Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Steal This Indictment

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 05:26 PM
Original message
Steal This Indictment
"Steal This Indictment"


Scene One: Yale Newman

In his book "Soon to Be a Major Motion Picture," Abbie Hoffman told of a "kid named Yale Newman that everyone picked on in my grammer school because he was always trying to brown-nose the teacher." (page 197) We have all known a Yale Newman. They become more annoying as they reach junior high school, and transform into Young Republicans by their senior year.

Consider, for a moment, that Yale and seven of his friends get caught in what their republican parents might consider a mere prank, but which is actually a dangerous stunt that put the safety of their classmates at risk. At first, the principal does not want to address the "prank" -- because boys will be boys. But enough teachers complain that the principal calls the eight lads into a room, and lets them know that he is going to have to call the police.

While he is calling the police from his office, some of the eight lads in waiting attempt to create a cover story. They agree to place all responsibility on the victims of the prank, a tactic they have used many times in the past. However, when the police officer arrives, they begin to get nervous. It is not the local officer who is pals with their pops. Instead, it is someone from the state police.

Yale recognizes that he may be in real trouble. He begins to blame two of the old gang, Scooter and Dick, for getting him into a fine fix. The investigator calls a few students and faculty in to find out what happened that day. He notices that Yale is growing anxious. He decides to call Yale in. Then he calls in a couple other boys. Then Yale again. Then Scooter. Then Yale again. Then Dick, followed by Scooter for a second time. Then Yale again.

The seven boys begin to get nervous when Yale is in the office for a long time. "Looks like Yale is in trouble," one says. "That's his problem," says Dick. Scooter begins to giggle. But he stops when both Yale and the investigator come out, and the investigator says, "Scooter, your story doesn't add up. I've called your parents, because you are facing suspension. You go into the 'in-school detention' room until your mother gets here."

A few students who can't stand that ole' gang of Yale's are hoping that all of them get kicked out of school. They go into the front office to try to overhear what is going on, and they hear bits and pieces. They hear the investigator tell the principal that the boys aren't telling the truth, but that he knows the "prank" had been planned by Scooter and Dick.

They are moved to joy when they see Yale being called into the principal's office for a 5th time. And who can blame them? None of us liked Yale in grammer school. We grew to dislike him deeply in jr. high, and to hold him in utter contempt by high school. We all want Yale to get not simply suspened, but expelled.

So when the investigator comes out and says, "Okay, Yale, you can go back to class now," we are not happy. Some of us may try to blame the kids who snuck in the main office, to try to overhear any information they could. Others might blame the investigator. And others will pound their fist on their desk and say, "That diaper-faced Newman never seems to get caught for his crap! It's just not fair!" And, indeed, it's not.


Scene Two: How did Yale escape?

It may be worth looking back on the effort to have the US military invade and occupy Iraq, and the roles of Karl "Yale" Rove, Scooter Libby, and Dick Cheney, in order to determine how Karl escaped being indicted. Let's start with the end of the first Gulf War, when Presdent Bush1 decided to stop short of invading Baghdad. A group of neoconservatives were upset. They advocated the US take over the country, to create a US base and to access Iraq's natural resources.

They continued this effort during the 8 years of the Clinton administration. Some neoconservatives attempted to get Israel to invade Iraq. Most pressured Clinton with letters from "PNAC." Dick Cheney and Scooter Libby were among the leaders of this group. Karl Rove wasn't. Neither was George W. Bush.

The neoconservatives recognized in 1999 that George W. Bush would be a "useful idiot" in promoting their agenda, and so they began promoting him in his quest to become president. This included coordinating efforts with Bush's good friend Karl Rove. It should be remembered that President Bush1 had fired Rove for "leaking" information to journalist Robert Novak.

Karl Rove was and is a vicious, cut-throat political operative. His strengths and skills are in the area of party organization and media manipulation. He was not noted as a deep thinker as far as domestic policy, and like Bush, had zero experience in foreign policy. Thus, when the Supreme Court placed Bush in office, Karl's responsibilities did not include planning military strategy for the invasion of Iraq. There are no indications that Karl visited the CIA headquarters, and tried to intimidate analysts who said Saddam posed no threat to the US. The intelligence end went to Dick, Scooter, and the OSP.

Instead, Karl's focus was with the WHIG, which was geared towards media manipulation. The WHIG was geared to sell the war to the American public. That was right up Karl's alley. Karl didn't think up the Niger forgeries, for example, but he was involved in convincing the public that Saddam was preparing to attack the US with WMD.

