I don't give a fuck if Leopold is right!

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

As long as Darth is indicted.
As to who gets the credit for breaking the story or who deserves the credit or doesn't get the credit or whose credibility is temporarily affected or unaffected or permanently affected or whose hair gets messed up or who has to put on fresh eyeliner or has to get a new prom date after it's all over or who loses his press badge and magnifying glass or what six MSM companies look like fucking idiots when it's all said and done or which details are slightly mixed up or totally effed to hell or all dead on I DO NOT GIVE A FUCK. As long as Rove is indicted. (And sooner would be better than later.)

[OldLeftieLawyer]

1. What will he be indicted for?

I'd indict him just for his hair, which frightens me.

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

2. yes, hair for starters. probably perjury, too. but definitely hair.

[dogday]

3. You keep asking everyone that

same question.... What are you going to say after someone answers you.. You already have the next post ready... I am just curious???? :hi:

[OldLeftieLawyer]

6. No one answers

You didn't answer.

I'm curious. What's the big bloodlust for an indictment if you don't even know why he'd be indicted, or what crime is being alleged?

Touchy, aintcha?

I already had the next post ready? My goodness, you're not only touchy, you're psychic.

So, since you're good good with this knowing of unknowable information, what is the crime for which Karl Rove will be indicted?

I breathlessly await your gift of enlightenment.

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

8. hair, man. I'm already with ya on this. plus perjury.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

10. Just like Libby, eh?

But Libby has nice hair.

I bet Karl hates Libby for his hair.

And nothing about the Plame matter. No indictment on the direct matter at hand.

Thank Victoria Tsoensing for that. Republican suckass.

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

14. let's not give up the ship yet. there's a decent chance it'll be more

than hair, right? (But, of course, they do have to nail him on hair for it to mean anything).

[MADem]

11. Well, I certainly want him indicted for something a bit more serious

than, say, jaywalking or walking on the grass!

I'm wondering if it will be the usual daily double--perjury and obstruction, or if it will be something with a bit more juice....? Of course, I doubt the Special Prosecutor will overreach, if he indicts on something more serious, the odds are good he's got him in the bag already.

One can only hope.

[dogday]

13. This is what I have read

Probable charges of perjury and giving false statements to agents...

Possible charge of Obstruction of Justice, but that is an iffy....

[dogday]

12. Now I see why no one answers

:rofl:

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dogday]

16. Ah The Personal Attack

how professional....

[OldLeftieLawyer]

20. No, not really

Not after your laughing fit. It was simply an observation.

After all, you never did respond to the post, and so I can only assume you're clueless and use emoticons to try to cover up - failing, of course - your lack of information.

So, consider it an impersonal observation of someone who's not informed.

But, you are henceforth Ignored.

[dogday]

22. You will see an informed post, just not to you nt

And am honored to be ignored :hi:

[stop the bleeding]

19. yeah we are totally clueless, good thing our voting cards say

democrats on them because otherwise we would forget, loosing the elections wouldn't have anything to do with damn machines.:crazy:

keep on setting them up and I'll keep on knocking them out of the park.

This one is going, going, gone.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dogday]

33. I just spit out my drink

:rofl: so hard I can't stand it......

[stop the bleeding]

34. fucking nominated eom

[dogday]

36. Now I know why your name is tabasco

saucy :hi:

[karlrschneider]

25. Public expectoration?

Matriculating? Consorting with thespians? Possession of rape tools?
Driving while stupid!

:D

[Catherine Vincent]

4. For all the crimes he has committed.

[Coexist]

5. being a ham sandwich?

I hear those are very easy to indict.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

7. That line

All it makes me think is that the viewership of "Law And Order" has really added to the mindless vernacular of the American public.

<sigh>

I think it's gonna be the hair. Really.

[Clark2008]

9. LMAO!!!!

Good one!:thumbsup:

[Midlodemocrat]

17. I thought the charges were going to be perjury and/or

obstruction of justice for refusing to cooperate with the Grand Jury. :shrug:

[OldLeftieLawyer]

21. How did you know that?

I don't know what any charges might be, so I'm curious how people know these things.

[Midlodemocrat]

23. Read it somewhere. Don't remember where,

I think I heard someone talking about it on the news when Libby was indicted as well.

Those charges make sense, considering the reasons Libby was indicted.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

26. Naw, they don't,

since no one knows anything.

No charges make sense, since no one knows anything.

Fitzgerald has run - as is his wont - an amazing and leakproof investigation. No one in my circle - we've been Washington lawyers for an average of 30 years each - has ever seen anything like it in this town.

My guess is that Rove's not going to be indicted for anything.

[sofa king]

27. I think I see what you're driving at.

Grand juries' deliberations are secret and in theory there should be no way to penetrate the inner workings of what is going on in there. Officially, we have no idea what they're doing.

Is that where you're going with all this?

If it is, I have to point out that those who testify before grand juries are not held to those same standards of confidentiality, and from witness disclosures (not to mention the steady stream of spin coming from the offices of the defense attorneys) it's possible to create a sketch of what is going on within the grand jury.

How accurate that sketch is remains to be seen, but the sketch can be and has been drawn.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

29. What spin?

I haven't seen any spin from any defense attorneys for people who haven't been indicted. Who are you talking about, because I missed that.

The sketch is laughable, so draw away, but the only reality is that no one knows anything.

So, what spin? Who were the attorneys? This is news to me, since I know some of those folks.

[sofa king]

39. You don't think Luskin and his boys have been spinning?

Here's an example from June of 2005:

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/1642

The author of that blog says: "Okay, so the first thing we know is that this wasn't information that was painstakingly dug out by an intrepid reporter -- the anonymous lawyer made it his personal mission to spread the word as far and wide as possible. That alone points a finger in the direction of Karl Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, who's made several similar multiple-outlet PR forays in the past two weeks. Add in the apparent motivations behind the story, and the chances are approximately zero that the source could be anyone else."

