N.Y. Times Report Suggests President Is Under Criminal Investigation

[nashuaadvocate]

I'm discussing this most recent sequence of events here--and have to credit Talking Points Memo for the most explosive revelation in this post--but below is one analysis that I've come up with, under the heading (on my blog) "3 Hours Before the Indictment of Cheney's Chief of Staff, the Special Prosecutor Pays a Mysterious Visit to President Bush's Criminal Defense Attorney":

1. According to the block-buster New York Daily News story from last week, Rove has the power to blow the President out of the water by telling investigators that Bush knew he (Rove) was the leaker prior to speaking with federal investigators. Meaning--according to an unchallenged major-media news report--Rove can confirm that the President of the United States committed two crimes: obstruction of justice and making false statements to federal investigators. Indeed, these two offenses have already been effectively established by the Republican majority in Congress as impeachable offenses (cf. William Jefferson Clinton).

2. On Wednesday, Rove thought he was about to be indicted on numerous counts of perjury, obstruction, false statement, and leaking classified information. Rove was looking at (like Libby) up to 30 years in a federal prison. Which, for Rove (given his age) would be a life sentence. Sure, he'd be unlikely to do anything like that much time, but everyone involved in the Plamegate investigation seems to be talking like these are eminently jailable offenses--even for those (like Rove and Libby) with no prior criminal record.

3. On Wednesday and Thursday, Rove's attorney, Luskin, engaged in some desperate last-minute negotiations with Fitzgerald, whose substance and content are as yet unknown.

4. On Friday, in a stunner, Rove was not indicted. No one, including Fitzgerald, is willing or able to adequately explain why.

5. Also on Friday, Fitzgerald was spotted in the law offices of President Bush's personal criminal defense attorney.

6. If Fitzgerald had gotten the goods on President Bush on Wednesday or Thursday, courtesy of Rove--and thereby saving Rove, for the moment, a Friday indictment--the first place he would have gone on Friday morning is: the law offices of President Bush's personal criminal defense attorney.

7. The mainstream media, apart from the New York Times (which buried this news in its Saturday article) has reported none of this.

CONCLUSION: A Special Prosecutor from the Department of Justice is currently investigating serious criminal charges against the President of the United States. These criminal charges would substantially mirror the charges which led to the impeachment of the last President of the United States.

Is this really so far-fetched, knowing what we know now?

Or, better yet, I'll put it this way: is there a more plausible scenario anyone can provide for why the Special Prosecutor would be in Attorney Sharp's offices on Friday morning, when Bush's only interview with Plamegate investigators now lies more than a year in the past--and Fitzgerald has no reason on earth to (as I'm sure someone here will claim) tell Sharp in person that Bush is not a target? No: he would have done that by letter; that doesn't require an in-person visit.

Maybe it's just the criminal defense attorney in me talking.

-- Seth

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. That would be beautiful!

[goclark]

2. That would be too good to believe

[shockingelk]

142. Where's your Fitzmas spirit?

Fitzmas is a time when we believe in miracles.

[MADem]

3. Scooter is just one end of the string

The special prosecutor is PULLING the string...who knows what is tied to the other end, but I doubt he is visiting both Rove's attorney and the Monkey's just for chit-chat.

He's kinda busy lately...

[LunaC]

17. When you pull the string

the whole sweater starts to unravel. That's what's happening now with the whole neocon agenda.

[Straight Shooter]

68. And we've all seen how bush sweats under stress. n/t

[calimary]

216. And we've also seen how much he blinks under stress, too.

GAWD I hope this is true. I'm getting goosebumps! Reap what you sow, georgie-poo.

[goforit]

209. Yes, LOL...and they are doing a masterful job devouring their own.

[FreedomAngel82]

202. He also talked to

the judge during a lunch break too last week before the indictments came.

[LiberalinNC]

4. That would be great!!! From your mouth to god's ear!

[Nightjock]

5. I would not be too surprised by anything

[SeattleGirl]

6. Not so far-fetched.

To use the cliche "there is no honor among theives", you points make sense. There is still a lot we don't know, but I certainly don't believe that Libby was the only wrong-doer. I hope you made a copy of the points you make in your post; it will be interesting over time to see if any of them play out.

[Sparkly]

7. I wish, but I think Libby and Rove would sooner fall on their swords

than rat out their masters.

Besides, this is one occasion where the phrase, "The president was out of the loop," seems really believable!

Having said that, I reeeeeeeally hope you're right! :D

[Media_Lies_Daily]

23. This "president" has never been "out of the loop". You forget that....

..."W" was heavily involved with Lee Atwater and Rove in the commission of political "dirty tricks" in support of Poppy Bush's presidential campaigns.

None of these NeoCons have ever been "out of the loop."

[Sparkly]

33. That was years ago.

As I see it, he's a script-reader now, and doesn't even manage that well.

I know there are two theories about him, but I subscribe to the one that considers him a brain-addled puppet. I don't think he's made a single decision since he took office.

Just my opinion, but this isn't the same man who campaigned for his father. For whatever reason, he's seriously deteriorated (and was "above his paygrade" from the start, anyway).

[Media_Lies_Daily]

52. Keep drinking the Kool-Aid...Bush is fully informed. Period.

[Sparkly]

56. Geez. You sure told ME.

:eyes:

[glitch]

101. What if he's both a brain-addled puppet AND fully involved? That would

certainly explain the lack of, oh let's call it "genius", in what they've all been up to.

Fortunately though, ignorance is no defense in law. :)

[AntiFascist]

102. Let's compromise....

and speculate that it was all a conspiracy, then they all go down and we'll all be satisfied. Fair enough?

[glitch]

107. Now that is my kind of compromise! Thanks. :) nt

[Lasher]

180. Dubya was involved in lying us into the Iraq invasion

There is plenty of evidence of that, and also that he was involved in the coverup of this treason. Richard Clarke had the courage to point this out last year:

"What happened was the president, with his finger in my face, saying, 'Iraq, a memo on Iraq and al-Qaida, a memo on Iraq and the attacks.' Very vigorous, very intimidating, and in a way that left all of us with the same impression, that he wanted that answer. Well, we couldn't give him that answer because it wasn't true."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/terrorism/jan-june04/clarke_03-22.html

Clarke was describing a September 12, 2001 discussion with Bush. There were three others in attendance, all of whom agree with Clarke's assessment.

I don't buy the Ronald Reagan defence, and I hope Fitz doesn't either.

[FreedomAngel82]

205. I don't think Fitzgerald will unless

he can look us all in the eyes with confidence. And don't forget that Bush was talking about invading Iraq in 1999. "This is the guy who tried to kill my dad" (yeah right).

[FreedomAngel82]

204. That could be true

They could script everything for him in dealing with the public but he been involved.

[senseandsensibility]

63. I agree

Although I always get challenged by DUers when I say that * is dumb, nevertheless, he is dumb. All you have to do is listen to him to realize that. He is completely brainless. I agree with you that he has not made a decision since taking office. It's obvious he is a puppet, but beyond that, he has no ability to be anything else.

[hang a left]

88. There is a difference between book smart and street smart. eom

[senseandsensibility]

92. He's not in control

He does what he's told, and even does that badly. He is a puppet, an actor who plays a Texas good ol' boy and can't even do that. His accent is fake, and so is his persona. But he does not make decisions, not even at a "gut" level or street level, if you prefer.

[FreedomAngel82]

206. I don't think personally

that Bush is totally dumb. I do think he's ignorant very much but not dumb. I think that people like Cheney, Rove, Libby etc. all are the one's who plan things but Bush knows and is involved and gives the okay. I do think he was also involved in the outing of the CIA agent where Rove is concerned. Remember, they don't call Rove "Bush's brain" for no reason. Rove equals Bush and Bush equals Rove.

[0007]

146. junior is controlled electronically and by drugs and has a whole

fleet of educated parasites leading him to the right hand of God.

I do seriously believe he'll be tried as a war criminal one day soon.

[mirandapriestly]

189. electronically? nt

[0007]

199. You don't think he was on his own during those debates do you?

The ear pieces have been pointed out as have those strange things in the back of his suit coat during the talks with Kerry.

[goforit]

210. Tried as a war criminal?......Now that would be something to hope for.

[Occulus]

154. Being that and knowing about this are not mutually exclusive.

Just because "he's dumb" doesn't mean "he didn't know."