When Ambassador Wilson began to challenge the Niger yellow cake lies, it concerned the boys from the OSP and OVP. From Wilson's book, we know three important things that are worth mentioning again:

{1} "After my appearance on CNN in early March 2003, when I first asserted that the US government knew more about the Niger uranium matter than it was letting on, I am told by a source close to the House Judiciary Committee that the office of the Vice President -- either the vice president himself or, more likely, his chief of staff Lewis ('Scooter') Libby -- chaired a meeting at which a decision was made to do a 'workup' on me." (page 441)

{2} "According to my sources, between March 2003 and the appearance of my article in July, the workup on me that turned up the information on Valerie was shared with Karl Rove, who then circulated it in administration and neoconservative circles." (page 443)

{3} "Apparently, according to two journalist sources of mine, when Rove learned that he might have violated the law, he turned on Cheney and Libby and made it clear that he held them responsible for the problem they had created for the administration." (page 444)

The operation to damage the Wilsons involved both intelligence (OSP) and media (WHIG) involvement. Scooter Libby's attorneys have attempted to spin it as purely a media event, with the biggest dispute being what reporter brought Valerie Plame's identity to Scooter's attention. By focusing on the media aspect, they attempt to put the ball in the WHIG/journalists' court.

But the truth is that journalists like Novak, Cooper, Matthews, and Russert didn't know about Valerie until the WHIG started spreading her name and identity among journalists. And Karl Rove, the head of that end, couldn't have known about Valerie Plame unless the boys from the intelligence end gave him the information and told him to do his thing.


Scene Three: The Grate Escape

The law that is supposed to punish people for exposing CIA agents in the manner that Cheney, Libby, and Rove did Valerie Wilson is difficult to enforce. Thus, as stated in his press conference last October, Patrick Fitzgerald found other charges to press against Scooter Libby. There seems to be a very good chance that Scooter Libby will be convicted of all five counts that Mr. Fitzgerald
has charged him with.

It seemed likely last fall that Karl Rove would also be indicted for his role in the scandal. Like Libby, it seemed that he was most at risk for being indicted for his attempts to cover up his role. However, because of some work by his attorney, Rove escaped without being charged.

However, Mr. Fitzgerald continued to investigate Rove's role. He testified in front of the new grand jury. Reports by Murray Waas revealed that FBI investigators had been convinced Rove and Novak had engaged in a coordinated effort to "cover" for Karl. Sources close to the investigation, usually defense attorneys connected to other people who testified before the grand jury, were confident that Rove would be indicted.

In early May, Jason Leopold of Truthout reported that Rove would be indicted. This was something that other journalists and people interested in the case had heard. I had been told something similar, and told a few people I was confident he would be indicted. At the approximate time that I had been told that Mr. Fitzgerald would sum up the case for the grand jury's consideration, TO reported that he had been indicted. I also wrote an essay about a Frog March in May, and posted other things on DU that expressed my belief that Rove would be indicted.

David Shuster of MSNBC reported that he believed there was a good chance that Rove would be indicted. Another internet source reported that Dick Armitage faced indictment. There apparently was some activity involving Mr. Fitzgerald's office, Rove's attorneys, and others involved in the case. TO reported Rove had been indicted, and that it was a sealed indictment.

However, Karl Rove is not facing indictment at this time. And there is no reason to expect that will change anytime soon, if ever. And there is no question that this is a victory for Rove. All other things being equal, not being indicted by Mr. Fitzgerald certainly beats being indicted. But that does not mean Rove is an all-powerful genius who came out on top.

The Wilsons' attorney has noted that they may bring a civil suit against Rove. And Congressman Waxman has called for a congressional investigation into how Rove spread classified information. More, the general public is aware that the White House was caught lying when they claimed Karl wasn't involved in the scandal. And the administration is aware that Karl may be called as a witness in the Libby trial.

Finally, some insightful sources believe that Karl Rove may be cooperating with Mr. Fitzgerald. It appears from reading the documents filed in the Libby case that Mr. Fitzgerald is aware that VP Cheney played a more active role in the operation against Joseph Wilson than has been previously disclosed. Although Rove's attorney and spokesman have denied that Karl has made a deal with the prosecutor, Luskin has previously stated that Rove is cooperating with the investigation.


Scene Four: Curtain Calls

The White House is saying that Mr. Fitzgerald's decision not to indict Karl allows Rove to put the scandal behind him. Abbie Hoffman described Yale Newman as "slightly uncouth, with pants that always looked like there was a load hanging in the back." That's the image of Karl Rove that we need to promote. And the load in his trousers is his involvement with Libby and Cheney in the Plame scandal.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 05:30 PM
Response to Original message
1. H20Man
I could be wrong, but my sense is little has changed.

Rove gets a pass - but Fitz has him on a very short leash.

One wrong move and Fitz reels him in - pooped pants and all...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robertpaulsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 05:34 PM
Response to Original message
2. As I said in lala's thread yesterday...
The fact that Fitz didn't end the investigation yesterday when it was announced he would not be prosecuting Rove proves that this investigation is so much bigger than little Donald Segretti's protege. You and I both know that Fitz has bigger fish to fry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 05:42 PM
Response to Original message
3. The habit of this administration in harboring liars and criminals,
promoting them instead of throwing them out the door, should be having the effect of tainting the public's view of entire crew with their collective miscreant reputations.

That goes for Rice, Hadley, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rove, or any of the other obvious criminals whose resume includes responsibility for any of the many disasters that have occurred on their watch. I'd prefer they were cast out, but it's really an opportunity with them in place to highlight their roles as we highlight the crimes and abuses.

