Breaking News:"Bush's Brain" scrambling to avoid Indictment for Treasonous Act - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

host · 10-06-2005, 11:47 AM

Fox news reports that Rove will testify before Fitzgerald's "Plame Leak" grand jury, "one more time".

There is no guarantee from Fitzgerald that Rove will not be indicted, regardless of his new testimony. Should Rove not be fired for disobeying Bush's announced policy of "full cooperation" with the CIA leak investigation?

How can an executive branch that leaks classified information and then covers it up at the highest levels, avoid congressional investigation? I cannot accept a shadow president (Rove) who commits a treasonous act, or a president who would follow closley and consistantly the direction of such a man.

Impeach Bush !!!!!

Quote:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,171482,00.html
Rove to Testify Again on CIA Leak
Thursday, October 06, 2005

WASHINGTON — Karl Rove, the White House deputy chief of staff and longtime adviser to President Bush, has agreed to testify again on the leak of a CIA officer's name without protection against indictment.

Sources close to the investigation said Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald (search) has not yet decided whether criminal charges will be brought against anyone in the case, which centers on whether CIA officer Valerie Plame (search) was illegally outed to the press.

The U.S. attorney's manual requires prosecutors not to bring witnesses before a grand jury if there is a possibility of future criminal charges unless they are notified in advance that their grand jury testimony can be used against them in a later indictment.

Rove has already made at least three grand jury appearances and his return at this late stage in the investigation is unusual.

The prosecutor did not give Rove similar warnings before his earlier grand jury appearances.

Rove offered in July to return to the grand jury for additional testimony and Fitzgerald accepted that offer Friday after taking grand jury testimony from the formerly jailed New York Times reporter Judith Miller.

politicophile · 10-06-2005, 12:39 PM

Rove is voluntarily coming before a grand jury without having protection from prosecution... and this is a bad thing? Please explain.

Mojo_PeiPei · 10-06-2005, 12:47 PM

Indict him and convict him. I smell pardon!

djtestudo · 10-06-2005, 12:54 PM

Guilty until proven innocent I guess?

I'm very interested in how you can get "'Bush's Brain' scrambling to avoid Indictment for Treasonous Act" from an article simply stating Rove is appearing before the grand jury without any protection from procecution.

Hell, the only way that title could be considered in any way accurate was if he REFUSED to appear without protection.

powerclown · 10-06-2005, 01:12 PM

I'm having visions of....massive, writhing hordes of Lefties pleasuring themselves in dark corners right about now.

martinguerre · 10-06-2005, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

I'm having visions of....massive, writhing hordes of Lefties pleasuring themselves in dark corners right about now.

Hey, i don't know about anyone else, but i usually leave the lights on for politically fueled masturbation. Makes reading the newspaper easier.

Elphaba · 10-06-2005, 02:10 PM

Thanks for my first laugh in a very dismal day, Martin.

aswo · 10-06-2005, 02:26 PM

i will second that funny stuff

powerclown · 10-06-2005, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martinguerre

Hey, i don't know about anyone else, but i usually leave the lights on for politically fueled masturbation. Makes reading the newspaper easier.

How the heck do you read the newspaper with one hand??

docbungle · 10-06-2005, 04:00 PM

I fail to see how this can be viewed as anything other than Rove saying, "No problem. I'll testify again; I have nothing to hide."

How does this article, in and of itself, show Rove scambling to avoid indictment or, for that matter, to be guilty of a treasonous act?

Time will tell if he is guilty or not, but this just appears to be the result of an ongoing investigation.

The thread title seems, to me at least, to just barely contain a sense of manic glee. And to be somewhat overstated.

pan6467 · 10-06-2005, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martinguerre

Hey, i don't know about anyone else, but i usually leave the lights on for politically fueled masturbation. Makes reading the newspaper easier.

Personally, I watch tapes of those hotties Ann Coulter and Greta Van and dream I'm the liberal filling in a Conservative Oreo.