[senseandsensibility]

187. I agree

and I never state that he is dumb as an excuse. I'm not interested in excusing the chimp, and being dumb is not an excuse. Nevertheless, although he is responsible for his actions, he is still dumb. That's all I'm sayin.

[Sparkly]

190. Absolutely.

But I'm saying the typical excuse, "The president was out of the loop," isn't so far-fetched in this case.

[rosesaylavee]

87. If you have ever known an alcoholic or substance

abuser, their reactions and comprehension deteriorate over time. When he was younger, he literally had more brain cells to rub together then. His symptoms have been discussed ad nauseum on DU over the past few years - won't go into them all now.

[cynatnite]

110. The script-reader could have still lied to Fitz...

I don't think bush makes that many decisions on his own. In the past he's relied heavily on rover and Cheney. It's not a stretch to think he'd lie about anything.

Bush does not like to be challenged on anything and expects everyone to take what he says as gospel even though it may be a lie.

I think you're mostly right, but I also think he lied to Fitz.

[FreedomAngel82]

207. Don't forget his lawyer too

And of course he more than likely lied to Fizgerald. I think they all did and this is why Libby was indicted and why Rove still is being under investigation. He's going to use Rove.

[FreedomAngel82]

203. Exactly

I don't buy this whole Bush is ignorant nonsense. I think he's very much involved. They did this like they did with Reagan with Iran/Contra so Bush's supporters aren't tainted and will still support other people who are linked to the neocon agenda.

[jazzjunkysue]

70. If we don't respect the boy king, do you really think they do? The know hi

him way better than we do.

They'll sell when the price is right.

[jayctravis]

156. Lessee....Rove can go to jail...or turn and be part of the

solution. And stay out of jail.

That's the bitch about having the slimiest underling as your minion...fiercely loyal doesn't always mean a lack of self-preservation reflexes.

[Jersey Devil]

8. This ties into a previous story about Cheney

Early this week I read, can't remember where, maybe TPM, that Fitz had sent a list of written questions for Cheney to answer. I am guessing he may have done the same for Bush

[flyarm]

47. i can't take this!!!!!!!!..how long do we wait now??? weeks months

years??? lol..i just can't take this anymore!!lol..
do most here honestly think rove would out * or cheney????????

i am not being sarcastic..i just really want to know..does anyone really believe we will get the end results we thought we would??

i have honestly been walking around like in a daze since yesterday afternoon...i feel like i was on the loosing team of the world series...all the anticipation..only to get there and not win!!

get the league ring and not the world series ring!!

i really believed fitz was taking us to the world series...an now we get baseball anaologies...and no ring!!
like all the teams that didn't make it..sit around all winter and say..if only this....---- we would have won........

geez ..i can't take it ...i want the freaking ring damn it!! lol..

was this why we got the false bravado out of chimp yesterday??

i thought *'es speech was a bad movie!!..and i have been waiting all day for a rewrite to the ending...

is it just me??????

lol....

frustrated here.......

fly

[tavalon]

155. Take the long view

Actually, even if you take the short view, we got something amazingly great here and it's likely to be the gift that keeps on giving.

Yes, it might take time. We all made a mistake getting so hyped this last week. Luckily Fitz doesn't do that. He's slow, methodical and will be devastating to this administration. He already shot quite a big shot across the bow. He's playing hardball and as of Friday, they know that.

Sure, we don't get it all at once. Instead we get to watch the slow, but steady destruction of this evil administration.

[flyarm]

166. yes you are right..i anticipated drip drip drip...but i got caught up

like so many others this week..and was tired and so damn nervous all week..it just got to me earlier saturday...the best things come with patience...i am willing to wait..i have waited since 9/11 and i want fitz to get them in a solid case...no holes allowed with this bunch of criminals!!

fly

[tavalon]

169. Exactly

I'm finding this sweet, sweet, sweet. And I really believe that it's the gift that keeps on giving.

[goforit]

213. I hope this "No Rove indicts" is no loop hole.

[jayctravis]

158. patience grasshopper!

Think how ansty YOU feel just wanting to know what happens next...Imagine how much THEY are squirming!

[FreedomAngel82]

208. I think he would out Cheney before he would Bush

I think he'd probably out Cheney and Cheney or one of his other aides will find out and go to Fitzgerald and turn in Bush. As long as Rove doesn't out Cheney than Bush is safe. I think Rove is probably more concerned now with saving his own ass from spending the rest of his life in jail.

[goforit]

212. A bad dream eh?...I've thought it has been a bad dream since 2000.

Hell....

Remember when Jan. 31st 1999 we were going to have the
end of the world with the Y2K dilema.
Well, here it is ....this millenium has become OUR Y2K!!!

[Jane Austin]

100. That might explain why Harriet went with them to Camp David

this weekend.

He would need her advice on the questions.

Or . . . maybe she's just along to help pick another Supreme Court candidate.

[Garbo 2004]

112. Lordy, if Bush is really relying on Miers for legal counsel in such a

matter, he's truly lost it. He has his own private attorney for the Plame investigation.

[jayctravis]

160. Miers is like Frau Farbissina.

Her schmoopie-poo notes are how she keeps people from pressing the "eject to lava pit" button.

[goclark]

167. I think that is his drinking buddy Miers

She looks drunk to me and we know about him.

Can't you see um hitting that bottle and talking in baby talk...
cool, ya,brilliant,Amerika, Coke, Beam It To Me Harriet and on into the night.

[understandinglife]

9. More than 4 hours on the 4th visit to the GJ .... you betcha Rove's ...

.... been singing at the top of his lungs and he's got two aria's to sing - La Bushie and La Dickie.

I'm sure Mr Fitzgerald was not visiting a criminal defense attorney for the President of the United States to chat about the White Socks winning the WS.


Peace.

[The Doctor.]

39. I don't know...

I suspect that Rove might suffer the 'sudden and necessary need for brain surgery immediately after the discovery of a dangerous tumor which leaves him unable to communicate before he could testify'...

Nah... what are the odds?

http://www.tarpley.net/bush18.htm

[understandinglife]

44. ;)

:hi:

Peace.

[Jim Sagle]

66. About the same as the odds on Larouchebag Tarpley's sanity.

[jazzjunkysue]

72. Works for me.

[femrap]

133. That's right...Rove was under oath of 4 hours. Maybe Fitzy

laid out the 'goods.' Told Rove it was over....I can't imagine Rove falling on his sword for W....a man I am sure he has very little respect for....I am sure Rove thinks he has MADE W...Rove thinks that without him, W would be NOTHING.

Is Rove willing to give up his life for a person HE made? I doubt it.

I know Rove is the master of propaganda and spin and manipulation...but I don't think he has any experience at fighting the TRUTH as brought to him by Patrick Fitzgerald. He can't smear the Grand Jurors....nor the Prosecutor. No Swift Boaties will be able to help on this one.

Anyone know who saw Fitzie at Sharp's office? I pray that it is true.

[tblue37]

184. Bush can pardon him. 'Nuff said. /eom

[ncrainbowgrrl]

182. I love your "aria" line!

That is just too funny! Mind if I use that?

:rofl:

[Media_Lies_Daily]

10. Except that the lie told by Clinton was NEVER an impeachable offense...

...while the lie(s)/actions of Herr Busch are not only impeachable, but subject to criminal prosecution.

But, I agree substantially with your line of thought...Fitzgerald is hunting for big game, and he won't rest until he completes his task.

[Jazzgirl]

121. Isn't the only way Bush could get impeached is

if he talked to Fitzgerald under oath? I remember reading Bush didn't talk to Fitz under oath and went searching....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3668-2004Jun24.html

"A White House spokesman declined to comment on the substance of the interview but said Bush, who was accompanied by a private lawyer, was not placed under oath."

[tblue37]

185. No. If he lied to federal investigators, even with no oath, that is a

crime--in fact, the very one that got Martha Stewart sent to prison.

[Presidentcokedupfratboy]

11. But I thought only a President's sex life

Was fair game for prosecutors, not things that actually affect their ability to govern. :evilgrin:

Seriously, I hope your conclusion is true. The families of thousands of Iraqi civilians and over 2,000 American servicemen are owed an explanation by these thugs.

[skids]

12. Recommended.

....just for the sheer capacity to create mayhem over on FR.

:evilgrin:

[BrklynLiberal]

13. He can only be impeached, not criminally indicted while in office.

...sadly....