Moving on . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 05:49 PM
Response to Original message
4. Excellent summation
very readable, too. I am just home from a couple of hours of dental surgery and I feel lousy, but your post was so compelling, I had to read it. I agree with your analysis of Rove and what we need to do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #4
17. Thanks.
I hope you feel better soon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 07:30 AM
Response to Reply #17
50. Great summary n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
countingbluecars Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 05:57 PM
Response to Original message
5. Great post.
Scene Four says it for me! Indicted or not, Rove is involved.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 05:58 PM
Response to Original message
6. Did you go to school with a guy named Yale?
Edited on Wed Jun-14-06 06:03 PM by leveymg
Betya his pants still don't fit right. Kinda hard to be scared of a turd like that, until he grows up and everyone calls him: Mr. Newman, and everyone returns his calls because he knows where every skeleton is buried in town and where all the dirt is piled. Fantastic memory for slights. What do you owe him? Let's see, it's right there on his Roladex -

Rep._______________. Chair, House Committee on __________.

_____ Canon Office Bldg. Ph. ____________. Fax ______________. e-mail __________.

Fondnesses: sweet rolls; Turkish hashish; Turkish boys.

From Abramoff - $850,000. Norquist - $360,000. Others - $1.6 million.
Bank Credit-Suisse, Acct. No. ____________________. Telex: ________.
Bank of Oman, Acct. No. ___________________. Telex: ________.
Bank of Cayman Islands, Acct. No. ________________. Telex: ________.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Now what is wrong with
Sweet rolls; Turkish hashish; Turkish boys? Sounds like a dream vacation to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. You should run for Congress as a Republican.
Ask Dennis Hastert. He knows where to get the best sweet rolls in DC and Ankara.
:9
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Ew, Hastert
:puke:

That would really ruin the experience for this old hippy girl.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. You're in no danger of being asked to see the moonlight on the Bosphorous
Edited on Wed Jun-14-06 06:40 PM by leveymg
unless your name is Omar. Not by Denny, anyway. :+

On edit: totally kidding about Hastert. Try David Dreier, though.:party:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catrina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 06:14 PM
Response to Original message
8. I would like to ask two questions ~
Edited on Wed Jun-14-06 06:34 PM by Catrina
1) I may be recalling this incorrctly, but didn't Fitzgerald state that he would not be calling Karl Rove as a witness in the Libby trial? That was in response to a request from Libby's lawyers for information regarding what Rove may have discussed, either before the GJ, or with the prosecutor.

Fitzgerald argued that this would not be necessary because he did not intend to call Rove as a witness. The judge agreed, as I remember, and refused Libby's lawyers request.


But, in another filing, Libby's lawyers said they may call Rove as a witness and again made the claim that they needed to know what information Fitz had regarding Rove's GJ testimony ~ their reason was 'in case Fitzgerald could undermine him as a witness by using that information'. Fitz. said he would not be doing that, and again the judge ruled in favor of Fitz. I think I'm remembering this right.