Can hardly wait to hear Ann go off on us Dems....... oooooo baby spank me I've been a bad Dem. I am waiting to see Rove get fried.

alansmithee · 10-06-2005, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

How the heck do you read the newspaper with one hand??

Easy, you get it delivered online

djtestudo · 10-06-2005, 06:56 PM

At least this thread has gone in a good productive direction

ratbastid · 10-06-2005, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djtestudo

At least this thread has gone in a good productive direction

Turd Blossom.

Marvelous Marv · 10-06-2005, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

There is no guarantee from Fitzgerald that Rove will not be indicted, regardless of his new testimony. Should Rove not be fired for disobeying Bush's announced policy of "full cooperation" with the CIA leak investigation?

Sounds to me like he's cooperating fully.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Impeach Bush !!!!!

It's times like these that I miss the reasoned, thoughtful musings of Louis Farrakhan.

Ustwo · 10-06-2005, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Personally, I watch tapes of those hotties Ann Coulter and Greta Van and dream I'm the liberal filling in a Conservative Oreo.

Can hardly wait to hear Ann go off on us Dems....... oooooo baby spank me I've been a bad Dem. I am waiting to see Rove get fried.

I don't think so....

Quote:

..The "Primetime Live" sex poll answers many provocative questions that we have all wondered about, but have never dared to ask, including: how many Americans describe themselves as sexually "traditional" or "adventurous"; how often are Americans having sex; what are the sex habits of cheaters; and who is cheating with their co-worker and who is cheating in the workplace.

The poll analysis includes a breakdown by many subgroups, including region, age and even political party affiliation, which is the topic of results released today:

Of those involved in a committed relationship, who is very satisfied with their relationship Republicans 87 percent; Democrats 76 percent

Who is very satisfied with their sex life? Republicans 56 percent; Democrats 47 percent

The poll analysis also reveals who has worn something sexy to enhance their sex life: Republicans 72 percent; Democrats 62 percent

When asked whether they had ever faked an orgasm, more Democrats (33 percent) than Republicans (26 percent) said they had.

If they go bi, I'll be their M in that FMF thank you very much. I'm sure they would not want you faking those orgasms.

alansmithee · 10-06-2005, 08:56 PM

I have to admit that Ann Coulter is quite attractive. But Greta Van Susteren? Ugg. That woman's show pretty much single-handedly made me quit using Fox News as my default tv station.

Superbelt · 10-06-2005, 09:13 PM

From what I've read, he's going in voluntarially because they asked for him.
They asked for him to return because his story changes a little every day and apparently isn't jiving with what Judy Miller is saying.

So, looks like they are giving him one last chance to get his story straight before they go ahead and frogmarch his crooked ass.

host · 10-06-2005, 10:39 PM

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.........

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. 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 Fitzgerald identified Rove, among others, as a "subject."

In grand-jury talk a subject -- unlike an ordinary witness -- is someone who faces possible indictment.

And investigative reporter Murray Waas 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...........

Hardknock · 10-06-2005, 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

Sounds to me like he's cooperating fully.

Sound to me like he's trying to make himself look good in case he really does get in indicted.

pan6467 · 10-07-2005, 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I don't think so....

If they go bi, I'll be their M in that FMF thank you very much. I'm sure they would not want you faking those orgasms.

Have to consistently attack me personally, don't you, UsTwo? Little underhanded and a tad hint of questioning my manhood......

politicophile · 10-07-2005, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

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.

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. I admit that my "impeach" remark is, at this stage, improbable.

Host, I am very confused about your remarks above. It sounds like you think Fox News is conservatively biased and therefore pro-Rove. This is undoubtedly true, so I'm still with you. Then, you...er, call to impeach Bush because you wanted to make the "mirror opposite" statement to... ?something positive about Rove said by Fox News? Or were you trying to "clear up" the subsequent posts in which people believed that Rove was co-operating?