[babylonsister]

16. I'll take impeachment then! :o) nt

[Catherine Vincent]

24. Impeached while the republicans are in the majority?

That'll be the day!

[nashuaadvocate]

27. See Response #19. :-)

[jazzjunkysue]

75. So we've got to win back the senate in 06. Period.

[CanisCrocinus]

179. "Impeached while the republicans are in the majority?"

Granted, in the current environment impeachment seems unlikely; but Watergate, again, is a useful template. Things were not nearly so partisan then as they are now, but even so when the Watergate story broke most of the Republicans in Congress predictably lined up with Nixon. As the story gained momentum, however, and more and more the truth became inescapable, Nixon's Republican supporters began to peel away, one by one. Some publicly ("I can no longer support the President..." etc etc) and some privately, like Goldwater's phone call to Nixon telling him, in essence, it was over. In the end, Nixon resigned when it became clear to him that no one had his back. Again, it's much more partisan today, but I can envision this happening again as the story drips, drips, drips....

[goforit]

214. Committed a crime = arrest and convict......Forget impeachment!!

[nashuaadvocate]

19. Agreed, BUT

Fitzgerald announcing at a press conference carried on all the major networks that he believes the President of the United States has committed a crime would have the same effect--no, greater--than an indictment. It would immediately destroy this Presidency and this President, whether or not Congress got off its fat ass to do anything about it.

And frankly, they'd have to. The country wouldn't let a President escape both indictment and impeachment--especially where the content of the crime was not only lying to the F.B.I., but to the American people. Repeatedly.

And not about sex, either.

About national security.

[watrwefitinfor]

40. So, maybe one of the things Fitzgerald was doing at the press conference

- the LENGTHY press conference - was establishing his bona fides with the American people? For when he might make a more important statement later?

Wat

[goclark]

165. That is what I want to believe

Praying he wanted us to get to know him.

If it was just Scoot and then it's over, all he needed to say was My name is and bla bla bla, good day and good luck.

[funflower]

53. He makes a good opening statement, based on what I saw yesterday.

A similar litany of facts about Bush would force Congress to act.

[jazzjunkysue]

78. They'll place blame to save their local votes. You betcha. They're

in it for the long haul. A pres can only get 8 years. Some of them are there for decades.

They'll sell, when they have to.

[funflower]

86. They'll also want to do what's necessary to save the 06 and 08 elections.

[senseandsensibility]

74. You give this congress too much credit

Why would they have to do that? Apart from the fact that it's morally right, why should they? They've already shown repeatedly that morality means nothing to them. Members of both parties have been more than willing to follow the bumbling nitwit preznit off cliff after cliff, even when to do so endangered thousands of lives and squandered our treasury. I have no confidence in them whatsoever based on this track record. The repukes would defend him, and the Dems would smile and say "Me too, but not as much."

[Garbo 2004]

125. Except Fitz wouldn't do that without a legal charge in hand. "Unindicted

co-conspirator." Fitz is tight when it comes to the law, one could see that from his press conference. He won't talk about what he believes or suspects or even knows without a legal action to go along with it.

He's no Ken Starr.

[teryang]

31. Right more likely that an assessment is being done

...in an attempt to understand the evidence and delimit the possible ties to the white house and even Cheney. This falls in the realm of discovery. How much evidence does Fitz have and who does it incriminate BRD?

[funflower]

51. How about Cheney? Can a sitting veep be indicted?

[babylonsister]

14. Oooh, delicious! I'd love to believe it's not far-fetched! nt

[rodeodance]

45. me too, but......

[mindfulNJ]

15. wow

:kick:

[Skittles]

18. NYT or NY Daily News?

???

[nashuaadvocate]

26. The information about Fitz going to Sharp's office is NY Times, and...

...the information about Bush knowing the identity of the leaker in August 2002 is from the NY Daily News. A "presidential counselor" is quoted, and while the Daily News is the Daily News, no one has yet refuted or in any way damaged the integrity of that sourced report.

-- S.

[hang a left]

98. Well Snotty almost did at the WH press briefing the day the article

was published. It was one of the first questions that was asked. He started to say something about disputing the accuracy of that report. He then clammed up and went to his go-to response.....on going investigation.

[Orangepeel]

20. If this were true, where would Rove be now?

I think he would have been in hiding on Friday, not waving to reporters from the WH.

[nashuaadvocate]

28. What's Bush going to do?

Fire Rove?

How would he explain that?

And what's Rove supposed to do?

Hide in his house?

How would he explain that?

[KittyWampus]

34. come on, you know Rove thinks he can outsmart others. He forgets there's

a difference between being smart and being clever and being corrupt.

Rove, in the end isn't that smart or really even that clever. He's just very corrupt and willing to do anything and force others to get their fingerprints on evidence.

[femrap]

135. His Ego is HUGE.....he would never show any crack in the

armor in public....but behind closed doors, I bet he is in fetal position crying like a little baby.

[mod mom]

21. A girl can dream-can't she ;)

[ultraist]

22. Damn. That would be a dream come true.

It also would make for a great movie script.

(I'm not saying that in a derogatory sense).

[acmavm]

25. Is any of this unlikely to have happened? No. Is any of it going to end

up by bush** being charged with a felony? No. As much as I wish it, as happy as it would make me, and ensuring that I could and would die a happy woman. But no, there is no way Poopy's little criminal son will ever come to an end like that. Poopy and his horrifically scary friends will see to it. They can buy off anyone, they can get to anyone, and they can scare the shit out of anyone.

My Dad always said that it should be illegal for someone who was the head of the CIA to ever become president or vice president. He was right.

[H2O Man]

29. I'm curious

about reports that Fitzgerald was in Sharp's office. I question it because he was in federal court most of the morning. Anything is possible, of course, but I'm wondering if that is accurate.

[babylonsister]

32. I don't know, but here's another source w/the same info:

Josh Marshall: Fitz spotted outside bush's personal lawyer's office.

Hope this isn't a dupe, but, from www.talkingpointsmemo.com there is this:


"Mr. Fitzgerald was spotted Friday morning outside the office of James Sharp, Mr. Bush's personal lawyer. Mr. Bush was interviewed about the case by Mr. Fitzgerald last year. It is not known what discussions, if any, were taking place between the prosecutor and Mr. Sharp. Mr. Sharp did not return a phone call, and Mr. Fitzgerald's spokesman, Randall Samborn, declined to comment."

[H2O Man]

35. That looks

like the information in the OP.

[flyarm]

57. i have posted this a couple times and not gotten an answer

around noon yesterday i was watching cnn..wolf the nazi was on and he had joe degenova on the phone...
when the indictment was given by the gj foreman to the balif and then to the magistrate...whoever was in the court for cnn said something was attached to the envelope /indictment..i can not for the life of me remember what they said it was..but wolf asked joe degenova if he had ever seen that before...and cocky joe said he ran that court nd he had never seen that before..did anyone else see that or remember that???

i wish i had written it down..but i distinctly remember it...it was some kind of Affidavit that was attached to the indictment envlope...

anyone?????????

fly

[leftchick]

65. I remember it too!

I think they said he was asking for more motions? I am grasping here because I am not sure of the exact term used. It was the Kathy person who was in the court who said it. DeGenova said that was a clear indication to him there would be no indictment!

Sure Joe you jackass!

[flyarm]

71. i remember joe saying he had never seen that before!!

i remember it explicitedly..maybe someone has that recorded...i wrote down Joe D. says he never saw it before i was taking notes..but had workers at my house and just then someone asked me a question and i missed the word they said..but it was something attached to the envelope handed to the bailif..and then the magistrate...

dang..i heard it but was interupted..but i thought at the time..is it a sealed indictment??


or what..but definitely joe degenova said he had never seen it before...

fly

[leftchick]

41. I agree and am skeptical of the report

I watched on CNN as he arrived at the Federal Court building at 8:59 AM. Did he go first to Sharp' office before 9:00 AM? How did that happen with out any media following? It does not ring true at this point though I sure hope it is.

[femrap]

136. I would think that Fitzy would go to Sharp's office EARLY

in the morning....first thing before the day's events took off. And probably early so to minimize the chances of being seen there.

Where are Sharp's offices? Is it a big law firm or a small shop?

How far from the Court?

[Zen Democrat]

80. I think the Times would have been extremely careful before publishing this

My theory is that Rove gave up something to Fitzgerald -- and Fitzgerald put in a quick stopover to Sharp's office Friday morning to let him know that he's going to need to put Bush under oath.