So, my question is, if Fitz doesn't intend to use Rove as a witness in the Libby trial, then does that mean that he, Rove, is totally innocent ~ :rofl: ~ (sorry) or, does he intend to indict someone more important, like Cheney, and needs Rove to testify in that case?



~~~~~~~


The second question I have is with regard to Luskin's official statement that Fitz 'doesn't anticipate 'charging' Rove ~ I read the statement, which specifically said 'charge' ~ it didn't say 'Rove will not be 'indicted'.

The press has been using the word 'indict' also, and that's what everyone has been saying since then. The prosecutor doesn't indict anyone, the GJ does. So, the statement that Fitz does not anticipate 'charging' him, could mean 'he won't be acting on an indictment', couldn't it?


Great post, btw ~ The informer gets off, at least temporarilly. You are so right, that's so often what happens in school ~ and I love the picture of Rove with a load in his pants. He is an odious individual. I think one day justice will catch up with him.

Edited to fix extremely sloppy post ....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. Not "will not charge" but "doesn't anticipate charging"
Edited on Wed Jun-14-06 06:32 PM by robbedvoter
Rove weasled out - for now at least.


He was cleared of nothing.



Load in his pants or not, he'll live to steal another election. he just declared new Hampshire "red".
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060613/REPOSITORY/606130360

In 2004, New Hampshire voted for Kerry, not Bush. Rove said that was an aberration.

"I've got confidence," he said. "I'm here to tell you this is a red state."
Which, considering what they did last time, is not such a big deal (see New Hampshire on this graph)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. "He was cleared of nothing."
I like that. In fact, Mr. Rove was exposed as a lying carp.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catrina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #12
34. Thank you, I added that ~
This is the statement from Luskin.



In a statement, Mr. Luskin said, "On June 12, 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove."



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Patsy Stone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #34
39. Actually, the quote reported in Time is even juicier
Edited on Wed Jun-14-06 10:47 PM by Patsy Stone
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1203504,00.html

"Luskin had just received a fax from Patrick Fitzgerald, the special counsel in the case, saying that he was formally notifying Luskin that absent any unexpected developments, he does not anticipate seeking any criminal charges against Rove."

That's what we like to call "accentuating the positive". Nice job on the NYT spin, Bob!

emphasis mine.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #39
73. It's peculiar to me that Fitz would "Fax" Rove's lawyer, though. It seems
kind of "informal" just to fax. Almost as if Rove's lawyer had lost an original letter and so called Fit's office and said: "Hey Fitz, could you get one of the paralegals to fax me a copy of that letter you sent awhile back...we can't seem to find it in our files." So, Fitz's office faxes the copy of the letter, and the "fax" is dated June 12 thereby giving Rove cover to say he had been told an "indictment isn't anticipated."

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #8
13. Rove on the stand .....
Mr. Fitzgerald stated that he was not planning to call Rove; Team Libby has indicated that they probably will. He would be a risky witness for the defense to call. Even though he has experienced some "memory problems" when it came to his talk with Matt Cooper, it seems likely that what he would say would damage Libby.

I think that "charge" and "indict" can be viewed as the same thing in the media reports on what Mr. Luskins reported that Mr. Fitzgerald told him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
corbett Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #8
16. Regarding Question 2
You're onto something. During the teaser of CNN's AC360 last night, the narrator stated that the grand jury had not indicted Rove. That was wrong. The GJ did indict but Fitz has decided not to charge him because of his cooperation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tenshi816 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 07:20 AM
Response to Reply #16
49. To “indict” means, by definition,
formally charging someone with a criminal offense.

More here: http://www.criminal-law-lawyer-source.com/terms/indict.html

If Rove had been indicted, he would have been charged, because that's what an indictment is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
corbett Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #49
89. Semantically I Agree But...
Unless an interested party files a writ to compel the prosecutor to proceed with the results of a grand jury's bill, he is under no obligation to proceed. It's up to him and only him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #8
21. Passage pertaining to Rove being called to testify
Edited on Wed Jun-14-06 06:58 PM by cryingshame
1. In the government’s response to the third Libby motion to compel discovery, filed on April 6, 2006 (on pdf Page 9 of 39), is this statement:

“Because the government does not intend at this time to call three of these individuals - Mr. Tenet, Mr. Hadley, and Mr. Rove - defendant is not entitled to discovery based on the need to prepare to cross-examine those individuals.”





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catrina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #21
37. Thank you. I remember reading that and wondering what it meant at the
time. Iow, was it good or bad that Rove was not going to be a witness in Libby's case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Patsy Stone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #8
29. And here's Team Irving's desire to call Rove.
From the May 5th hearing transcript:

MR. WELLS: I would submit that if Mr. Rove, for example, who is likely to be a witness –

THE COURT: The government said he won't but maybe you will call him. The government said he will not be a witness for the government.

MR. WELLS: If they don't call him, we're calling him. With respect to Mr. Rove, we believe there is no exception in the case law that says Mr. Libby's discovery rights are diluted because the government has an ongoing investigation.

BTW: I don't anticipate getting hit by a bus -- but you never know.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catrina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #29
38. Thank you ~ Libby's attorneys are very interested in what Rove may
have said to the prosecutor and/or the GJ. If H2OMan is correct, both Cheney and Libby have a lot to fear from Rove ~ and I agree, I think he's been 'cooperating'.

I remember in the beginning everyone was surprised that Bob Novak was not indicted also. Now we know that he cooperated as soon as he was asked to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 04:54 AM
Response to Reply #38
46. There was a time
