MM indicted and convicted Cynthia McKinney without "seeing the evidence" but she is black, a woman and a Democrat. Of course, Republican white men are judged by a different standard. If Rove gets indicted and convicted and appeals, he will want to to wait to see if he wins his appeal.
I am hearing today might be the day.
snood wrote:MM- If he's found out to have done something illegal, would you want Rove indicted and convicted?
Yes,I would.
ANYBODY,including the President,that is found to have broken the law should be indicted and punished if convicted.
Quote:MM indicted and convicted Cynthia McKinney without "seeing the evidence" but she is black, a woman and a Democrat. Of course, Republican white men are judged by a different standard. If Rove gets indicted and convicted and appeals, he will want to to wait to see if he wins his appeal.
How did I indict and convict Cynthia McKinney?
I posted the news story about her,and said that IF she was convicted,she should get the maximum sentence.
Notice the IF.
You seem to be ignoring that part.
He will have every right to appeal a conviction,if he gets convicted of committing a crime.
Are you saying that he shouldnt have that right.
And if he did win a hypothetical appeal,that erases the conviction.
mysteryman wrote:Roxxxanne wrote:Latest I have been hearing is that Rove will likely be indicted within a week to 10 days.
Still waiting
Try some valium. It is not a sleep aid as such but my surgeon prescribed it the night before my surgery and I took one and fell right out.
Of course, even the totally clueless would understand that each day that goes by that Rove is not cleared makes it more likely that he will be indicted.
Fitzgerald didn't check with me to make sure his timetable coincides with mine.
Quote:Of course, even the totally clueless would understand that each day that goes by that Rove is not cleared makes it more likely that he will be indicted
OR,Every day that goes by without an indictment makes it more likely that Rove will be cleared.
Both scenarios are equally valid.
mysteryman wrote:Quote:Of course, even the totally clueless would understand that each day that goes by that Rove is not cleared makes it more likely that he will be indicted
OR,Every day that goes by without an indictment makes it more likely that Rove will be cleared.
Both scenarios are equally valid.
No they are not but it is useless explaining that to you.
Anyway, I decided to do some more research. Many Dem bloggers are questioning Leopold's credibility. I heard him a couple times on Air America and he sounded convincing to me.
If there is no announcement this week, I will start having doubts myself. Knowing Karl Rove's past, I wouldn't put it past him to leak a false story to Leopold in ordeer to destroy his credibilty.
Anyway, the clueless right is welcome to spam the thread with "still waiting" posts but the facts will come out soon enough. And the fact is that Rove made one last ditch effort to clear himself weeks ago. A fair-minded prosecutor like Fitzgerald will notify a possible target that he is cleared as soon as that determination is made. Obvioulsy, Fitzpatrick is leaning toward indictment because he certainly would have cleared Rove by now if that weren't the case.
Jason Leopold update on Rove Indictment Story
by Rob Kall
http://www.opednews.com
As editor of OpEdnews, I started wondering when Jason Leopold's news that Karl Rove was indicted, which we made our main headline, did not show up in the mainstream news. He's been superbly reliable and great and bringing news ahead of others. So I wrote to him:
I'm getting emails asking why the mainstream media aren't reporting on Rove's indictment. And now, one of my Trusted Authors has written this article
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_steven_l_060515_karl_rove_indictment.htm
Any word you can give me on what's up?
Rob Kall
Jason replied,
Rob
I have now been turned into the story?-again. Robert Luskin and Mark Corallo, Rove's attorney and spokesman, are liars. Damned liars. I have five sources on this. In the news business when you want to discredit a reporter and an explosive report you call the spokesman and get him to issue a denial. My reports have gone way beyond the spokesman and the lawyer to get to the truth. I am SHOCKED that the mainstream have followed this up by simply calling a spokesman.
Best
Jason Leopold
I responded to Jason, "Can I post this on our site? Or, do you want to write something on this?"
He replied,
You can add this:
I am amazed that the blogosphere would lend credence to the statements of people who have consistently lied about Rove's role in this case. This is a White House that denied Rove's involvement in the leak. This is a White House that has lied and lied and lied. And yet the first question that people ask is "why would Rove's spokesman lie?" Because they can, because they do, and because they have. This is an administration that has attacked and discredited their detractors. I am amazed that not a single reporter would actually do any real investigative work and get to the bottom of this story. Surely, their must be another intrepid reporter out there that has sources beyond a spokesman.
Jason Leopold
Reporter
TruthOut.org
We also have word that Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame's husband, also heard the same report of Rove's indictment.