Is it just me or does that not make logical sense? I know you'll probably respond with a dozen quotes from Fox News and then say, "Yeah, well Fox News doesn't make any sense either.", but I wanted to give it a shot. I am very interested in seeing where you are going with this thread.

Lebell · 10-07-2005, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Have to consistently attack me personally, don't you, UsTwo? Little underhanded and a tad hint of questioning my manhood......

?

I don't understand.

I thought you guys were joking and now you're taking all this seriously?

BigBen · 10-07-2005, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Have to consistently attack me personally, don't you, UsTwo? Little underhanded and a tad hint of questioning my manhood......

And this, Ladies and Gentlemen, is why I stay far away from Tilted Politics...

Pan, Are you being serious, or are you being funny and sarcastic? The medium of this forum does not allow us to differentiate.

If you are being serious, then I am confused.

If you are joking, then I think your reply was funny and dry, although the delivery was a bit off.

Who is this Rove guy, anyway?

In my previous thread "How long are you willing to read?" I stated that I tend to scroll past posts that are long and quotatious (did I just invent that word? def: full of quotes, with at least a 10:1 ratio of quoted and original material) posts.

Here's one:

Pan and Ustwo walk into a bar...
The bartender shouts out "Okay, I'll serve you, just don't start anything!"

wait. I think it was supposed to be "Pan walks in with a set of Jumper cables..."

shit. Now my sense of humour is all fucked up. I knew I shouldn't have read anything in Tilted Politics today.

Charlatan · 10-07-2005, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Have to consistently attack me personally, don't you, UsTwo? Little underhanded and a tad hint of questioning my manhood......

Relax Pan... he was attacking the manhood of all Democrats... not just you.

Given the state of this thread, I wouldn't get too worked up.

Ustwo · 10-07-2005, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Have to consistently attack me personally, don't you, UsTwo? Little underhanded and a tad hint of questioning my manhood......

Rush Limbaugh has claimed for years that liberals lack of sense of humor.

Please don't make the man right in this case

I would have made the same joke if ANY board democrat posted the same thing you did. It was a joke, relax.

FoolThemAll · 10-07-2005, 03:19 PM

For what it's worth, I immediately assumed that pan was joking. Could be wrong, though.

Marvelous Marv · 10-07-2005, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hardknock

Sound to me like he's trying to make himself look good in case he really does get in indicted.

Maybe. The two aren't mutually exclusive. He's running quite a risk, since they're going to ask him the same questions, worded differently, a fourth time, and pounce upon the slightest variation in his answers.

"You say he called you at approximately 8:10 am? Last time, you said 8:15! Which is it? Are you lying now, or were you lying then?"

Personally, I wouldn't testify again if I were he. I don't think he has anything to gain, and a great deal to lose.

Marvelous Marv · 10-07-2005, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Have to consistently attack me personally, don't you, UsTwo? Little underhanded and a tad hint of questioning my manhood......

The only thing I would question is when you're going to quote Jimmy Buffet's lyrics correctly.

host · 10-07-2005, 09:24 PM

More from Murray Waas, published Oct. 7, 2005 in

Quote:

http://nationaljournal.com/about/njw...05/1007nj3.htm
WHITE HOUSE
Rove Assured Bush He Was Not Leaker

By Murray Waas, Washington-based journalist, for National Journal
© National Journal Group Inc.
Friday, Oct. 7, 2005

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove personally assured President Bush in the early fall of 2003 that he had not disclosed to anyone in the press that Valerie Plame, the wife of an administration critic, was a CIA employee, according to legal sources with firsthand knowledge of the accounts that both Rove and Bush independently provided to federal prosecutors.

During the same conversation in the White House two years ago-occurring just days after the Justice Department launched a criminal probe into the unmasking of Plame as a covert agency operative-Rove also assured the president that he had not leaked any information to the media in an effort to discredit Plame's husband, former ambassador Joe Wilson. Rove also did not tell the president about his July 2003 a phone call with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper, a conversation that touched on the issue of Wilson and Plame..................

