mr, Parados,but I do know what a lie is, Do you know what a lie is? Did you know that when Bill Clinton was deposed, he was not exposed to prosecution for perjury because the lawyers in the deposition did not ask him about specific sex acts?
Clinton? Gee. what does Clinton's sex act have to do with Iraq? Or is the title NOT "Who is lying about Iraq"?
Quote:You may think we are all as well informed as you are, bu t we are not. I don't understand what you are saying and I am asking that you address my questions above.
Thank you, sir!!!
mysteryman, I'm in no hurry. Fitzgerald is no Sneddon. Right now I'm interested in What Ashcroft Was Told. And when. The bell is tolling in Bushie World.
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? 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!!!
And, Mr. Parados---I am very much afraid that you misread my comment about Clinton. I will put it in more simple form for you. Your claims that President Bush lied are ridculous until you PROVE that he lied. When Paula Jones' lawyers asked Clinton about his sexual activities with Monica Lewinsky, Clinton DID NOT perjure himself since the lawyers sloppily did not define Sex Acts fully.
To call any thing President Bush said as a lie would require, unless you are a political partisan just trying to sling mud,a deposition type hearing in which the President and or his advisors would be able to bring evidence to show that the President's statements were indeed truthful.
Do you know the context in which all of the alleged statements were made? Are you privy to classified material which could buttress the statements? Are you in possession of all the material bearing on any of the cases in which someone made a claim that a "lie" was uttered?
If you cannot say yes to all of those statements, your claims about lies are just political posturing.
You must remember, that President Clinton and his allies went on denying any Obstruction of Justice UNTIL PROOF was gathered--Real Proof-DNA proof.
You are also being willfully blind to the law. In criminal law, the law provides that the state of mind established by a mistake constitutes a defense.
You are not acknowologing what Podhoretz' clearly showed in his article-
1. All fifteen agencies of the USA arrived at a consensus that Saddam Hussein had WMD's or could gear up to make a nuclear weapon in months to a year.
2. President Clinton, as I have showed repeatedly, indicated that Saddam had WMD"s in 1998
3. Hans Blix himself nnoted the issue of "several thousands of chemical weapons unaccounted for"
4. Hillary Rodham Clinton, John Kerry and Al Gore in 2002 have been quoted to the effect that Saddam had WMD's IN 2002, in 2002, in 2002, in 2002.
And last, but certainly not least, the German, British and French Intelligence Services signed on to the satellite photographs presented at the UN on Feb. 5th 2003, AS PODHORETZ REPORTS.
Now, Mr. Parados, I have quotes on all of the above from respected and reliable important players FROM BOTH SIDES>
What do you have??????
BernardR wrote:Mr. Parados- You are an expert at throwing garbage at the wall to see if it will stick.
You would know all about garbage. As for the wall, I do think most things go over your head.
Quote:Trailers? What trailers?
Surely you don't live in a cave Bernie. Or do you? The famous trailers that Colin Powell presented to the UN in his speech.
Then of course we have Bush claiming they were WMD factories after he was told they weren't.
Administration Pushed Notion of Banned Iraqi Weapons Despite Evidence to Contrary
Quote:
Missles capable of hitting Israel?
Quote:Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles -- far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations
Quote:What speech was that in?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html
Quote:Do you then accept all of the other statements made in Podhoretz' article? If not, which ones are mistaken?
Moving the shells around again doesn't make it any less of a shell game Bernie.
I stated that Podhoretz didn't address every issue on Iraq so claiming there were no lies by just dealing with a few issues is disingenuous.
Quote: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.
Answered. If you are still unable to comprehend, ask again.
Quote:
PS.I blew your Duelfer nonsense out of the water with my reply on another thread!!!
No. you failed to address the points
There is a difference between blowing something out of the water and failing to address the specifics of the issues. For someone that gets on their high and mighty horse and demands links and answers to every question you fail to meet even the simplest part of those standards yourself. But then I understand you are unable to do so.