not long ago when one DUer said she had heard Novak was facing charges. This, of course, had to do with his talking to Rove early on, when the shit hit the fan, rather than on his writing the article that outed Plame. By the time it was discussed here, it had actually been resolved, because Novak is not so tough as he wanted Rove to think he was. It is not the first time Novak gave up a source.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bleever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 06:19 PM
Response to Original message
9. If I may quote Jerry Seinfeld:
"Newman!!"



How did he fit through that grate?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 06:36 PM
Response to Original message
18. Someone should ask Newman these questions:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. Good questions. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jazz2006 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #18
70. Very good questions, indeed. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rosesaylavee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 06:37 PM
Response to Original message
19. Great summation
I would bet good money that Rove flipped as you suggest and my gut says that Fitz is not done with him. He is a very thorough person and there are still too many strings hanging loose here for him to let Rove go completely.

If Cheney is one of the ultimate targets of this investigation doesn't it follow that the *resident is too?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 06:46 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. That's an interesting question.
I have never thought President Bush was involved to the extent that many others do. I certainly respect other opinions, and admit that my beliefs about that are of no more value than anyone else's. However, in recent court filings, it seemed that Mr. Fitzgerald was aware of a different level of involvement on Cheney's part, than on Bush's. Both were involved in the decision to declassify the NIE, which Mr. Fitzgerald notes was not illegal. However, while he has stated Bush was not involved in the decision to out Valerie Plame, he didn't say the same about Cheney.

From the beginning, I have considered Cheney to be the most important target in this case. Libby is a very close second. Next, for me, would be Rove, followed by another tier of criminals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LonelyLRLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 11:35 PM
Response to Reply #20
41. I suspect that Bush/Rove are looking at timing of trials, indictments.
If I recall correctly, Scooter's trial does not start until early next year - long after the 2006 election.

Let's assume Cheney is the big fish target and eventually he will be indicted. However, as time passes, his possible trial very well could be after the 2008 election cycle is over. At that point, no one cares, unless there are some huge leaks that make the case sensational news. Sensational news is news that grabs the attention of the mostly uninterested and politically uninvolved masses.

I think the story is getting too drawn out and too complicated for Joe Public already, and Rove knows that. After all, Rove's interest (other than his own fat ass) is politics and helping his evil friends get really entrenched in power.

Timing is everything in politics - and the timing is looking good right now for Bushco/Rove.

And of course, the crooks could all be pardoned anyhow.

Hope this makes a little sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Patsy Stone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 06:49 PM
Response to Original message
23. I don't think Dick and Karl ever got along
Edited on Wed Jun-14-06 06:54 PM by Patsy Stone
I think Rove resented Cheney and his newly-minted influence over Bush (and the agenda), which usurped KKKArl's own ideas for the WH. I don't think that it's a far cry that Rove would testify to something that would ultimately hang Cheney. Did this happen? I have no idea.

Also: IIRC, Corallo said that this somehow proved that Mr. Fitzgerald found Rove to be a truthful witness "from the beginning". Although I'm still looking for that link. But, BWAHAHAHA! Sure. So truthful he had to come back five times. So good, they couldn't get enough.

He's in it up to his eyeballs, and either has immunity or gave up what Fitz wanted to know during the fifth GJ meeting, negating the need to indict him. Now, with the immunity, he can testify against Cheney.

Why Libby's lawyers want to call Karl, who I don't think had anything to do with the formulation of this particular scheme, is a puzzlement -- except that KKKarl's only purpose in that scenario is to help Libby get Cheney.

K&R.

ed: gram.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. A long time ago,
probably in August 2004, I wrote something about Rove on one of the infamous "Plame Threads." It was a little, off-the-cuff psychological profile of Karl. I explained why an investigator/prosecutor would target Karl with the type of pressure that breaks the weak link of a gang of criminals. I wish that there had been "DU journals" then, because I would have saved it.

I could see Cheney and Rove getting along pretty well when things are going well. But under the pressure of a criminal investigation, they are both manipulative snakes looking out for their own survival. And they both like to blame others for their mistakes. A good investigator/prosecutor studies human nature, and learns the art of exploiting these types of weaknesses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Patsy Stone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. The human nature part
is always the most intriguing. I'm off to look and see if I can find your post. I'd love to read it.

Maybe you're right, maybe they did get along, but as close as Rove and Bush were in the Texas Mafia, it seems that Cheney was one of Daddy's friends, not theirs. It's kind of like you "have" to be nice to that friend of your dad's that you call "Uncle" yet you don't really like the guy and always thought he was a bit of a -- ahem -- Dick.

When they got into the WH (on the back of KKKarl's media savvy and vote-switching friends) and found that Darth was really in charge and they would have to do the master's bidding, they all pulled together for the greater good (lying, cheating and stealing). But I don't think he ever really *liked* him. That's my Inside Baseball moment for the evening. :)

Snakes, the lot of 'em.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #25
76. Plame Indictment & Rove Related Threads
Maybe what you're referring to is in one of these.

Plame Indictment Threads

http://s93118771.onlinehome.us/DU/PlameIndictments.html

Steel & Glass

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2497919

Flies and the Lying Liars Who Eat Thyem

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4102647

DU Street Memo

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4128617

BTW: Saw Richard Armitage on Charly Rose and he said that at no time during this entire process had he even felt the need to hire a lawyer.

shadow government


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #76
78. Neither, as you know,
did Powell. Compare that to the others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #78
80. And He Was Laughing As He Said It
Edited on Thu Jun-15-06 05:49 PM by Me.
He said he did testify but when asked who the original leaker was, he said he couldn't say at this point.

*shadow government*
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Patsy Stone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 08:55 PM