............In his first interview with FBI agents working on the leak probe, Rove similarly did not disclose that he had spoken to Cooper, according to sources close to the investigation,

But in subsequent interviews with federal investigators and in his testimony to the grand jury, Rove changed his account, asserting that when the FBI first questioned him, he had simply forgotten about his phone conversation with Cooper. Rove also told prosecutors that he had forgotten about the Cooper conversation when he talked to the president about the matter in the fall of 2003.

In his own interview with prosecutors on June 24, 2004, Bush testified that Rove assured him he had not disclosed Plame as a CIA employee and had said nothing to the press to discredit Wilson, according to sources familiar with the president's interview. Bush said that Rove never mentioned the conversation with Cooper. James E. Sharp, Bush's private attorney, who was present at the president's interview with prosecutors, declined to comment for this story.

Sources close to the leak investigation being run by Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald say it was the discovery of one of Rove's White House e-mails-in which the senior Bush adviser referred to his July 2003 conversation with Cooper-that prompted Rove to contact prosecutors and to revise his account to include the Cooper conversation.......

The "state" of this thread, is what you make it..........those who posted to distract from the subject, the emerging possibility of a constitutional crisis, even managed to distract a moderator.

Murray Waas seems to have the best and most knowledgeable "inside" sources to this historic chain of events.

I lean towards an opinion that Rove is a criminal, possibly even a traitor. Rove seems to be running a criminal conspiracy, widely known as the "Bush presidency". If the above report is true, Bush is reduced to keeping Rove in his present position on Rove's terms, not Bush's. We are watching Bush make one more compromise, in a long, long, line of compromises, of his own integrity and reputation, in exchange for the "results" that Rove has delivered, until recently. Bush made the decision to sell his soul for the fruit of Rove's tactics, more than a decade ago. The problem for the rest of us Americans, is that it affects the lives and the futures of all of us, event those of us who identified Bush and Rove as the unprincipled outlaws that they were in 2000, and continue to be, today.

Bush is this nation's chief law enforcement officer. When it became apparent that Rove lied to him about his role in leaking Plame's identity to membes of the press, Bush seemed to have a sworn duty to revoke his security clearance and restrict his access to the white house, and to place him on suspension from his government paid position, and to avoid further contact with him. We know that none of these steps were undertaken by Bush.
IMO, after Matt Cooper wrote his article about his own testimony in July before Fitzgerald's grand jury, Bush's lack of action against Rove makes him a suspected co-conspirator and an abettor of Rove by continuing to employ him and by seeking and acting on his counsel.

The veneer is off now, and this administration must be exposed, prosecuted, and brought down.

BigBen · 10-08-2005, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

...I lean towards an opinion that Rove is a criminal, possibly even a traitor. Rove seems to be running a criminal conspiracy, widely known as the "Bush presidency".

... Bush made the decision to sell his soul for the fruit of Rove's tactics, more than a decade ago. The problem for the rest of us Americans, is that it affects the lives and the futures of all of us, event those of us who identified Bush and Rove as the unprincipled outlaws that they were in 2000, and continue to be, today.

...The veneer is off now, and this administration must be exposed, prosecuted, and brought down.

Dude, I am a CANADIAN LIBERAL and I find those comments insulting. If you are trying to engage someone in debate, this is not the way to do it.

Is this the point in the thread where some right-wing nut job is supposed to jump in and call Bill Clinton worse than Hitler?
No, this is the point in the thread where every(sane)body rolls their eyes, shrugs their shoulders, and walks away from the thread.

I just have an obsessive compulsive disorder where I try and make people see, and acknowledge, different points of view.

Don't worry... You crazy yanks instituted a law where a president, even the best president in the world for all eternity, is limited to two terms. Isn't George Bush on his second term? No matter what, he'll be gone soon.

pan6467 · 10-08-2005, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

The only thing I would question is when you're going to quote Jimmy Buffet's lyrics correctly.