Waas Uncovers More Details in Valerie Plame CIA Leak Case
Waas Uncovers More Details in Valerie Plame CIA Leak Case
By E&P Staff
Published: June 08, 2006 4:10 PM ET
Murray Waas, who has broken so many Plame/CIA leak case stories in the past months, came up with another today in a lengthy report for the National Journal.
It opens: "Then-Attorney General John Ashcroft continued to oversee the Valerie Plame-CIA leak probe for more than two months in late 2003 after he learned in extensive briefings that FBI agents suspected White House aides Karl Rove and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby of trying to mislead the FBI to conceal their roles in the leak, according to government records and interviews. Despite these briefings, which took place between October and December 2003, and despite the fact that senior White House aides might become central to the leak case, Ashcroft did not recuse himself from the matter until December 30, when he allowed the appointment of a special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, to take over the investigation."
The full article can be read here.
http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0608nj1.htm
Mr. Parados, sir- Your post and links are pathetic.
First of all, your first link( from the Washington Post addresses ONLY the two reputed trailers. It does not address the evidence about how the trailers were referenced in the first instance. I will show how they were.
Secondly, your link does not address the quote by Hans Blix which I have given several times. You are obviously unable to rebut it. I will replicate it again for you.
Third, your second link ( whitehouse) which you say speak of missiles hitting Israel DOES NOT WORK-- very sloppy, Mr. Parados.
I read your link and will show you
l. How and when the trailers were referenced
2. How Hans Blix gave evidence that has not been controverted
NOW YOU READ MY LINK AND REBUT IT.
It is as close to certainty as we can get that Bush believed in the truth of what he was saying about WMD in Iraq.
How indeed could it have been otherwise? George Tenet, his own CIA director, assured him that the case was "a slam dunk." This phrase would later become notorious, but in using it, Tenet had the backing of all fifteen agencies involved in gathering intelligence for the United States. In the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of 2002, where their collective views were summarized, one of the conclusions offered with "high confidence" was that
Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding its chemical, biological, nuclear, and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions.
The intelligence agencies of Britain, Germany, Russia, China, Israel, and?-yes?-France all agreed with this judgment. And even Hans Blix?-who headed the UN team of inspectors trying to determine whether Saddam had complied with the demands of the Security Council that he get rid of the weapons of mass destruction he was known to have had in the past?-lent further credibility to the case in a report he issued only a few months before the invasion:
NOTE
The discovery of a number of 122-mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker, and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions. . . . They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for.
END OF BLIX QUOTE
So, once again, did the British, the French, and the Germans, all of whom signed on in advance to Secretary of State Colin Powell's reading of the satellite photos he presented to the UN in the period leading up to the invasion. Powell himself and his chief of staff, Lawrence Wilkerson, now feel that this speech was the low point of his tenure as Secretary of State. But Wilkerson (in the process of a vicious attack on the President, the Vice President, and the Secretary of Defense for getting us into Iraq) is forced to acknowledge that the Bush administration did not lack for company in interpreting the available evidence as it did:
quote Wilkerson-NOTE-
I can't tell you why the French, the Germans, the Brits, and us thought that most of the material, if not all of it, that we presented at the UN on 5 February 2003 was the truth. I can't. I've wrestled with it. [But] when you see a satellite photograph of all the signs of the chemical-weapons ASP?-Ammunition Supply Point?-with chemical weapons, and you match all those signs with your matrix on what should show a chemical ASP, and they're there, you have to conclude that it's a chemical ASP, especially when you see the next satellite photograph which shows the UN inspectors wheeling in their white vehicles with black markings on them to that same ASP, and everything is changed, everything is clean. . . . But George [Tenet] was convinced, John McLaughlin [Tenet's deputy] was convinced, that what we were presented [for Powell's UN speech] was accurate.
(Going on to shoot down a widespread impression, Wilkerson informs us that even the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) was convinced:)
People say, well, INR dissented. That's a bunch of bull. INR dissented that the nuclear program was up and running. That's all INR dissented on. They were right there with the chems and the bios.