Leopold has said that he will reveal his sources if it turns out they lied to him; there isn't much more you can ask a reporter to do than that.
Cycloptichorn
So either way, this is going to be really interesting.
I knew there was a thread about this somewhere. Thanks candidone1!
Statement from Christopher Wolf, attorney for outed CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson
RAW STORY
Published: Tuesday June 13, 2006
Statement of Christopher Wolf, Proskauer Rose LLP, Counsel for Ambassador Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame Wilson
"We have become aware of the communication between Mr. Fitzgerald and Mr. Luskin concerning Karl. Rove's status in the criminal investigation. We have no first-hand knowledge of the reason for the communication or what further developments in the criminal investigation it may signal. While it appears that Mr. Rove will not be called to answer in criminal court for his participation in the wrongful disclosure of Valerie Wilson's classified employment status at the CIA in retaliation against Joe Wilson for questioning the rationale for war in Iraq, that obviously does not end the matter. The day still may come when Mr. Rove and others are called to account in a court of law for their attacks on the Wilsons."
Leak Counsel Won't Charge Rove, Lawyer Announces
Leak Counsel Won't Charge Rove, Lawyer Announces
By DAVID JOHNSTON
Published: June 13, 2006
New York Times
The prosecutor in the C.I.A. leak case on Monday advised Karl Rove, the senior White House adviser, that he would not be charged with any wrongdoing, effectively ending the nearly three-year criminal investigation that had at times focused intensely on Mr. Rove.
The decision by the prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, announced in a letter to Mr. Rove's lawyer, Robert D. Luskin, lifted a pall that had hung over Mr. Rove who testified on five occasions to a federal grand jury about his involvement in the disclosure of an intelligence officer's identity.
In a statement, Mr. Luskin said, "On June 12, 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove."
Mr. Fitzgerald's spokesman, Randall Samborn, said he would not comment on Mr. Rove's status.
For months Mr. Fitzgerald's investigation appeared to threaten Mr. Rove's standing as Mr. Bush's closest political adviser as the prosecutor riveted his focus on whether Mr. Rove tried to intentionally conceal a conversation he had with a Time magazine reporter in the week before the name of intelligence officer, Valerie Plame Wilson, became public.
The decision not to pursue any charges removes a potential political stumbling block for a White House that is heading into a long and difficult election season for Republicans in Congress.
Mr. Fitzgerald's decision should help the White House in what has been an unsuccessful effort to put the leak case behind it. Still ahead, however, is the trial of Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby Jr., on charges for perjury and obstruction of justice, and the prospect that Mr. Cheney could be called to testify in that case.
In his statement Mr. Luskin said he would not address other legal questions surrounding Mr. Fitzgerald's decision. He added, "In deference to the pending case, we will not make any further public statements about the subject matter of the investigation. We believe that the Special Counsel's decision should put an end to the baseless speculation about Mr. Rove's conduct."
But it was evident that Mr. Fitzgerald's decision followed an exhaustive inquiry into Mr. Rove's activities that had brought the political strategist dangerously close to possible charges. In October, when Mr. Libby was indicted, people close to Mr. Rove had suggested that his involvement in the case would soon be over; speculation about Mr. Rove's legal situation flared again in April when he made his fifth appearance before the grand jury.
A series of meetings between Mr. Luskin and Mr. Fitzgerald and his team proved pivotal in dissuading the prosecutor from bringing charges. On one occasion Mr. Luskin himself became a witness in the case, giving sworn testimony that was beneficial to Mr. Rove.
As the case stands now, Mr. Fitzgerald has brought only one indictment against Mr. Libby. The prosecutor accused Mr. Libby of telling the grand jury that he learned of Ms. Wilson from reporters, when in reality, the prosecutor said he was told about her by Mr. Cheney and others in the government. Mr. Libby has pleaded not guilty in the case, which is scheduled to begin trial early next year.
Ms. Wilson is married to Joseph C. Wilson IV, the former ambassador who wrote in an Op-Ed column in the New York Times on July 6, 2003 that White House officials, including Mr. Bush, had exaggerated assertions that Iraq had sought to purchase nuclear fuel from Africa. Mr. Wilson wrote that such claims were "highly dubious."
He said his conclusions were based on a trip he had made in early 2002 to Niger, a fact-finding mission that he said had been "instigated" by Mr. Cheney's office.
It is now known that the column upset Mr. Cheney and that within his office it was viewed as an attack on the Vice President's credibility, according to legal briefs filed in the Libby case by Mr. Fitzgerald. In his filings, Mr. Fitzgerald depicts Mr. Cheney as actively engaged in an effort with Mr. Libby to rebut Mr. Wilson's assertions.