Personally, I prefer "I hate Jesus" to "I don't love Jesus" I took a little creative liberty.

But no need to attack I'm changing it to reflect my mood.

Elphaba · 10-26-2005, 12:52 PM

We'll learn soon whether Sale's inside sources are accurate, but there is some new information/speculation in the following article that surprised me.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/102605Y.shtml

Quote:

Aides to Be Indicted, Probe to Continue
By Richard Sale
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Wednesday 26 October 2005

Richard Sale, a long-time Intelligence correspondent, was the first to tip me last year to the developing Larry Franklin spy scandal, which proved to be right. I've found Richard to always be on target in my experience.
-Larry C. Johnson

Two top White House aides are expected to be indicted today on various charges related to the probe of CIA operative Valerie Plame, whose classified identity was publicly breached in retaliation after her husband, Joe Wilson, challenged the administration's claim that Saddam Hussein had sought to buy enriched uranium from Niger, according to federal law enforcement and senior US intelligence officials.

If no action is taken today, it will take place on Friday, according to these sources.

I. Scooter Libby, the chief of staff of Vice President Richard Cheney, and chief presidential advisor Karl Rove are expected to be named in indictments this morning by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald.

Others are to be named as well, these sources said. According to US officials close to the case, a bill of indictment that named five people has been in existence since before October 17. Various names have surfaced, such as National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, yet only one source would confirm that Hadley was on the list. Hadley could not be reached for comment. (Note from Elphaba: Hadley has been connected with the Nigerian forgeries).

But letters from Fitzgerald notifying various White House officials that they are targets of the investigation,went out late last week, a former senior US intelligence official said.

Although most press accounts emphasized that Fitzgerald was likely to concentrate on attempts by Libby, Rove and others to cover up wrongdoing by means of perjury before the grand jury, lying to federal officials, conspiring to obstruct justice, etc. But federal law enforcement officials told this reporter that Fitzgerald was likely to charge the people indicted with violating Joe Wilson's civil rights, smearing his name in an attempt to destroy his ability to earn a living in Washington as a consultant.

The civil rights charge is said to include that "the conspiracy was committed using US government offices, buildings, personnel and funds," one federal law enforcement official said.

Other charges could include possible violations of US espionage laws, including the mishandling of US classified information, these sources said.

That Vice President Cheney is at the center of the controversy comes as no surprise. Last Friday, Fitzgerald investigators were talking to Cheney's attorneys, and detailed questionnaires, designed to pin down in meticulous sequence what Cheney knew, when he knew it, and what he told his aides, were delivered to the White House on Monday, according to these sources.

The probe is far from being at an end. According to this reporter's sources, Fitzgerald approached the judge in charge of the case and asked that a new grand jury be impaneled. The old grand jury, which has been sitting for two years, will expire on October 28.

Thanks to a letter of February, 2004, in which Fitzgerald asked for and obtained expanded authority, the Special Prosecutor is now in possession of an Italian parliament investigation into the forged Niger documents, alleging Iraq's interest in purchasing Niger uranium, sources said.

They said that Fitzgerald is looking into such individuals as former CIA agent Duane Claridge, military consultant to the Iraqi National Congress Gen. Wayne Downing, another military consultant for INC, and Francis Brooke, head of INC's Washington office in an effort to determine if they played any role in the forgeries or their dissemination. Also included in this group is long-time neoconservative Michael Ledeen, these federal sources said.

On the Hill, Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), democratic whip, are asking for public hearings to lay bare the forgeries and how their false allegations ended up in President George Bush's State of the Union speech.

j8ear · 10-26-2005, 01:25 PM

Hey you got mentioned in a truthout.org article....

Coolio

-bear

Elphaba · 10-26-2005, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by j8ear

Hey you got mentioned in a truthout.org article....