I think either Bush goes in under oath or Rove is indicted. Here's what's buried down in the NYTimes article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/29/politics/29leak.html?pagewanted=all

Mr. Fitzgerald was spotted Friday morning outside the office of James Sharp, Mr. Bush's personal lawyer. Mr. Bush was interviewed about the case by Mr. Fitzgerald last year. It is not known what discussions, if any, were taking place between the prosecutor and Mr. Sharp. Mr. Sharp did not return a phone call, and Mr. Fitzgerald's spokesman, Randall Samborn, declined to comment.

At his news conference, Mr. Fitzgerald did not explain his reasons for taking no action against Mr. Rove, even though the prosecutor had advised him that he might be indicted and had continued interviewing witnesses and reviewing evidence as recently as midweek.

[H2O Man]

96. Thank you.

I have the NYT here, among a number of other papers, but have not read every article closely.

It's important to remember that Sharp is Bush's private attorney. Fitzgerald is dealing him in a manner different that he would a White House attorney. This could be huge.

[okasha]

119. There are really only two reasons

why Fitz would be paying an in-person call on Bush's private attorney at this point. One would be to make arrangements for Bush to testify. The other would be to hand deliver one of those "You are in serious legal jeopardy" billets-doux.

[KoKo]

106. I'm thinking it was a "Courtesy Call" to let the P-Resident be prepared

for Libby's indictment. It would make sense for him to make this personal visit. After all, even though we don't think he really deserves to be in the White House, Fitzgerald works for the Justice Department and it would be against protocol for him not to inform Bush's lawyer so he could prepare Libby to resign. :shrug:

Hey...maybe this visit does have another meaning...but when Josh posted it, I didn't find it odd because it would be the "proper thing to do."

I guess most folks figure Fitz could have just called or e-mailed him, but I think that would be pretty informal and not very secure.

[Garbo 2004]

111. In that case, Fitz would have been contacting WH Counsel's office, not

Bush's private attorney.

[KoKo]

129. Wasn't Myers busy at that point, though? I do see what you are saying

and maybe there really is something there. I hope someone tracks it down.

[Garbo 2004]

131. WH Counsel's office isn't just one lawyer. She has staff & attnys. n/t

[Nothing Without Hope]

152. We came up with a simple explanation independently: a Fitz COURTESY CALL

Here's where I suggested and explained it downthread (reply #139):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5219312&mesg_id=5221096

We are thinking along the exact same lines here.

I'm concerned by the highly excited discussion surrounding this possible visit. It's easy to get excercised by speculative interpretations, but the simplest one makes sense and would mean nothing in terms of longer-term outgrowths. Not exciting, but to me the most plausible possibility: a courtesy call to give a confidential heads-up on what the indictment would and would not be so that the WH could prepare a smooth transition if one were required. After all, if Rove or Cheney had been indicted, this could and probably would have had a major impact on the function of the WH.

[tavalon]

157. Did he also go to Cheney's personal attorney?

Nope. Why didn't he speak to the WH counsel or even WH officials if that was what he was doing? It doesn't make sense that he went to Bush's personal lawyer unless it was to cut some sort of deal.

[TahitiNut]

30. We don't know ....

... whether Fitzgerald SOUGHT an indictment against Rove and didn't get the requistie votes, or whether he (or they) decided that the Grand Jury didn't have enough time in its term to evaluate the last minute "evidence" that Rove provided as either exculpatory or implicating Rove or someone else.

Too much of our reading of these tea leaves is dependent on what actually happened between Fitzgerald and the Grand Jury.

[jillan]

36. The question we should be asking....

Would Rove sellout to save himself by ratting on bush?

Rove has spent the better part of his life turning the idiot into a politician. The loyalty bond between these two must be incredible.

Libby obviously didn't place the blame where it needed to be on his boss. That's loyal. He saved the VP's ass. And reputation. wow!

But is Rove enough of a snake to do it?????

[corbett]

43. Absolutely! I'm A Bit Surprised That You Even Asked

He teamed up with * to make him president in 1998 not out of loyalty but narcissism.

[europegirl4jfk]

116. I agree with you

I think that Libby as a NeoCon is following his ideology and therefore is loyal to Cheney, PNAC etc

Roves on the other hand believes in nothing than power. He "created" Bush in making him first governor of Texas and then president. Bush was a tool for him because he, Rove, hadn't the background and the charisma to gain such a powerful position for himself. But all he wanted was power and he got it through his tool Bush. He won't go to jail for Bush. Why should he?

[corbett]

134. Well Put!

You explained the point even better than I did. Kudos!

[Old and In the Way]

37. 30 years or give up George? No brainer to me.

I'm convinced that there's lots more to come. These things usually start a lot lower down the food chain. 1st indictments out are the layer below Bush and Cheney.

I think you've painted a most interesting hypothetical. And Plame is only the warm up act for getting to the truth of the Niger yellowcake fabrication.

This should concern all Americans. Could Cheney-Bush be compromised? How exposed are they to blackmail?

Things are going to get a lot more interesting, that's for sure.

[KoKo]

148. Your scenario for "compromise" is chilling.

You've added a whole other dimension to this by mentioning "blackmail.'

Fitz said he could not and would not focus on anything to do with questions about Iraq Invasion/War. However Bush and Cheney never forcing Libby or Rove to resign must have meant there were others (as we know) who were involved.

That would make them all prone to blackmail. And, we already have some suspects for blackmail...Chalabi...for one. I can think of some others connected with him, plus the NeoCon's interests having to do with the Franklin case.

So...would that mean that simply by finding a way to indict Bush and Cheney for perjury and obstruction of justice..it would force Congress to have to act? So they wouldn't go to "trial" but be forced to be investigated by Congress?

I just can't see that happening...but if the underlings start to go, one by one it would be awfully hard for even this Repug group of thugs not to at least start an inquiry. Hell...many of them already are or will soon be under some investigation of their own with Abramoff and DeLay's troubles.

Amazing. :shrug: If it all comes together.

[nashuaadvocate]

38. Looks like I'm not alone in this theory...

...one of my favorite bloggers has just weighed in with a similar theme.

I'll tell you: if Billmon.org is saying this, we should all be taking it seriously.

-- Seth

[KoKo]

130. Okay...then this is looking more interesting than I first thought. Go with

it! Might shake loose some folks out there who know something...

We need all the help we can get...we are desperate! :-)'s

[KoKo]

138. I need some help with the conclusions of the "Fitz Hit's Knuckle Ball"

piece, linked from Billmon.

I don't understand Marty Aussenberg's conclusions. If Libby never goes to trial because it would expose all their lies and put the Iraq Invasion on trial...then how is Fitz hitting a Knuckle Ball going to expose Cheney or others. It's a great piece and makes alot of sense as to why Fitz went on and on and took so many questions at his Press Conference...plus the thoroughly laid out connections made in the Indictment...but what is he going to achieve if Bush won't let anyone go to trial?

Anyone have any ideas. Sorry if I sound clueless but I just can't get it. :shrug:

On Edit later: Perhaps Indictment of Bush and Cheney and Congress then has to handle it? So Libby flips and names Bush and Cheney so they can't stop a trial which he will still have to go through even if he plea bargains for a lesser charge?????


-----------------------------------------------------------


Fitz’s Knuckle Ball

by gadfly
Sat Oct 29th, 2005 at 08:02:54 PM EDT
Gadfly is Marty Aussenberg, a columnist for the weekly Memphis Flyer. Marty is a former SEC enforcement official, currently in private law practice in Memphis, Tennessee. (A full bio is below the fold.)


-SNIP-

No, the real reason to lay out as much factual detail as he did was for Fitz to show the world (and in particular, the world within the White House) that he has the goods, and that he won't hesitate to drop the dime on some additional malefactors, particularly, Cheney. Let's face it: Libby is only the consigliere to Cheney's don. Even though the threat of spending 30 years in the pokey will be a powerful incentive for Libby to cut some kind of deal that might include turning on his boss, the possibility of the additional charges of revealing classified information, particularly against Cheney, is even more powerful since, presumably, Cheney does't appear to be at risk of a truth-telling-related indictment.