Response to Reply #76
85. It was, indeed, in there.
Thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Patsy Stone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 08:54 PM
Response to Reply #25
84. Here it is:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2497919&mesg_id=2499047

H2O Man (1000+ posts) Sat Oct-16-04 12:24 PM Response to Reply #15

17. Federal Marshalls

often accompany witnesses that present possible security concerns in and out of a federal courtroom.

I want you to think about something. Think of fellows like Scooter Libby, who fancies himself a James Bond character. I'm not joking -- he does. Next consider Eliot Abrams, an old-time con man. Then think about Karl Rove. Who is Fitzgerald going to see as the weak link in the chain?

Karl fits into an interesting personality type. He is a kind of classic very smart nerd. In gym class, Karl is the last kid picked for any team. Who loses the game for any team with Karl on it? Yep. Right or wrong (and of course it is wrong) Karl was picked on by the other kids. He is not good looking. He is plump. He was the last kid in the class to hit puberty, and was picked on in the showers. Karl is an angry young man. He drops out of college.

At this point in his life, Karl is not that different than a Mark David Chapman. The only difference is that he does not have a psychotic disorder. But he is furious because no one but his mother recognizes he is extremely smart. In fact, Karl knows he is a lot smarter than any other the people who torment him.

He joins the republican social outlet that offers support to his kind. And he meets his long-lost unidentical twin: a stupid fellow who has no particular talents, who is at best an average athlete, but who has all the social graces of a rich kid who loves to get plastered, and is willing to spend his dad's money on booze and other things.

In police science, there are certain classic "pairs": heck, even the police use "good cop/bad cop" pairing to their advantage. Then in burglary cases, the police often look for a "Mutt & Jeff" pair, with one suspect being tall and dumb, following directions of a short and relatively smarter partner. In violent crime, such as the classic "In Cold Blood," they look for a sociopath who gets a rush from savagery, matched with a less-intelligent partner who is psychotic.

Rove & Bush fit another pattern. Karl handles the controls, and Bush presents the semi-public face. But Rove is aware that the public can be cruel, and that they pick on people .... he knows this from personal experience. So he is overly concerned the public will find out that George is a dope. He structures George's public persona. The social facade that we call Bush is, I believe, in large part a Rovian anima. (I am curious what friend JackPine Radical could add to this?)

Fitzgerald knows that Rove is an angry, hostile lad. He knows that Karl wants to protect George. And he knows Karl doesn't want to end up in jail .... which is like a never-ending locker room for fellows like Karl.

Now, tell me: did Karl say, "You're wasting your time with me, Fitz. I'm not talking, no matter what the consequence!" Or did he point his finger at the kids he's hated since first grade, and squeal, "They did it! they're the ones!"?


--


Thanks! That was brilliant.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #84
90. Ha!
I like that. Still holds up, eh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Patsy Stone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 09:10 PM
Response to Reply #90
94. It's spot on.
And it was a great read!

:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-17-06 06:34 AM
Response to Reply #94
95. I think it
gives a pretty good picture of who Rove is, and why he is that way, without approaching the cruelty of some comments being made by LJ.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 06:57 PM
Response to Original message
24. That was fun to read
I didn't know any Newman types in high school. However in college I walked into a business class by accident and felt like I was in a room with cyborgs. They were all larger and better looking than other students.

 Add to my Journal Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lala_rawraw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:00 PM
Response to Original message
26. fantastic
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemReadingDU Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 07:44 PM
Response to Original message
28. K&R!
Thanks for everyone's insight, much enlightening
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spuddonna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 08:52 PM
Response to Original message
30. That was fun reading...
When are you going to write a book on all this!? :7

I think you pegged Karl perfectly. And btw, I wasn't pounding my fist on my desk, it was my head when I heard the news about old Yale!

Now if I could only get the "Piggies" song out of my head every time I see KKKarl...

"Clutching forks and knives to eat their bacon"

Here's hoping all these 'bigger piggies' get their bacon fried! :evilgrin:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Patsy Stone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. What they need's
a damn good whacking. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spuddonna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 09:09 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. Exactly...
:evilgrin:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 04:57 AM
Response to Reply #30
47. We need to stop
showing any respect to people such as Karl Rove and Ann Coulter. They have not carried themselves in a way that is worthy of any respect. We need to turn them into national punch lines.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gkhouston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #47
65. okay, mentioning a "national punch line"
Edited on Thu Jun-15-06 12:18 PM by gkhouston
about two posts after Patsy talks about them needing a good whacking... now there's a mental image. We're gonna line up and have 'em run a gauntlet from NYC to LA? :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stepnw1f Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 09:12 PM
Response to Original message
33. Thank You... Very Interesting
I love reading your stuff.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laurab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 10:09 PM
Response to Original message
35. Excellent!
I'm not an "insightful source", but to me, nothing else would make sense - Rove, IMO has to be cooperating. He's an evil snake, but there are even worse evil snakes in that administration (although it's hard to believe it's possible).

Rove is a bully, and probably also a coward - I think most bullies are. And considering Cheney's lack of popularity, perhaps throwing him under the bus wouldn't be an altogether bad thing for these criminals.

Maybe it's wishful thinking, but I see Cheney going down, as he should. It would be nice if Karl could, too, but I'd take the big Dick over Rove anyday.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Missy Vixen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 10:12 PM
Response to Original message
36. Thank you, H2OMan
Another great analysis.

We watch and wait.
Julie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 10:54 PM