Coolio

-bear

How did you know my name was "Scooter?" Honestly, bear, I don't get the reference. Would you explain it to the slow kid?

Elphaba · 10-26-2005, 02:33 PM

Sheesh....I *am* slow. Just figured it out.

Seaver · 10-26-2005, 03:15 PM

Quote:

How can an executive branch that leaks classified information and then covers it up at the highest levels, avoid congressional investigation?

I dont mean to be one of those guys... but isnt this a lesser extent of what Clinton did?

Approved the selling of computers specifically designed for guidance of ICBM nuclear missles to China in return for campain contributions vs. the whistle blowing of a long-term inactive agent.

Dont get me wrong, whoever's to blame needs to be hit and hit hard, but where was the outrage before?

j8ear · 10-26-2005, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Sheesh....I *am* slow. Just figured it out.

That doesn't make you any less beguiling...to ~me~ anyway...

Grrrrrooowwwwl...

-bear

10-06-2005, 12:39 PM	#2 (permalink)
politicophile Addict	Rove is voluntarily coming before a grand jury without having protection from prosecution... and this is a bad thing? Please explain. __________________ The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

10-06-2005, 12:47 PM	#3 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Indict him and convict him. I smell pardon! __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

10-06-2005, 12:54 PM	#4 (permalink)
djtestudo Baltimoron Location: Beeeeeautiful Bel Air, MD	Guilty until proven innocent I guess? I'm very interested in how you can get "'Bush's Brain' scrambling to avoid Indictment for Treasonous Act" from an article simply stating Rove is appearing before the grand jury without any protection from procecution. Hell, the only way that title could be considered in any way accurate was if he REFUSED to appear without protection. __________________ "Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen." --Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

10-06-2005, 02:26 PM	#8 (permalink)
aswo Crazy	i will second that funny stuff __________________ People who love people

10-06-2005, 04:00 PM	#10 (permalink)
docbungle It's all downhill from here Location: Denver	I fail to see how this can be viewed as anything other than Rove saying, "No problem. I'll testify again; I have nothing to hide." How does this article, in and of itself, show Rove scambling to avoid indictment or, for that matter, to be guilty of a treasonous act? Time will tell if he is guilty or not, but this just appears to be the result of an ongoing investigation. The thread title seems, to me at least, to just barely contain a sense of manic glee. And to be somewhat overstated. __________________ Bad Luck City

10-06-2005, 01:12 PM	#5 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	I'm having visions of....massive, writhing hordes of Lefties pleasuring themselves in dark corners right about now.

10-06-2005, 02:10 PM	#7 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Thanks for my first laugh in a very dismal day, Martin.

10-06-2005, 06:56 PM	#13 (permalink)
djtestudo Baltimoron Location: Beeeeeautiful Bel Air, MD	At least this thread has gone in a good productive direction __________________ "Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen." --Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

10-06-2005, 08:56 PM	#17 (permalink)
alansmithee Junkie	I have to admit that Ann Coulter is quite attractive. But Greta Van Susteren? Ugg. That woman's show pretty much single-handedly made me quit using Fox News as my default tv station.

10-06-2005, 09:13 PM	#18 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	From what I've read, he's going in voluntarially because they asked for him. They asked for him to return because his story changes a little every day and apparently isn't jiving with what Judy Miller is saying. So, looks like they are giving him one last chance to get his story straight before they go ahead and frogmarch his crooked ass.

10-07-2005, 03:19 PM	#27 (permalink)
FoolThemAll Walking is Still Honest Location: Seattle, WA	For what it's worth, I immediately assumed that pan was joking. Could be wrong, though. __________________ I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

10-26-2005, 01:25 PM	#34 (permalink)
j8ear Gentlemen Farmer Location: Middle of nowhere, Jersey	Hey you got mentioned in a truthout.org article.... Coolio -bear __________________ It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

10-26-2005, 02:33 PM	#36 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Sheesh....I am slow. Just figured it out.