Let's agree on something else right now: Libby's case will never get to trial, primarily because Bush and Cheney will never allow such a trial to become precisely the kind of exposé of the administration's motives and actions in the run-up to the war they were worried the indictments would constitute. It would be their worst nightmare to have their war machinations presented to a jury of 12 ordinary citizens in the District of Columbia (read: predominantly African Americans) who would be sitting as proxies for the families of 2,000 plus military fatalities in Iraq and the plurality of the country that opposes the war. The risk there is not just exposure to the possibility of conviction in Washington, D.C., but a subsequent prosecution in The Hague as well.

Yes, my friends, Fitz is about to grab the pine tar rag, choose another, very special, piece of lumber and step back into the on-deck circle for the home run that is sure to follow. Batter up!

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2005/10/29/20254/872

[corbett]

42. Representative Conyers And TruthOut Need To Know These Things

Please be sure to cross-post. My nose for news tells me you're onto something!

http://www.wakeupwalmart.com/feature/delay

[Neil Lisst]

46. It's logical. There are only two fish bigger than Rove.

Fitzpatrick already has Libby, and doesn't need anything from Rove to nail Libby. If he's letting up on Rove, it has to be for bigger fisher, which means Cheney and Bush.

We know that Bush knew two years ago, because someone from his office floated the story recently that two years ago when Bush found out about Karl's role in the Plame outing, he really gave Rove a good talking to and had Karl in his doghouse for a while.

Fitz seemed very, very nervous at times in the press conference, and if one knew that one had gotten the goods on the president and the vice-president for obstruction of justice and lying to investigators, one would BE very nervous.

Fitz has to be thinking about Cheney and Bush if he's letting up on Rove.

http://www.webcomicsnation.com/neillisst

[Garbo 2004]

114. Fitz could need Rove for conspiracy charges against Libby. Of course, the

bigger fish definitely would be on the list also.

[funflower]

48. Clinton was never actually charged with perjury or obstruction, was he?

(snip)
CONCLUSION: A Special Prosecutor from the Department of Justice is currently investigating serious criminal charges against the President of the United States. These criminal charges would substantially mirror the charges which led to the impeachment of the last President of the United States.
(snip)

[Marnieworld]

140. yes he was

those were the two counts of his impeachment. Obstruction of justice and pejury.

I know this because of a Kay Bailey Hutchinson convo recently when she said that those aren't important charges as in the Plame case. Someone reminded her that those were Clinton's charges for his impeachment and she said that there were other charges but she was wrong. He was impeached (the congressional equivalent of an indictment)on those two charges but was not convicted in the Senate.

[funflower]

217. So the "charges" were from Congress, not a DA or Grand Jury, right?

[Marnieworld]

218. right that's how it works with a president

impeachment is an indictment and the senate convicts. Was it a criminal matter? no. not in any criminal court.

[Hubert Flottz]

49. A couple of legal questions...Send the bill to Bushco...

Suppose during the course of this trial, answers start coming out of a witness being examined, that mention things beyond the information regarding the specific crimes being prosecuted? Things like the fake documents from Italy, or the neocon's trumped up evidence about WMD, or the fact that the Bush gang lied to congress and the people in the process of "Selling the war?" Would the prosecutor be allowed to expand the line of questions, to that witness or other witnesses, on those matters?

Would any witnesses be in a position to be charged with crimes also as the trial goes along, if new facts come to light? If it turns out that something slips out that they could nail, say, Cheney or Bush with, would the guy trying the case be able to seek indictments against them?

[flyarm]

59. one thing i have never understood...if clinton was asked

questions under oath about an affair...

why was * not put under oath about outing a cia covert agent????????

makes no sence..why was * not put under oath for the 9/11 commisson..what makes him so above the freaking law??????????

has he just refused..and if so why not subpoenaed to go under oath??

and if he refuses why isn't that made public knowledge?? don't we the people have the right to know that??????????

fly

[Hubert Flottz]

89. I think the diff was that Clinton lied under oath in a civil case.

Paula Jones.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Jones

I didn't know that dAnn Coulter was involved in the Paula Jones case...DAMN...you learn something new every day!

[loudsue]

64. Whether he "could" or not, he said in the press conference he "wouldn't"

Remember? He said that, no matter whether someone is for the war or against it, he's going to limit the scope of his job to the outing of Valerie Plame.

He said he's not going there.

:kick::kick::kick:

[Hubert Flottz]

84. That SUCKS!

I did hear that he thought the part about the war should be left up to congress to resolve. With the Pubs running the show that's a dead end street. So I guess if evidence comes out that would nail them, he'd turn his back on it.

[Zen Democrat]

93. Bush could do down, within the scope of the leak of the CIA agent's cover.

[Garbo 2004]

120. Actually I think Fitz is authorized (he was basically given the power of

the AG for purposes of the Plame investigation) to investigate criminal activity that comes to his attention during the course of his investigation.

But from a strictly legal and provable basis. For example, he would have to legally establish that Bush knowingly outright lied to Congress and knowingly perpetuated a fraud. The legal standard is far greater than just establishing they knowingly cherry picked the intel to make Bush's case to Congress. It's not as simple as one might think when we're talking legal prosecutions.

Did Ken Starr ever indict or prosecute Clinton for anything? No. As independent counsel he just dug and dug where he wanted and handed over a bunch of shit to Congress. Fitzgerald is not an independent counsel and is bound to traditional prosecutorial legal procedures.

[Hubert Flottz]

181. Okay I think I remember now...

The discovery rule is what you mean? It's been so long since I studied law under Perry Mason on TV, that I'm a tad rusty.

Edit...My response was to the post below this one, # 147...sorry.

[No Exit]

147. Before any trial of Libby,

the parameters of the facts would be thoroughly determined by the prosecutor and the defense attorney. This would be done by the filing of motions in limine--those are filed before trial and are ruled on by the judge, usually before the trial or at least during the trial.

So, say, the defense attorney would be thinking, "Hmmm... this Niger forgery stuff might come up... I sure don't want THAT mentioned..." and so he'd file a motion in limine asking that it not be allowed to be mentioned. (He'd have to cite law to back him up, of course.) And so on. The judge might or might not agree with his motion.

So if an attorney began to get kind of far afield in his questioning, it would be stopped by objections and by the previously-argued motions in limine.

As for your question about whether witnesses could be charged with crimes as the trial went along, if the facts came to light, the answer is YES.

[CabalPowered]

50. I don’t think Bush or Cheney were under oath …

during Fitzgerald’s deposition. Would that technically prevent Fitzgerald from sharing the deposition with a GJ? Is it reasonable to assume that the GJ would have to hear testimony from them prior to presenting an indictment to the GJ? Regardless, if the trip to Sharp’s office did indeed take place, Fitzgerald is definately looking up the food chain.. yum, yum.

[Jim__]

54. That still leaves giving false information and obstruction of justice

We can always hope.

[flyarm]

60. well even if you are not under oath..he was talking to an officer of

the court...is that not binding???
does that mean you can go into a depostition and answer questions and lie your ass off to a court officer..and its not binding???

and there leads to my original question..why were either allowed to testify in a deposition and not be under oath??

we are entitled to an answer for that i believe since we the people are paying the bills for this!

if * or cheney refused to go under oath..i want to know about it and i want an answer why!!

fly

[peace frog]

85. It is indeed "binding"

Under oath or not, if it can be proved that Cheney or Bush lied to the special prosecutor it IS an actionable offense.

[kestrel91316]

91. Didn't Martha serve time for making a false statement to some

investigator or prosecutor that was NOT under oath??

[flyarm]

105. she spoke to an fbi agent!! and lied to a fbi agent..n/t

[funflower]

55. I thought Shrub seemed really angry during his "response" yesterday.

I thought his praise for Libby an his apparent repressed anger seemed strange considering they've known for at least several days that Libby would be indicted.

[mtnsnake]

58. Nice, but where's the link to this NY Times report?

the one that you mentioned in your thread title?

[flyarm]

61. nytimes article

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/29/politics/29leak.html?pagewanted=print

check this out!!
Mr. Fitzgerald was spotted Friday morning outside the office of James


Cheney Aide Charged With Lying in Leak Case - New York Times

snip:

Mr. Fitzgerald was spotted Friday morning outside the office of James Sharp, Mr. Bush's personal lawyer. Mr. Bush was interviewed about the case by Mr. Fitzgerald last year. It is not known what discussions, if any, were taking place between the prosecutor and Mr. Sharp. Mr. Sharp did not return a phone call, and Mr. Fitzgerald's spokesman, Randall Samborn, declined to comment.

