Countdown to Rove Indictments...

What do you mean if I was [sic] honest? I am honest and I resent the implication. Of course, I cannot predict the future. Ever since the Colts lost to the Jets in 1969 when I was a little kid, I realized there is no sure thing. But based on what I do know, I am fairly certain that Rove will be indicted. It's is a prediction, not mine but the prediction of those closest to the story. This is all pretty simple and straightforward to me. Why does it appear that simple criticial thinking so difficult for you?

"Those closest to the story" also said OJ would be convicted,and that Robert Blake would be convicted,and that Michael Jackson would be convicted.

"Those closest to the story" dont always get things right.

Well that just proves my point because the people I listened to and trusted regarding Jacko and Blake both thought they would get off. I guess you need to find more reliable sources.

Here's a novel idea, why don't you just wait to see what happens before you have a coniption?

Time to stop listening to right wing talk radio, mystery, it's warping your view of what "those closest to the story" think. They didn't think that at all.

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."

When that same story is reported by a REPUTABLE news source,then I will believe it.
Till then,I dont.

I'm sure that's okay with everyone here; not much hinges on your belief, now does it?

You'll get your wish in a few days. Leopold has been pretty accurate over the last year on these matters, even if you don't consider him a legitimate news source.

Cycloptichorn

mysteryman, keep hope alive baby.

I dont consider blue a legitimate source for anything.
He has been proven to be a liar,he has been proven to be someone that will make up or create news stories,just to try and discredit people.
I would not trust blue if he told me what day it is.

If true, great, superb, long overdue. What goes around comes around.

mysteryman, it's a great honor being called names by you. I suspect the names will become harsher the further Bushie falls. It's tough being a piece of Bushie's 29% aint it? It's gonna go lower than that. And Jason Leopold is an impeccable source.

I dont question Jason Leopold.
Its you I doubt.

mysteryman, well you do seem to question Jason Leopold. But deep inside I think you know Rove's a goner.

BBB
Rove won't be gone from the Bush Administration if he is endicted and resigns. He will just set up shop outside of the White House and the Republican National Committee will pay him as a consultant.

BBB

Then you apparently cant read.

I stated that when a REPUTABLE news service posts this story,I will believe it.
But,since nobody else has reported it,and since you have a PROVEN history of distortions,falsehoods,and outright lies,I wont believe anything you post.

And if you doubt it,I will be happy to post links to some of your distortions and falsehoods.

I doubt CNN , Jason Leopold or *shudder* FOX news is going to bother registering here to post it for you to believe what blueflame1 posted MM...although maybe Morley Safer will (it's iffy right now, he's quite busy)

Your right,I should have said...When a reputable news service REPORTS this story.
My mistake...sorry.

mysteryman, my history is one of exposing Bushie's decadence, betrayal and incompetence. Once I was in the 10% opposed to Bushie's war based agenda. Now I'm in the vast majority. You are stuck in an ever shrinking minority who still stand by the Tyrant in Chief. I feel your pain having felt the frustration myself when America was blind, confused and manipulated by Bushie's lies. Now that there is a great American awakening to the extent of the Bushie betrayal you're stuck with defending lies that have been fully exposed.

I am defending nothing.
I am simply pointing out that you have a history of lying,distorting,and falsifying information,just to try and make someone else look bad.

So,I will say it again,when a REPUTABLE news source reports the story you posted,then I will believe it.

eryman, haha. Like the rest of the anti-war movement I told you so. You've been defending Bushie's lies for years by labeling truthtellers as liars. Unfortunately for you the American public has caught on to the lies.