End of Wilkerson quote
In explaining its dissent on Iraq's nuclear program, the INR had, as stated in the NIE of 2002, expressed doubt about
Iraq's efforts to acquire aluminum tubes [which are] central to the argument that Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear-weapons program. . . . INR is not persuaded that the tubes in question are intended for use as centrifuge rotors . . . in Iraq's nuclear-weapons program.
But, according to Wilkerson,
The French came in in the middle of my deliberations at the CIA and said, we have just spun aluminum tubes, and by God, we did it to this RPM, et cetera, et cetera, and it was all, you know, proof positive that the aluminum tubes were not for mortar casings or artillery casings, they were for centrifuges. Otherwise, why would you have such exquisite instruments?
In short, and whether or not it included the secret heart of Hans Blix, "the consensus of the intelligence community," as Wilkerson puts it, "was overwhelming" in the period leading up to the invasion of Iraq that Saddam definitely had an arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, and that he was also in all probability well on the way to rebuilding the nuclear capability that the Israelis had damaged by bombing the Osirak reactor in 1981.
Additional confirmation of this latter point comes from Kenneth Pollack, who served in the National Security Council under Clinton. "In the late spring of 2002," Pollack has written,
I participated in a Washington meeting about Iraqi WMD. Those present included nearly twenty former inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), the force established in 1991 to oversee the elimination of WMD in Iraq. One of the senior people put a question to the group: did anyone in the room doubt that Iraq was currently operating a secret centrifuge plant? No one did. Three people added that they believed Iraq was also operating a secret calutron plant (a facility for separating uranium isotopes).
No wonder, then, that another conclusion the NIE of 2002 reached with "high confidence" was that
Iraq could make a nuclear weapon in months to a year once it acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material.1
Well, people - as I long feared, Rove is untouchable....
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13018897/
BernardR wrote:Mr. Parados, sir- Your post and links are pathetic.
First of all, your first link( from the Washington Post addresses ONLY the two reputed trailers. It does not address the evidence about how the trailers were referenced in the first instance. I will show how they were.
Secondly, your link does not address the quote by Hans Blix which I have given several times. You are obviously unable to rebut it. I will replicate it again for you.
Third, your second link ( whitehouse) which you say speak of missiles hitting Israel DOES NOT WORK-- very sloppy, Mr. Parados.
Unable to copy and paste Bernie?
Quote:
I read your link and will show you
So the link did work? or didn't it? How did you read it if it didn't work?
Quote:
l. How and when the trailers were referenced
You will show me what? that you never mention these trailors again?
Quote:
2. How Hans Blix gave evidence that has not been controverted
NOW YOU READ MY LINK AND REBUT IT.
Which link is that Bernie? I don't see a link anywhere in this post.
Quote:
It is as close to certainty as we can get that Bush believed in the truth of what he was saying about WMD in Iraq.
How indeed could it have been otherwise? George Tenet, his own CIA director, assured him that the case was "a slam dunk." This phrase would later become notorious, but in using it, Tenet had the backing of all fifteen agencies involved in gathering intelligence for the United States. In the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of 2002, where their collective views were summarized, one of the conclusions offered with "high confidence" was that
Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding its chemical, biological, nuclear, and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions.
The intelligence agencies of Britain, Germany, Russia, China, Israel, and?-yes?-France all agreed with this judgment. And even Hans Blix?-who headed the UN team of inspectors trying to determine whether Saddam had complied with the demands of the Security Council that he get rid of the weapons of mass destruction he was known to have had in the past?-lent further credibility to the case in a report he issued only a few months before the invasion:
NOTE
The discovery of a number of 122-mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker, and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions. . . . They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for.