Response to Original message
40. Most Excellent Post , H2O Man !!! - K & R !!!
:yourock:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 11:58 PM
Response to Original message
42. Fascinating.I can't keep the actors straight in this byzantine play
So it's very helpful to have you come along every so often with an exposition like this.

It isn't over 'til it's over.

Hekate

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Piedras Donating Member (89 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 02:38 AM
Response to Original message
43. Cheney to be thrown under the bus?
There's a very interesting discussion going on at The Next Hurrah http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2006/06/rove_will_not_b.html#more

Speculation about Dick Cheney getting thrown under the bus:

snip>>>Dick Cheney is dragging down the White House. He is largely responsible for the mess in Iraq. He is trying to sabotage any attempts to negotiate honestly with Iran. And he is exposing everyone in the Administration to some serious legal jeopardy, in the event they ever lose control of courts. At some point, Dick Cheney's authoritarianism will doom Bush's legacy.

But you can't make him quit. His is a Constitutional office, he was elected along with Bush, so you can't make him resign like you can with your Treasury Secretary or your Environmental Secretary. What better way to get rid of him, then, than to expose him to legal proceedings? It gives you the ability (farcical, but no matter) to say that you have severed all ties with his policies and legacies.<<<end snip

cut

snip>>>I'm not trying to give people undue hope, or trying to cheer people up. But it has become clear that Cheney was the architect of this smear, from start to finish. It has been clear that Fitzgerald has Dick in his sights. If Fitzgerald got closer to being able to prove that case, I think it possible that the Texas mafia might sacrifice the person who caused all this difficulty (and who had become the White House's anvil dragging it down) in order to save its beloved Turdblossom.

When I introduced myself to Byron York over the weekend, he said something to the effect of "a lot of people here have high hopes that Rove would be indicted." I responded, "but don't all reasonable people have hopes that Rove will be indicted." York didn't respond. But as soon as I walked away, I wished that I had responded, "No Byron, many of us have even higher hopes that Dick Cheney will pay for his obvious involvement in this case." It's worth noting, by the way, that Byron York appears to have been one of the first, if not the first, to break the news that Rove will not face charges. It's also worth noting that, when we spoke, York tried to make the case that Rove has been cooperating all along. "No Byron," I patiently explained, "I mean Big-C cooperation. The other stuff was just Rove proving his testicular fortitude." York's attempts to downplay the possibility of Rove's cooperation may not mean anything, just 36 hours before he announced that Rove would not face charges. Then again, it might.<<<end snip







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 03:06 AM
Response to Original message
44. The Rook that moves cannot 'Castle the King.'
In this case, Rove had a bowel movement in front of the Grand Jury during Fitzgerald's questioning. :D


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 04:12 AM
Response to Original message
45. Here's a handy chart for your thread H20 Man:
:)



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rosesaylavee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #45
67. Interesting that your 'chain of command'
line doesn't link up with the Decider... hmmmmmm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GeorgeGist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 06:37 AM
Response to Original message
48. As Karl would say...
"That's not the way the world really works anymore, we're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality - judiciously, as you will - we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
midnight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 08:00 AM
Response to Original message
51. Forever Rove will be remembered by
the load in his trousers. Thanks
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
myrna minx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 08:08 AM
Response to Original message
52. Bravo!
:applause: Yet again, you have put it all into perspective.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fovea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 09:17 AM
Response to Original message
53. Very well done
I wondered when I heard the Fitz announcement if Karl had joined the bleedin' choir unindictable.

I personally think he has, and that Dick is going down with a massive cloud of dust, similar to divine strake.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 09:21 AM
Response to Original message
54. Interesting read, as always!
thanks, H2O Man.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
im10ashus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 09:28 AM
Response to Original message
55. Brilliant analysis and summary.
Thanks, as always, for such wonderful perspective.

K&R!

:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gregorian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 10:42 AM
Response to Original message
56. Standing on the shoulders of giants.
I finally see.

Thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 11:01 AM
Response to Original message
57. Very informative and interesting - and entertaining too
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacetalksforall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 11:11 AM
Response to Original message
58. Excellent, excellent essay. A great service to us. We needed that.
Edited on Thu Jun-15-06 11:16 AM by higher class
I have a take that has a slight change of emphasis.

. in all of this we have to keep the motive for this court event out front. My take on the motive is Brewster-Jennings and what they were doing and who benefited. Cheney. Not only from the PNAC aspect, maybe even more from a personal/commercial business aspect (his).

. I believe Cheney is the key person in fulfilling the PNAC plan and what I call the PNAC supporting barons plan. I don't find Cheney and Rove disparate in purpose (which is separate from the ego part of them). I feel Cheney directs Rove while at the same time the entire Party relies on Rove for the day-to-day political strategies and tactics. Charted out we have barons, PNAC plan, Cheney - and branching out from Cheney we have AEI type organizations which are the Cheney/PNAC brain and the ones who figure out the risks, benefits, and hows of all the plans to give the corporations, banks, and military what they want. Branching out from Cheney in the other direction is Rove who besides being Bush's coach and 'manager', is the person who figures out the risks, benefits, and hows of the political side of stuff on behalf of the RNC, Heritage types, etc. He is probably the one who is in charge of the Republican side of Congress along with Cheney.

Another way of saying it - there is a branch for the international (world conquest) side and a branch for the domestic side - as far as operations, not issues.

