Did you find your directing sign on the straight and narrow highway Would you mind a reflecting sign Just let it shine within your mind and show you, the colors that are real
Oh, say now mister, can't you read You got to have a shirt and tie to get a seat You can't watch, no you can't eat, you ain't supposed to be here And the sign says "You got to have a membership card to get inside"
Keep drinking the Bush kool-aid. I guess no matter how much evidence piles up against them, there will be that faithful 32% that will just buy their story.
Lewis Libby defense lawyer Theodore Wells told a federal judge a short time ago that the Libby defense team has located “five witnesses who will say under oath that Mr. [Joseph] Wilson told them his wife worked for the CIA.” http://corner.nationalreview.com/
Assuming that's true and the witnesses are credible (big assumptions), what does it have to do with Libby committing perjury and obstruction of justice. If he had no reason to lie, why would he? If he had no reason to obstruct justice, why did he?
Out of curiosity, does this now mean you have given up on your "not covert" argument? After all, if she was not covert, these five people don't matter right? Since you think it's important enough to post, I assume you now think she was "covert."
working for the CIA does not equal "covert." btw, the above link also cites Fitzgerald as noting he does *NOT* intend to offer any evidence Flame was covert.
He may not offer evidence, though he has already listed her status as classified. Whether he gives the evidence to the public or not, he has listed that she was indeed classified when her identity was leaked.
The tea leaves seem to suggests that Karl Rove is going to get indicted and again these are just tealeaves, but first the judge talked about a resolution of Karl Rove coming soon and again remember, Karl Rove testified for the fifth time and he still has not been cleared. And secondly the body language of Patrick Fitzgerald was astounding. He went to such great lengths to try to avoid mentioning Karl Rove or talking about his status. That in of itself seemed to signal something unique.... ...all the other attorney's are talking about evidence and there was evidence mentioned today involving documents and memos of, from Karl Rove to another administration official about Valerie Wilson. If they're talking about documents and memos as opposed to the Stephen Hadley email that Karl Rove wrote, in other words, if there are other emails or documents that would suggest that perhaps prosecutors have an even stronger case to suggest that Karl Rove didn't have memory problems, he was willfully trying to avoid remembering certain things to the grand jury, but we'll see pretty soon I think. http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/05/05.html#a8181
tea leaves and body language? this is what you're posting about now? seriously mark, if you can't bring anything to the table yourself, why do you even bother wasting the bandwidth?
Why should you care? If Rove is indicted, you'll just say it's meaningless, because he hasn't been convicted. Keep D&D Civil.
Last Question Is Obstruction for Fitzgerald, Rove By Jason Leopold 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. In February, TruthOut was the first to report the existence of the 250 pages of emails from Vice President Dick Cheney's office and the Office of the President that were written in mid-2003. Some of the emails and memos were written by Rove, and are part of a growing body of evidence suggesting he lied to the grand jury and the FBI and may have obstructed justice during the course of the investigation. It was following their disclosure that Fitzgerald advised Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, several weeks ago that he intends to indict Rove for perjury and lying to investigators. The lingering question, sources close to the case said, is whether Fitzgerald will add obstruction of justice to the list of charges that he has already drafted against Rove. News reports over the past two years about Rove's legal troubles have centered on the fact that Rove allegedly failed to disclose to Fitzgerald and the grand jury a conversation he had with Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper in July 2003 about Plame Wilson and her husband, Iraq war critic Joseph Wilson, and an email Rove sent to then Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley about his conversation with Cooper. While that issue continues to be a central focus in the case against Rove, what has not been previously reported is the fact that there are dozens of other memos and emails Rove sent to White House officials in June 2003, including former Chief of Staff Andrew Card, in which Rove suggests the White House launch a full scale public relations effort to attack Joseph Wilson for speaking out against the administration. Rove did not disclose the communications when he was questioned by FBI investigators in 2003 and during his subsequent grand jury appearances, sources familiar with his testimony said. Some of those emails and memos recently discovered by the White House mention Valerie Plame Wilson's employment with the CIA. According to sources close to the case, the emails also contained suggestions by Rove, and by senior officials in Vice President Dick Cheney's office and at the National Security Council, on how the White House should respond to what it believed were increasingly destructive comments Wilson had been making about the administration's pre-war Iraq intelligence. http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/050706Z.shtml
Put the grownups in charge and they get sent to jail. Hmmmmmmmm. 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."
Well it looks like we can emphatically state that no, Rove is not the source of the Plame leak. From Isikoff ... Hand-written notes by the Vice President surface in the Fitzgerald Probe The role of Vice President Dick Cheney in the criminal case stemming from the outing of White House critic Joseph Wilson's CIA wife is likely to get fresh attention as a result of newly disclosed notes showing that Cheney personally asked whether Wilson had been sent by his wife on a "junket" to Africa. Cheney's notes, written on the margins of a July 6, 2003 New York Times op-ed column by former ambassador Joseph Wilson, were included as part of a filing Friday night by prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald in the perjury and obstruction case against ex-Cheney chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. The notes, Fitzgerald said in his filing, show that Cheney and Libby were "acutely focused" on the Wilson column and on rebutting his criticisms of the White House's handling of pre-Iraq war intelligence. ... In the margins of the op-ed, Cheney jotted out a series of questions that seemed to challenge many of Wilson's assertions as well as the legitimacy of his CIA sponsored trip to Africa: "Have they done this sort of thing before? Send an Amb. [sic] to answer a question? Do we ordinarily send people out pro bono to work for us? Or did his wife send him on a junket?" http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12774274/site/newsweek/