END OF BLIX QUOTE
So, once again, did the British, the French, and the Germans, all of whom signed on in advance to Secretary of State Colin Powell's reading of the satellite photos he presented to the UN in the period leading up to the invasion. Powell himself and his chief of staff, Lawrence Wilkerson, now feel that this speech was the low point of his tenure as Secretary of State. But Wilkerson (in the process of a vicious attack on the President, the Vice President, and the Secretary of Defense for getting us into Iraq) is forced to acknowledge that the Bush administration did not lack for company in interpreting the available evidence as it did:
quote Wilkerson-NOTE-
I can't tell you why the French, the Germans, the Brits, and us thought that most of the material, if not all of it, that we presented at the UN on 5 February 2003 was the truth. I can't. I've wrestled with it. [But] when you see a satellite photograph of all the signs of the chemical-weapons ASP?-Ammunition Supply Point?-with chemical weapons, and you match all those signs with your matrix on what should show a chemical ASP, and they're there, you have to conclude that it's a chemical ASP, especially when you see the next satellite photograph which shows the UN inspectors wheeling in their white vehicles with black markings on them to that same ASP, and everything is changed, everything is clean. . . . But George [Tenet] was convinced, John McLaughlin [Tenet's deputy] was convinced, that what we were presented [for Powell's UN speech] was accurate.
(Going on to shoot down a widespread impression, Wilkerson informs us that even the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) was convinced:)
People say, well, INR dissented. That's a bunch of bull. INR dissented that the nuclear program was up and running. That's all INR dissented on. They were right there with the chems and the bios.
End of Wilkerson quote
In explaining its dissent on Iraq's nuclear program, the INR had, as stated in the NIE of 2002, expressed doubt about
Iraq's efforts to acquire aluminum tubes [which are] central to the argument that Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear-weapons program. . . . INR is not persuaded that the tubes in question are intended for use as centrifuge rotors . . . in Iraq's nuclear-weapons program.
But, according to Wilkerson,
The French came in in the middle of my deliberations at the CIA and said, we have just spun aluminum tubes, and by God, we did it to this RPM, et cetera, et cetera, and it was all, you know, proof positive that the aluminum tubes were not for mortar casings or artillery casings, they were for centrifuges. Otherwise, why would you have such exquisite instruments?
In short, and whether or not it included the secret heart of Hans Blix, "the consensus of the intelligence community," as Wilkerson puts it, "was overwhelming" in the period leading up to the invasion of Iraq that Saddam definitely had an arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, and that he was also in all probability well on the way to rebuilding the nuclear capability that the Israelis had damaged by bombing the Osirak reactor in 1981.
Additional confirmation of this latter point comes from Kenneth Pollack, who served in the National Security Council under Clinton. "In the late spring of 2002," Pollack has written,
I participated in a Washington meeting about Iraqi WMD. Those present included nearly twenty former inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), the force established in 1991 to oversee the elimination of WMD in Iraq. One of the senior people put a question to the group: did anyone in the room doubt that Iraq was currently operating a secret centrifuge plant? No one did. Three people added that they believed Iraq was also operating a secret calutron plant (a facility for separating uranium isotopes).
No wonder, then, that another conclusion the NIE of 2002 reached with "high confidence" was that
Iraq could make a nuclear weapon in months to a year once it acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material.1
<Elvis>Well, its a blue, blue Fitzmas ... </Elvis>
In light of this news, I cherry picked some quotes from this thread...
Please read them and reflect on why we wait on the legal system to churn before crucifying people.
squinney wrote: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.
blatham wrote: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."
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote: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
blatham wrote: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.
cicerone imposter wrote:I would enjoy seeing this administration crumble under its own deceits and lies.
cicerone imposter wrote:If anything, though, I believe whatever Fitzgerald concludes will be the correct one - even if it disappoints some of us.
Ticomaya wrote:RawStory wrote:... there remains a chance that Rove will not be charged.
snood wrote: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?
blueflame1 wrote:At any rate Rove seems to be facing indictment for real this time. Hadley too. And who knows who else.
blueflame1 wrote:au, one step closer to Bushie if Rove gets indicted.
cicerone imposter wrote: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.
parados wrote: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."
blueflame1 wrote: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.
Roxxxanne wrote: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.
cicerone imposter wrote: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.
...
cicerone imposter wrote: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.
Roxxxanne wrote: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.
Considering what Truthout posted just
yesterday, anyone think they might want to think about changing their name?
What remains to be seen is who did Rove sell out to save his own skin.