There is of course two years' worth of similar print on the subject. But I get the impression that's not what you mean.

You being a legal mind and all, you wouldn't be pulling a nasty trick on me by parsing the phrase "defense attorneys for people who haven't been indicted," would you? I realize that in logical terms, there is no such thing as a defense attorney for the unindicted. However, Karl Rove does have Luskin in his employ, and Luskin has commented on Rove's behalf on the Plame Affair, and Luskin is suspected by many observers to be the friendly source of information being delivered to the press on a regular basis.

At any rate, I completely agree with you that the sketch is laughable--with some qualifications. If you're sticking to a legal standard of evidence, then the grand jury deliberations are invisible and unknown, and in that reality, nobody knows anything and the people who pretend to know and those who attend to their prattle are suckers.

But just as radio traffic analysis in wartime can be used to make guesses about enemy movements by measuring the volume, location and pattern of their coded and therefore secret deliberations, so too can we make guesses about where Fitzgerald is leading the jury by observing the visible process which surrounds their unknown activity.

Parts of those guesses will certainly be wrong, perhaps even hilariously wrong, but the picture does not have to be infallible to be accurate.

[sofa king]

46. What, too close to "practicing" for you?

So too might be pretending to hold the precedence of legal standards of truth over the far more honest, reliable, and often accurate standard of taking in all available information, considering it in realtime, and holding it up against future events for verification, which is what everyone else is doing here. Do you believe tomatoes are biologically considered to be vegetables as well?

This has always been my biggest problem with legal standards of evidence in public discourse. A "fact" has to run a gauntlet of advocates before it can be accepted as such, and none of those advocates care more about the veracity of the "fact" than the effect it has on the client's case. History is rife with legal "facts" which were not compatible with reality. Tomatoes are not vegetables, no matter what the federal government and the courts claim. The earth is not the center of the universe, no matter what the Vatican and European governments claimed. That didn't make it a "fact," as Gallileo discovered to his dismay.

[spanone]

18. Is that an indictable offense?

:hippie:

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

24. serious question: if he's up on multiple counts of perjury...

and indicted on say, 5 or 6, doesn't that also indicate he should be indicted on obstruction of justice? is a pattern of lying itself obstruction? (I know, it's all speculative.)

[OldLeftieLawyer]

28. What multiple counts?

All this speculation, all this excitement over not knowing anything, and, meanwhile, how many Marines died in Iraq last week?

How much did gas prices rise in your area?

How many people in your community can't go to a doctor or dentist because they don't have any health coverage, and less money?

Have you checked out New Orleans recently?

Got groceries?

And Fuckface romps along, screwing our country while people obsess over what will or won't happen to Karl Rove's legal status.

No wonder Democrats keep getting our asses kicked.

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

31. I SAID it was all speculation. Just asking for your legal expertise,

which apparently is for me to go fuck myself because I'm interested in the possible criminal activity of my nation's leaders. A reasonable interest--in addition to the things on your list--for citizens and not sheep.
Maybe you're right...no indictments are coming. But don't be so shortsighted as to miss the political ramifications if they do. It has the potential to affect everything on your very short list and well-beyond.
And the inability for Democrats to seize political opportunities--and this may well be one...or not--is a big part of why we keep getting our asses kicked.
Don't worry...won't be asking for your help anymore. Thanks for the lecture, though. Wasn't sure who I was dealing with until I got it.

[stop the bleeding]

35. playing well with others was something they never got high marks

for at Lawyer school.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

37. I don't practice law online,

so asking for my "legal expertise" is futile. You should know that. But, it's only a message board, and these are only opinions.

As for my shortsightedness, what does that mean? I think there are no political ramifications, since no one knows anything.

Ask for my "help"?

Oh, that's rich.

Call a lawyer, make an appointment, pay the retainer, and get the information you seek. That's my advice.

And, that wasn't a lecture. They cost more than you could afford.

Now, go spread joy.

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

38. ahhh, six or seven quick stabs, then off into the night....

as for how much I can afford...well, enough to hire a very good lawyer should I ever need one. Guess who that rules out?

[dogday]

41. One who just said in another thread

there are no such things as sealed indictments.. Proved wrong

Targets of the investigation have already been notified, though in sealed indictments the information would be withheld from the public.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47045

[stop the bleeding]

40. here is something for ya

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1217129

[Midlodemocrat]

42. That really isn't very nice. He was just asking your opinion.

No one asked you to practice law, just for your opinion. You have stated over and over and over on this board that you are an attorney, so it was a fair question. I don't see why you felt the need to attack him like that. How do you know how much he can or can't afford?

[Name removed]

43. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ksec]

30. i didnt know who he was before this

I knew Pitt and Truthout, but wasnt familar with Jason.

At the least, its been good debate material/

[Jigarotta]

44. Neither do I, but I do give a fuck

about how it was handled by the heavyweight here.
calling the doubters kool-aider cretins was way out of line.

[Joe Fields]

45. I find it interesting that you don't care....

whether a news source is factual and correct. Why is that? If you believe that the end justifies the means, which is how I am reading you, then that is a dangerous position to take, placing you squarely on the slippery slope that shares space with Bush and his cohorts. I cannot believe you mean to place yourself there. Is there another choice of words that you meant to use?

Just curious. I know the last thing you would want is to associate your philosophies with those of the Bush regime. After all, you are a DUer, and that alone is worth a lot.

[Moderator]

47. locking...

Please continue here:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1224473