Come on now. You do realize the "unprecedented" part refers to the position/standing rather than the number by itself. We're talking Karl Rove here basso, not some two-bit thug. OK, check that... you do have a point.
WOW That was fast! Within hours even... Rove spokesman denies receiving target letter Asked about a Truthout report which asserted that Karl Rove had received a so-called "target letter," a spokesman for Rove told Salon's Michael Scherer that the report is "utterly false." http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/04/26/rove3/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/26/cia.leak/index.html "In connection with this appearance, the Special Counsel has advised Mr. Rove that he is not a target of the investigation. Mr. Fitzgerald has affirmed that he has made no decision concerning charges. "At the request of the Special Counsel, Mr. Rove will not discuss the substance of his testimony," Luskin said.
That's a pretty funny statement from Luskin. "I can't discuss the case but he didn't get a letter." And lawyers never lie huh?
Interesting, no decision has been made ~ it seems though that a 5th manifestation this late in the game can't be good.
The real question is who's idea was it to appear today. If Fitz initiated the get together, then I would assume that he's still trying to make a case. If Rove volunteered to testify again, then Fitz has got him somehow. It would be interesting to know.
Sources Confirm Rove is a Target By Jason Leopold, On Monday, I had a conversation with several sources close to the CIA leak case who told me that Karl Rove would return to the grand jury Wednesday for the fifth time. Those sources told me that his appearance was the result of a target letter sent to his attorney Robert Luskin by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. The same sources said that Rove's status changed from being a "subject" of the probe to becoming a "target," meaning that Fitzgerald had enough evidence linking Rove to a crime and told that to Luskin. On Wednesday morning, when the news broke that Rove was going to testify for an unprecedented fifth time, I confirmed with sources close to the investigation that Rove did in fact receive a target letter. This was the case, they said. I then immediately called Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, for a comment about the target letter. Luskin didn't respond. But upon leaving court Wednesday, after Rove testified for four hours, Luskin issued a statement saying that Rove was not a target of the probe. My sources maintain that Rove is a target and that Luskin understood that. I called Luskin again to get his statement. But he did not return the call. Rove's spokesman at the White House also weighed in, specifically denying my report that Rove received a target letter. This is the same White House that has refused to discuss this case for more than two years but decided on Wednesday to break its silence and respond to my story and deny that it's true. That seems odd. http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2006/4/26/155410/765
I don't know if Rove will be indicted or not, and you know I'd love to see it happen, but you have to admit, basso, that it is unusual to be called back this often, over such a period of time, to appear before the grand jury. I'm not a legal expert, but I doubt that it's happened very often. And although he certainly would be needed for the Fall elections, under anything resembling normal circumstances, it's odd that he was "reassigned," right before this new appearance. You might say that "appearances," for what they are worth, don't look good for Rove. Keep D&D Civil.
depends on your point of view i suppose, but i find it fascinating you're so ready to indict and convict based on "appearances." if that's the case, let's line up McCarthy, Beers, Wilson, and Berger and march them to the scaffold.
i find it fascinating you're so ready to indict and convict based on "appearances." if that's the case, let's line up McCarthy, Beers, Wilson, and Berger and march them to the scaffold. Pot calling the kettle black, I see.
no worries haven't you figured it out yet? Bush leak = good leak anyone else leak = bad leak It's pretty simple
I'm a paradox of contradictions. btw basso, 5 appearances before a grand jury isn't " unprecedented."
One MSNBC commentator claimed that the fifth appearance also ties the record held by Betty Currie, former President Bill Clinton's personal secretary. ____________ Classic - Rovester is in the rarified air.
David Schuster, NBC News: "INTELLIGENCE SOURCES SAY VALERIE WILSON WAS PART OF AN OPERATION THREE YEARS AGO TRACKING THE PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS MATERIAL INTO IRAN. AND THE SOURCES ALLEGE THAT WHEN MRS. WILSON'S COVER WAS BLOWN, THE ADMINISTRATION'S ABILITY TO TRACK IRAN'S NUCLEAR AMBITIONS WAS DAMAGED AS WELL." http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/MSNBC_confirms_Raw_Story_report_Outed_0501.html