[Fla Dem]

95. On the other hand,,just to play devils advocate; it could have simply

been a courtesy call to the President's attorney to let him know what was being announced so Shrub would be informed before everyone else. Hopefully not the case, but a plausible explanation.

[blitzburgh55]

62. Here's the NYT article

Mr. Fitzgerald was spotted Friday morning outside the office of James Sharp, Mr. Bush's personal lawyer. Mr. Bush was interviewed about the case by Mr. Fitzgerald last year. It is not known what discussions, if any, were taking place between the prosecutor and Mr. Sharp. Mr. Sharp did not return a phone call, and Mr. Fitzgerald's spokesman, Randall Samborn, declined to comment.


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/29/politics/29leak.html

[jazzjunkysue]

67. Keep talking. There's one thing Fitz said: He won't discuss people who

aren't being indicted. "Either indict, or keep quiet." So, when he very clearly says that Rove is still under investigation, he's breaking his own rule: He's keeping Rove on the public hot seat to pressure him for some reason.

Isn't that what you'd do in the middle of negotiations? Especially when the president has committed treason?

I think everything you're saying makes sense, and jives with Fitz.

I think you're right.

[ClassWarrior]

69. You know, if Bush** had any dignity at all...

...he'd resign now and spare the nation the shame.

NGU.

[froshty1960]

79. Oh, no, no

That would make Cheney our president! He needs to go first and then Bush can resign. :)

[ClassWarrior]

82. Bush**'ll never resign. That doesn't mean we won't score PR points...

...by demanding it! :evilgrin:

And welcome to DU, friend.

Never Give Up.

[texpatriot2004]

113. I think so too. If * had any dignity at all he would resign and spare

the nation the shame.

NGU!

[rateyes]

195. which means he won't resign now,

because he has no dignity, or integrity.

[spanone]

73. Yum Yum. Plausible.

[wookie294]

76. He visited Bush's attorney to say, ''Don't worry''

Fitz is conspiring to help Bush and Cheney avoid prosecution??? That's why he visited Bush's attorney yesterday :tinfoilhat:

People are reading WAY TOO MUCH into Fitz's visit with Bush's attorney. If anything, Fitz is working to help Bush, not prosecute him. JMHO

[jazzjunkysue]

81. He wouldn't be this far in if he were "helping" He wouldn't have

indicted Libby, a known neocon if he were helping.

Makes no sense at all.

[wookie294]

83. But he needed to indict SOMEONE to make his work appear truthful

The lies told by Libby were so blatant that if Fitz didn't prosecute, he would be obviously derelict. The indictment helps the lie look even more real.

[ClassWarrior]

90. So I suppose the new GJ that he's empaneling is just part of the ruse too.

:rofl:

NGU.

[jazzjunkysue]

97. Nope. B* doesn't want anyone indicted. It's another brick in his wall

of lies and failure.

Go read up on neocons if you want to understand what's going on in the world. Dorien's Imperial Designs and Richard Clarks Against All Enemies. Bush on the Couch. Spend some time with the real experts at the bookstore. It's all there.

This shit is real.

[Garbo 2004]

117. I just don't think Fitz would be asking folks like Judy Judy if Libby

mentioned Cheney knowing about their conversation if Fitz was looking to forestall any look into Cheney's involvement.

We can reasonably assume that Libby wasn't just operating on his own but Fitz needs confirmation that Cheney was in on it too.

And Fitz isn't the only one on the case, it is a team of attorneys and investigators. He isn't the only one who knows what they've got and are getting. If he was deliberately skewing the investigation, he wouldn't be the only one who knew it.

And no evidence that he has compromised the investigation. What has he got to gain for it? If he were ambitious and out for bucks, he wouldn't still be in the DOJ and indicting Repub Governors.

People who are ambitious, earn their bones in the DOJ and go on to greener and far more lucrative pastures.

[tavalon]

162. Um, he could have picked about 100 other people

who are far less prominent and more dispensable to this administration. Libby, though quiet and behind the scenes, like his boss Darth Cheney, was an extremely powerful person in this administration. One of the top five, in fact. Why would the grand jury indict someone of that significance for show? It makes no sense.

[Spazito]

194. Man are you REACHING!

Please provide any proof that Fitzgerald is NOT independent and working with integrity to complete his task. Smearing him without backup leaves only the poster without credibility as opposed to Fitzgerald, imo.

[sendero]

77. Maybe..

.... but why wouldn't Bush** just promise a presidential pardon to Rove and be done with it?

[Zen Democrat]

94. Well, if * goes out on his ass, he couldn't very well pardon anyone.

He may not be able to pardon anyone as long as there's a cloud over him.

[Garbo 2004]

122. Legally nothing to stop Bush from pardoning anyone facing fed charges

while he's in office.

[upi402]

99. Bu$h would pardon Jeffry Damer if it saved his bacon to do so.

I would bet he has spread the word that 'pardons' are to be given.
This crime family will reward the bullet-takers just like the mafia.

[soleft]

103. I think if Rove believed Bush was going to dump him

like his father dumped him - it would fit with Rove's pathology that like a scorned lover her might lash out in a kamikazi act of revenge.

Otherwise it's hard to believe Rove would turn on the love of his life

[leesa]

104. It would be soooo sweet if Rove destroyed his own Frankenstein to

save his worthless ass.

[emulatorloo]

108. kicking n/t

[halobeam]

109. I feel like a teenager again. I don't know what to think.

I don't have a clue, a gut feeling or anything I can trust right now. Different views on the same visit, all seem plausible. I'm just reading now to keep up. I'm so dizzy, my head is spinning. Think I'll sit back and watch the world spin right off it's own damn axis. My god.

I never wanted to be young again and this reminds me as to why.

[Greyskye]

115. Worth consideration

! and :kick:

[journalist3072]

118. I've said it before and I'll say it again

I believe the Lord allowed George Bush to get installed at the WH for another 4 years, simply so this administration could be exposed.

What's done in dark will come to light, and the covers are certainly being blown off this administration!!!

The fact that Fitz paid a visit to Bush's personal attorney speaks volumes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :)

[femrap]

143. Yes.....it was best W and neocons got the 2nd term, because

now they are going to come under the scathing light of Justice and Truth....and will be JAILED, DOOMED, EXILED, or FRIED....all of their evil doings are coming to light and we will be able to dispose of them like a nasty, stinking bag of rotting garbage!

Everyone will see what these lying, power-hungry, greedy neocons are....even the Christian Fascists might get bit my some Truth and Justice!

[Tatiana]

145. I completely, wholeheartedly agree with you.

Selfishness, greed, lack of compassion, malice, murder... everything this administration epitomizes (and the minions who support them) will be exposed. They will all be shamed and have a day of reckoning for sins committed during this administration and past ones.

[DianeG5385]

123. This makes absolutely no sense to me as Rove is still at the WH

If Rove turned on Bush he would no longer be working there. Unless....The only way Rove and Cheney could still be there is if they are all dity, basically, they will all survive or all go down together. Methinks, with his Dad's former honchos turning on sonny and no significant vote of support from dad, and dad's former CIA ties, it may be they want to take the bunch down and somehow save sonny. I don't think Rove has turned on Bush though.

[liberalla]

124. I really like your theory.

Maybe Fitz has more questions for him now...

Could he also have been visting the lawyer to inform him they will need to interview bush again? This time under OATH? (Can we get him under oath?)

From June 2004:

Bush Interviewed About CIA Leak
President Not Under Oath in Discussing Release of Covert Officer's Name


"President Bush was interviewed for more than an hour yesterday by a special prosecutor investigating whether administration officials illegally disclosed the name of a covert CIA officer last summer.

Special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald and several assistants questioned the president for about 70 minutes in the Oval Office yesterday morning. A White House spokesman declined to comment on the substance of the interview but said Bush, who was accompanied by a private lawyer, was not placed under oath."

snip

"It's hard to believe the special prosecutor would be burdening the president with an interview unless they had testimony to the effect that the president had information," said Floyd Abrams, a First Amendment lawyer representing Time magazine in the probe.

Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3668-2004Jun24.html

[kestrel91316]

151. Could he have been serving Bush with a GJ subpoena,

from the new GJ rather than the old one now disbanded?

[Wordie]

126. There could be other explanations though. (Although I'd LIKE yours)

For instance, do you recall how everyone was saying that we would have information about the decision of the grand jury around noon? But it was delayed, and delayed, and then we saw the President arriving at the White House by helicopter.