After the Wilson column was published, Mr. Cheney wrote notes on a copy asking whether Ms. Wilson played a role in sending her husband to Africa and whether the trip was a "junket." At the same time, Mr. Fitzgerald has said, the vice president dispatched Mr. Libby to challenge Mr. Wilson in conversations with reporters.
It was during that effort, Mr. Fitzgerald has alleged, that Mr. Libby disclosed Ms. Wilson's employment at the C.I.A. along with the possibility that it was she who sent him to Niger.
In Mr. Rove's case, Mr. Fitzgerald centered his inquiry on why Mr. Rove did not admit early in the investigation that he had a conversation with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper about Ms. Wilson and whether Mr. Rove was forthcoming about the later discovery of an internal e-mail message that confirmed his conversation with Mr. Cooper, to whom Mr. Rove had mentioned the existence of the C.I.A. officer.
Mr. Rove told the grand jury that he forgot the conversation with Mr. Cooper and volunteered it to Mr. Fitzgerald as soon as he recalled it, when his memory was jogged by the e-mail to Stephen J. Hadley, then deputy national security adviser, in which Mr. Rove referred to his discussion with Mr. Cooper.
At the center of the inquiry involving Mr. Rove are the circumstances surrounding a July 11, 2003, telephone conversation between Mr. Rove and Mr. Cooper, who turned the interview to questions about the trip to Africa by Mr. Wilson.
In his testimony to the grand jury in February 2004, Mr. Rove did not disclose the conversation with Mr. Cooper, saying later that he had forgotten it among the hundreds of calls he received on a daily basis. But there was a record of the call in the form of Mr. Rove's message to Mr. Hadley, the deputy national security adviser, which confirmed the conversation.
One lawyer with a client in the case said Mr. Fitzgerald was skeptical of Mr. Rove's account because the message was not discovered until the fall of 2004 ?- a year after Mr. Rove first talked to investigators. It was at about the same time that Mr. Fitzgerald had begun to compel reporters to cooperate with his inquiry, among them Mr. Cooper. The prosecutors legal thrust at reporters, in effect, put White House aides like Mr. Rove on notice that any conversations might become known.
Associates of Mr. Rove said the e-mail message was turned over immediately after it was found at the White House. They said Mr. Rove never intended to withhold details of a conversation with a reporter from Mr. Fitzgerald, noting that Mr. Rove had signed a legal waiver to allow reporters to reveal to prosecutors their discussions with confidential sources. In addition, they said, Mr. Rove testified about his conversation with Mr. Cooper ?- long before Mr. Cooper did ?- acknowledging that it was possible that the subject of Mr. Wilson's trip had come up.
It is now known that Mr. Fitzgerald and the grand jury have questioned Mr. Rove about two conversations with reporters. The first, which he admitted to investigators from the outset, took place on July 9, 2003, in a telephone call initiated by Robert D. Novak, the syndicated columnist. In a column about Mr. Wilson's trip four days after the call to Mr. Rove, Mr. Novak disclosed the identity of Ms. Wilson, who was said by Mr. Novak to have had a role in arranging her husband's trip. Mr. Novak identified her as Valerie Plame, Ms. Wilson's maiden name.
From Fox News story:
"The fact is this, I thought it was wrong when you had people like Howard Dean and (Sen.) Harry Reid presuming that he was guilty," Republican Party Chairman Ken Mehlman told FOX News.
"This is an enormous burden lifted off his shoulders. He always believed that he was totally innocent and that nothing would happen," former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich said of Rove.
Gingrich added that Rove's situation shows that something is wrong with the current legal system.
"There's something wrong when your entire life can be under this kind of threat for two full years, you spend lots and lots of money on lawyers, lots of time going to the grand jury and there's nothing there," Gingrich said."
Amen.
Fitzgerald first needed to determine if the original theorized crime of somebody knowingly leaking the identity of a covert CIA agent actually occurred before carrying on this long drawn out investigation in the first place. As far as I can tell, he has never even accomplished that yet after all this time. Fitzgerald is not making much of a name for himself here. I'm not very impressed.
Guess we can stop the countdown now, huh?
Quote:"There's something wrong when your entire life can be under this kind of threat for two full years, you spend lots and lots of money on lawyers, lots of time going to the grand jury and there's nothing there," Gingrich said."
Amen.
Hallelujah. did you feel the same way after the tens of millions that netted zero on trumped-up counts against the Clintons(travelgate, whitewater, etc., etc., etc.)?
