|
Banned
|
IMO, you can stick a fork in Rove....he's "done".
Quote:
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200507121626.asp
July 12, 2005, 4:26 p.m.
Lawyer: Cooper “Burned” Karl Rove
Rove’s attorney talks to NRO.
Luskin also addressed the question of whether Rove is a "subject" of the investigation. Luskin says Fitzgerald has told Rove he is not a "target" of the investigation, but, according to Luskin, Fitzgerald has also made it clear that virtually anyone whose conduct falls within the scope of the investigation, including Rove, is considered a "subject" of the probe. "'Target' is something we all understand, a very alarming term," Luskin says. On the other hand, Fitzgerald "has indicated to us that he takes a very broad view of what a subject is."
|
Fox's report attempts to infer Rove is not a "subject" or "target" of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's grand jury investigation. I disagree. DOJ's SOP is that Rove was advised of his fifth amendment rights before he gave any testimony on each of his previous, three "visits".
Quote:
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia...m.htm#9-11.151
A "subject" of an investigation is a person whose conduct is within the scope of the grand jury's investigation.
The Supreme Court declined to decide whether a grand jury witness must be warned of his or her Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination before the witness's grand jury testimony can be used against the witness...........
9-11.153 Notification of Targets
When a target is not called to testify pursuant to USAM 9-11.150, and does not request to testify on his or her own motion (see USAM 9-11.152), the prosecutor, in appropriate cases, is encouraged to notify such person a reasonable time before seeking an indictment in order to afford him or her an opportunity to testify before the grand jury, subject to the conditions set forth in USAM 9-11.152. Notification would not be appropriate in routine clear cases or when such action might jeopardize the investigation or prosecution because of the likelihood of flight, destruction or fabrication of evidence, endangerment of other witnesses, undue delay or otherwise would be inconsistent with the ends of justice.
|
My "call" to "impeach" Bush, was a followup to "breaking news" from Fox. Here we have a major network that acts as an extension of the white house press office, instead of as an investigative news agency, when it comes to it's "coverage" of Bush's presidency. If Fox "reports" about Rove's fourth trip to testify before Fitzgerald's grand jury, it will be in the most favorable light that is possible under these disturbing set of circumstances. Forgive me for my cynicism when it comes to Fox, the abdication of a constitutional duty of congress to oversee and attempt to hold the executive branch in check, and the predictable reaction of Bush/Rove supporters to downplay the risk to Rove, when he is reported to be the reason that a special prosecutor was assigned to this investigation, in the first place.
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...100401426.html
.......Government scholars and watchdog groups say the decline of congressional oversight in recent years has thrown out of kilter the system of checks and balances the Founding Fathers created to keep no one branch of government from becoming too powerful.........
|
<b>Folks....my "impeach Bush !!!" remark is the mirror opposite, at this stage, of remarks subsequently posted that indicate belief in the false premise that Rove is simply "co-operating" with Fitzgerald's investigation, to "clear up" this matter.</b> I admit that my "impeach" remark is, at this stage, improbable.
IMO, Murray Waas has the best inside source to the Fitzgerald investigation, and he has been right and first......about every development that he has reported. Waas is one man.....and he puts Fox's "breaking news" (and to a lesser degree, the reporting of the rest of MSM), to shame.
Quote:
http://whateveralready.blogspot.com/...n-morning.html
Thursday, October 06, 2005
posted by murray waas at 12:52 PM
Rove before grand jury in the morning
White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove will testify tomorrow morning for a fourth time before the federal grand jury investigating the Valerie Plame matter, according to sources close to the investigation.
Rove will appear voluntarily, but during tomorrow's session, Rove will be pressed about issues as to why his accounts to the FBI and grand jury have changed, or evolved, over time. He will also be questioned regarding contacts with other senior administration officials, such as then-deputy National Security advisor Stephen J. Hadley and I. Lewis Libby, the chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney in the critical week before the publication of columnist Robert Novak's column on July 14, 2003, which outed Plame as a covert CIA operative.......
|
Quote:
http://villagevoice.com/news/0533,waasweb1,66861,2.html
What Now, Karl?
Rove and Ashcroft face new allegations in the Valerie Plame affair
by Murray Waas
August 13th, 2005 2:39 PM
Justice Department officials made the crucial decision in late 2003 to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the leak ......because investigators had begun to specifically question the veracity of accounts provided to them by .....Karl Rove, according to senior law enforcement officials.
.........Several of the federal investigators were also deeply concerned that then attorney general John Ashcroft was personally briefed regarding the details of at least one FBI interview with Rove, despite Ashcroft's own longstanding personal and political ties to Rove, the Voice has also learned. The same sources said Ashcroft was also told that investigators firmly believed that Rove had withheld important information from them during that FBI interview.
Those concerns by senior career law enforcement officials regarding the propriety of such briefings continuing, as Rove became more central to the investigation, also was instrumental in the naming of special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald. .............
|
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...301138_pf.html
Won't Defend? Then Attack!
By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Wednesday, July 13, 2005; 12:54 PM
........And Rove and the White House face adversity on three fronts:
· There's a possible criminal charge looming.
· There's a credibility issue based on all the denials that Rove was involved in any way with the Plame case.
· And there's the context in which this took place: Rove, after all, was attacking a report by Wilson that cast doubt on the administration's case against Saddam Hussein's quest for weapons of mass destruction. The White House was at the time desperately -- and effectively -- waving the media away from any doubts about Bush's rationale for war. But Wilson was ultimately proven right on the issue of WMD, and the White House was ultimately proven wrong.
The pro-Rove attacks don't really engage on any of those three fronts -- but rather attempt to open a fourth. Will the public's focus shift so easily? It's an uphill battle.
Meanwhile, the unofficial scuttlebutt from the White House is that the only way Bush will ever jettison his friend and chief adviser is if he is criminally indicted...........
............Luskin has previously said that special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald had told him that Rove was not a "target" of the criminal investigation. All that would mean, however, is that Fitzgerald was at that point not ready to actually declare his intention to indict Rove.
But Luskin has now told that National Review that <b>Fitzgerald identified Rove, among others, as a "subject."</b>
In grand-jury talk a subject -- unlike an ordinary witness -- is someone who faces possible indictment.
And <b>investigative reporter Murray Waas</b> blogs today that his sources tell him that columnist Robert Novak -- the first person to publish Plame's identity -- has in fact spoken at length to prosecutors.
That would explain why Novak isn't in jail.
But, Waas reports, the prosecutors don't necessarily believe what Novak told them, which is why they want to talk to other reporters about what Novak's sources told them...........
|
Last edited by host; 10-06-2005 at 11:46 PM..
|