Couldn't this merely be that as a courtesy, the Prosecutors office arranged that Bush would be given time to return to the White House before the indictments were handed up?

I mean, just as an alternate possibility?

No?

No, I don't really think so either. ::sigh::

[EVDebs]

127. Nixon's Impeachment bill of particulars included 'abuse of federal agency'

Notably the CIA when he tried to blackmail them into silence by telling Helms about 'that Bay of Pigs' stuff that shouldn't come out.

" Despite his efforts, one of the secret recordings, known as the "smoking gun" tape, was released on August 5, 1974 and revealed that Nixon authorized hush money to Watergate burglar E. Howard Hunt, and also revealed that Nixon arranged for the blackmailing of the CIA into telling the FBI to stop investigating certain topics because of "the Bay of Pigs thing." Several of the Watergate burglars were involved in the Bay of Pigs operation. Haldeman would later claim that when Nixon used the phrase "the Bay of Pigs thing," he was actually referring to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. In light of his loss of political support and the near certainty of both his impeachment by the House of Representatives and his conviction by the Senate, he resigned on national television on August 9, 1974. listen ¢º(?) He never admitted wrongdoing, though he later conceded errors of judgment." from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon

Jeepers. I wonder if trying to steer the CIA's real intelligence into phony intell on WMD qualifies as getting the Special Prosecutor from investigating certain topics like say violating the War Powers Act in order to sell a war based on lies qualifies for indictment in a conspiracy to violate said War Powers Act ?

[KoKo]

150. Well that fits this crew....In fact they've abused most Federal Agencies.

Look at what they've done. However CIA and FBI have been the hardest hit. Treasury, too, probably, since he's probably done quite a bit of finageling to fund his WAR.

[EVDebs]

191. MSM doesn't cover his Globalization policy reversal: Capital Repatriation

Capital repatriation to the tune of $350 Billion has been allowed, in a policy reversal for just this year only.

Tax policy, which allows corporations to offshore jobs offshores capital in large volumes too. By allowing a one year semi-amnesty (the original tax rates of around 25% are reduced to just 5%), the globalized multinationals taking advantage of this new Capital Repatriation policy get to return money to the US, and that money will probably go towards shoring up the Iraq War most likely.

See ASA Repatriation Scorecard. $200 Billion Repatriated Back to America
www.americanshareholders.com/ news/asa-repat-08-19-05.pdf

Sadly, the pdf fails to mention how this makes a mockery of those who say globalization is such a good thing. Thomas Friedman must be pulling his hair out ! But no, the MSM doesn't cover this massive hypocrisy...it just muddles forward.

[splat@14]

128. This one needs to be on the front page - kicked

[Dora]

132. Brilliant! n/t

[Digit]

137. Is this part of reason * wanted Miers for SCOTUS?

That he knew he might have problems and somehow, the Supremes could help?
I don't know how...it is just a question.

[KaryninMiami]

149. That's something many of us have been saying for a while- it makes sense.

Why else would Bush have taken such a risk to nominate someone who was so clearly inappropriate? I know he's a dope but it had to have been obvious even for him - that she was not SCOTUS material. His responses when people on His own team wanted more info were absurd- he basically told everyone to trust him (wink wink). Period. It's like he was so delusional and desperate, he truly believed he could sneak her in to the Supreme Court. After all, he got the Supreme Court to "sneek" him in to the presidency in 2000 and in spite of all obsticles (and thousands who knew there was a possibility they would do it again), he / they rigged it again 2004. He did say this year he was going to use his "political capital" - maybe this is what he believes that is.

Perhaps the tides really are finally turning

Gosh - I was gone for a few hours and look how much I missed. This is a fabulous thread- I sure love the direction and insights I've read with baited breath for the past 20 minutes. Wow....

I'm going to have to go back and read some of it again. This is great stuff guys!

[Nothing Without Hope]

139. Seems to me there's another potential explanation: a kind of courtesy call

"Or, better yet, I'll put it this way: is there a more plausible scenario anyone can provide for why the Special Prosecutor would be in Attorney Sharp's offices on Friday morning, when Bush's only interview with Plamegate investigators now lies more than a year in the past--and Fitzgerald has no reason on earth to (as I'm sure someone here will claim) tell Sharp in person that Bush is not a target? No: he would have done that by letter; that doesn't require an in-person visit."


I would LIKE it to be the scenario you are describing, but I can also see it as something much less interesting and also less encouraging. After all the cliff-hanging of the past weeks, Fitzgerald might have decided to give the President a preview that Rove wasn't going to be indicted (yet? ever?). He wouldn't have gone to see Bush in person; lots of reasons for that - it would have sparked rumors and looked unseemly for a supposedly independent prosecutor. But he could have gone to Bush's criminal lawyer - possibly at that person's request - and stated confidentially what he told us all on Friday morning. It would have been a kind of courtesy call, to "ease the President's mind" and also so that he would know whether or not to hire Karl's replacement(s) and so on. The Admnistration would not want to be kept out of the loop until the last minute on that, it would have wanted to be prepared to adjust to the indictments.

Replacing Karl Rove would have been kind of crisis for them, let alone Dick Cheney. It's not that unreasonable for Fitzgerald to have given a short-term, confidential preview of what his decision would be so that the WH could be prepared for whatever transition in personnel would be necessary.

That's what it smells like to me - nothing substantive or exciting. I'll keep hoping your scenario is the correct one, though.

[redacted]

153. Good point Hope. However, in my experience,

some of the reasons you stop by in person in the digital age include:

--You don't want your phone conversation tapped,

--You don't want to leave a paper trail or a voice mail record,

--Nonverbal cues are vital to the communication, such as in a negotiation, or

--You are trying to measure trustworthiness.

Often the transportation burden is borne by the person who wants something. That is, if I'm trying to sell goods or services to a new customer or client, I'm never going to expect the buyer to come to my office. I won't sell very much that way!

A busy fellow like Fitz, who has several cases going in Chicago at the same time he has the burden of prosecuting this Libby guy, probably is not likely to spend the time or effort on an in-person courtesy call like the kind you describe. That kind of communication can take place over fax, email, or on the phone. If sincerity is in question, Fitz can always send an associate to convey the good news.

My experience and intuition suggests to me that Fitz wants something from the president's criminal attorney, or from the president himself. Secrecy is required for this conversation if it is part of a criminal investigation, and if a sensitive negotiation is taking place, it pretty much has to be done in person--especially if there have been no or few meetings before between Sharp and Fitz.

Just my two cents, but it feels to me like a high-stakes poker game is taking place here, and that probably requires a personal meeting in a way that many other communications just do not.

One other quick thing: I'm not a lawyer, but I believe the professional responsibility code probably prevents Fitz from speaking with another attorney's client directly in a situation like this. Unless I'm mistaken, Fitz HAS to communicate with Sharp about any matters related to this investigation, he cannot communicate directly with the president.

[tavalon]

159. Why did he go to *s personal lawyer then?

Why not through official channels?

[Nothing Without Hope]

161. I'm no lawyer, but as I see it, it was meant as a highly confidential

personal gesture. With official channels, there could have been leaks and it would also have a different "look" - this way it's seen as a favor, a headsup to facilitate transition and adaptation to the announcement that Fitz would soon make officially, rather than his being a lackey reporting.

I'm hoping that there IS something more important going on here, but I'm not convinced there's cause for this excitement yet.

[tavalon]

164. Plausible

but no more so than the one that suggests that Bush will be called back for another appointment.

I don't think we will know anything though, for quite a while. All of this speculation really is just going to burn us out. We could be talking months (years!?) before we find out anything.

I will say that the more I think about what came down on Friday, the better I feel about it.

[Nothing Without Hope]

170. I agree. There are multiple plausible possibilities, but we have no way

of knowing at this time what happened and why. Certainly it's premature to celebrate a coming criminal prosecution of Bush. But there is plenty to be pleased about.

Partly to take my mind off all this frenzied speculation, earlier this evening I posted a thread on a wonderful collection of audio files about and by Rosa Parks. One of them was a moving and profound interview on 10/25 of John Conyers, who had Mrs. Parks as an aide in his office for two decades. I found it refreshing and uplifting to read and listen to this material and decided to share it. So far, not a single person has responded, which is too bad. Here's the thread in case you're interested:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2194590
thread title: AUDIO TREASURY of Rosa Parks history & interviews, incl JOHN CONYERS

[tavalon]

198. Thanks

I went and listened to the audio treasury and read what they had there. Very interesting and uplifting.

[flyarm]

168. that could have been done with a phone call...n/t

[Nothing Without Hope]

171. I'm not so sure. The "feel" and surety of being totally confidential are

different this way. I think it's a plausible possibility among others and will suspend belief one way or the other pending unfolding events.

For now, good night! :hi:

[flyarm]

173. yes perhaps you are right on that one..but i still think it was much more

[Nothing Without Hope]

175. I hope it was and that it was good for the cause of justice, but I'm not

going to let myself get excited about it at this point.

Good night, fly! :hi:

[Freedom_from_Chains]

141. There is something obviously going on in the background here

Only time will tell, but I don't think the party is over.

[No Exit]

144. WOW, WOW, WOW! Please, please, let it be so!!!

[Carolab]

163. I can completely believe Rove told * and he has the proof.

It would be JUST like him to CYA this way in order to keep an Ace up his sleeve.

That sickening grin on his face on Thursday made me want to puke. It spoke volumes to me. It was saying "I win, I win, I always win...no one catches me".

IF this is true, what will Fitzgerald do? Let Rove off or go after the whole cabal? What is his conscience and reported overarching concern for "national security" telling him to do?

[Tight_rope]

172. Sorry.. the NYT is no longer a creditable source for me....

[opihimoimoi]

174. OMG The Bush on Fire...... This is gonna be sweet....

[Freedomfried]

176. If Rove snitches on Bush, he won't get that pardon, thats the fatal flaw

because none of this means anything to there guys, their political career is over, but as long as they don't indict the boss, they'll all get off.

[nolabels]

178. The "GET OUT JAIL FREE CARD"

I Really doubt if Dim-son even knows how to tie his shoe. He don't need to know anything, so why should he? It's probably by choice by all anyway just for that reason.

[DemReadingDU]

177. Excellent! Thanks for sharing

[tblue37]

183. But why would Rove give Bush up?

Even if he were convicted, Rove would be pardoned by Bush, so there is no reason to give him up--unless Fitzgerald already has enough to get Bush impeached before charging Rove, so that Rove can't count on being pardoned if he is indicted and convicted.

[nashuaadvocate]

186. WTF?

Okay, is anyone buying this?

The notion, in Newsweek, that Fitzgerald made an IN PERSON visit to Sharp just as a COURTESY CALL to tell him that Sharp's client's AIDE was NOT going to be indicted?

Does that make sense to anyone...?

Notice Newsweek doesn't provide a source for that claim.

Interesting.

[EVDebs]

188. Fitz's limited testimony w/ Miller and his statement about no war info

being investigated means that (1) Operation Mockingbird can continue domestically and illegally and (2) that the War Powers Act of 1973 which requires 'situations' and 'circumstances' of a truthful nature, being made to Congress as the basis for military action, can be violated by the imperial Presidency any time desired--since mere fantasies can now become the basis of war actions at the President's whim and the veracity being totally unchallengeable.

Congress in Oct. 2002 could have challenged Bush's claims then but chose not to. By not delving into this, Fitzgerald papers over the core questions raised by the CIA/Plame name leak.

God help us all.

[hippiegranny]

192. If Rover suddenly resigns

then I might could believe it.

[Seansky]

what about miers spending the weekend at C.D. would that just

be about her withdrawing from SCOTUS? would the WH council would have to advice on this (no that I beleive HM can actuallya advice on anything)

[Seansky]

193. what about miers spending the weekend at C.D. would that just

be about her withdrawing from SCOTUS? would the WH council would have to advice on this (no that I beleive HM can actuallya advice on anything)

[Native]

196. Heard either on MSNBC or CNN something about Libby

not having a "criminal attorney" & using Bush's atty. for something. The pundits were questioning why Libby had retained the kind of atty. he had and not a criminal atty. from the beginning. Heard this a couple of times during the day of the indictment. Anyone else hear anything along these lines? I was taking in so much info. that day, I don't remember the particulars of this.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

197. That would certainly make everything fall into place, wouldn't it?...

Nice job! :)

[goforit]

200. Seth, This is very plausible and interesting to say the least.

I too am hopeful that Fitz is working diligently to resolve the truth in this matter. But at the same tolken I know the history of these
men in office.
They are ruthless.
They are scandalous.
They are willing to kill at any cost and bury any one enemy
that contests them at any time.
I am concerned over possible threats that this investigation endures.
It aint pretty.

"...Fitzgerald has no reason on earth to (as I'm sure someone here will claim) tell Sharp in person that Bush is not a target? No: he would have done that by letter; that doesn't require an in-person visit."
All it took was a letter to say your a target "as well as" a letter to say your not a target. So a visit in this context is never necessary at all.

The visit to the Presidents office could have been one of those
threats at an enormous magnitude. Fitz could have backed off for this
reason alone......And I pray this was not the case.

[FreedomAngel82]

201. Sounds good to me

I think so too. And I think that Fitzgerald is going to use Rove and try to get whoever was involved. I found it very interesting how he went to Bush's lawyer. I didn't even know Bush still had a lawyer now. That's really interesting indeed because I don't think he would have a lawyer two years later unless he was involved somehow. Maybe Fitzgerald already knows everything but is just making sure he doesn't get anything wrong. The only reason why I think the other press isn't reporting this is because they don't want to be wrong and lose readers. The NYDailyNews has been really doing great on reporting everything with this case!

[BigYawn]

211. If Bush is convicted, can he pardon himself?

Since the president has constitutional power of pardon, he
can paedon himself. The constitution does not say he can't.

[Peace Patriot]

215. "...a more plausible scenario..." (than Rove ratting on Bush) for the...

...Special Prosecutor to visit the office of Bush's attorney on Friday morning.

First of all, as some more legally knowledgeable poster wrote above, any message that Fitzgerald had for Bush must go the Bush's lawyer in THIS case. Any other contact would be inappropriate.

Wild guess at a more plausible scenario: That Rove is playing the victim of a conspiracy to get him to commit a crime (out Plame) by someone misleading him as to the legality of what he was doing. There may be some truth to it. And he has named someone close to Bush who misled him about that. And this just flew into my head--Myers. Can't recall the date of her withdrawal from the Sup Ct nomination--it was in the middle of all this--but if Rove apprised Bush that he was going to name Myers, then the date of actual withdrawal of the nomination is not important. And what Fitzgerald may have told Bush's lawyer on Friday would have been a couple of days old news to Bush (but Fitzgerald would still feel obliged to inform them of it himself). However, any other WH lawyer could be a candidate for having misdirected Rove on the legality of outing Plame.

What this would give Fitzgerald is a handle on the conspiracy that his indictment of Libby points to--a way around Libby's obstruction. If a lawyer close to Bush was trying to get Rove to commit this crime, by telling him it wasn't a crime, then you are very close to proving conspiracy--just a few questions away. (Fitzgerald said that the purpose of his investigation is to establish the WHY of this crime--what drove it, the intent--because of the implications to national security. And Rove getting him closer to that answer would be a very good reason to withhold his sealed indictment of Rove, for the time being.)

In any case, I find the notion of Rove giving up Bush to be much less plausible than Rove giving up someone else--especially if it's a political enemy or rival of his--in a way that might save his skin (giving himself an aura of innocence, and giving Fitzgerald something substantial--a new lead to get at the answer to his main question--to get him off Rove's back). (Libby and Cheney are so close to conspiracy now, that it won't take much--Cheney directing a lawyer to misdirect Rove would be it.)

Why Myers leaped to my brain is that she is a WH lawyer, and was a Bush Sup Ct nominee until a few days ago (one who was in trouble, for sure--and might have been withdrawn anyway and for other reasons). But that would explain a courtesy visit by Fitzgerald to Bush's lawyer (aside from Bush or Cheney being new targets of the investigation). Also, almost anybody else Rove could have named would have their own lawyer for this case (that's who Fitzgerald would have visited Friday morning), and I don't think Myers does. (Does she?)

I was trying to think what kind of strategy game Rove might be playing, and playing the victim suits him to a T. Coming up with evidence of that would most certainly give Fitzgerald "pause" (as reported) (--"pause" about indicting Rove). He would keep his sealed indictment of Rove in his back pocket, and investigate it--and see if it was substantial enough, a) not to indict Rove, and b) to give him a new avenue to pursue to crack the case open.