Rove has to know about all of it to do his job right, therefore he is key to all parts of the investigation, a most important pivot which justifies everything everyone says about it not being over for him.

But, when I go back to the motive for all of this and measure the vitriol of bringing down Brewster-Jennnigs and smearing a family (one comes before the other), I always see Cheney in the hottest seat.

I see conflicts if there are any as between 1) the overall mission of this regime and 2) saving butts from jail. The overall mission calls for Cheney and Rove working together. By logic, this means Rove could have been trying to protect both in his visits to the Grand Juries.

So I am one who thinks it's wasteful to focus on the Wilsons and Rove.
I am one who believes it is worthwhile to focus on Brewster-Jennings and Cheney.
Brester-Jennings means for me, protection of the PNAC/baron world plan and the potential private/commercial benefits for what appears to be - Cheney.

I believe all DU words and emotions about getting Rove is a waste. What will happen to him will happen and it's more theological than gossipy or wishful thinking.

In the meantime, focusing on the Wilsons is good politics for the Republicans. It appears trite to many people and can be easily spun as it has been.

Sadly, there is no one to place the focus on Brewster-Jennings and the world plan. No one will - Admit it. Recognize it. Acknowledge it. And that is where concerned citizens could help their country.

P.S. I don't regret the focus on the Wilsons as I feel I've 'met' one of this country's good citizens in Joe Wilson.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 11:17 AM
Response to Original message
59. He should not of been involved in the first place.....
He was doing something.. So much so, that it was worthy of investigation. Is this the first time Rove has looked trouble in the eye? I would say no, he and trouble have a love affair like two ships that pass in the night...

Rove is damaged goods, his load is so heavy it drags the ground. Good point to post...

As always, your insights into this subject are right on time....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pithy Cherub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 11:34 AM
Response to Original message
60. The corporate media is doing its level best
to rehabilitate Rove so he can be in polite company again. They missed him because he provided sustenance to their dreary lives. they are each others useful tools.

The war begins in the White House and Bush signed the resolution to let Rove loose on Dick. Dick (the overly aggressive soccer parent)needs bush to pardon Libby (the know-it-all fakein school) and maybe himself, but knows it won't happen until after mid-terms. Meanwhile, the prinicpal has to strategically and smartly race the trial clock to get as much on the record before Bush decides to wipe the record.

H20Man, this was par excellence!:applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #60
66. I often think
of Malcolm warning us that if we listened to the corporate media, and believed what they said, we'd end up carrying umbrellas on a sunny day, and getting soaked od the stormy days. I do wish that man were here sometimes! I'd love to see him debate the Sean Hannity/Bill O'Reilly types. More, I'd like to hear him give his views about fellows like Rove, George W. Bush, and President Cheney.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pithy Cherub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #66
69. Perfect analogy
Edited on Thu Jun-15-06 01:20 PM by Pithy Cherub
from our friend Malcolm! But alas, via the written word and your eloquence you have become the embodiment of all that was great about Malcolm by writing as you have. You do him honor and a great service to the rest of us for distilling the elements into a narrative that is for the people. Truth. Always.

As to the crimanal element pervasively in the White House, my guess is that Malcolm would say he paid his debt to society and did his time, now it is time for them to do theirs. Equality for all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 11:36 AM
Response to Original message
61. We May Never Know What Actually Happened
A guy sets out for the movies, tells others he is doing so, walks down a street turns a corner, sees an old friend, decides to go have a drink instead. You never know what is around the next corner, and how circumstances can turn on a dime.

I thought Rove would be indicted in May. All indications were there. So many days since his last appearance, people aren't usually left hanging for so long, Lawrence O'Donnell said we could expect an indictment a week, Murray Waas was pointing an indicator, Rove & Novak sure as heck (IMHO) were trying to obstruct and it goes on and on. But, I went to the movies hoping to see my friend and only found out later that he went for a drink instead.

*shadow government*
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zippy890 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 11:41 AM
Response to Original message
62. uncouth, their pants full of turds
thats just perfect.

excellent summary all around

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wordpix2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 12:01 PM
Response to Original message
63. thanks, H2Oman, I was looking for your post on Rove, you didn't disappoint
:yourock:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
byronius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 12:09 PM
Response to Original message
64. Abbie would have rated this up. Damn, where is he?
As always, light of reason, scientific sifter of mixed fact and fiction, H2OMan, you always spark.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Why Syzygy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 01:05 PM
Response to Original message
68. Didn't Bush say
ANYONE in the WH would have to go? Doesn't that mean Chenney? He is the PNAC claw in the WH. As you stated, W is just the hapless lush goin along for the joy ride. Moron. Unfit for the job whatever the reason. He ask for Chenney's resignation, doesn't he?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mohinoaklawnillinois Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 01:39 PM
Response to Original message
71. Wonderful analysis H20 Man.
Keep up your great work...

:yourock:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lovuian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 06:57 PM
Response to Reply #71
91. That was Great H2O
:bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 01:41 PM
Response to Original message
72. Excellent post....thanks! and a question...
Edited on Thu Jun-15-06 01:43 PM by KoKo01
In your Quote #2 from Joe Wilson's book:

{3} "Apparently, according to two journalist sources of mine, when Rove learned that he might have violated the law, he turned on Cheney and Libby and made it clear that he held them responsible for the problem they had created for the administration." (page 444)

I forget all the timeline, but do you remember when Cheney supposedly got his "declassification" powers. I know there has been some dispute over how far his powers go with that, but reading that quote from Wilson's book made me wonder if Cheney's declassification of Plame's identity got Rove off on that "technicality." Is it possible that Cheney claims he had his power given by Bush to declassify her name before he or Libby gave the info to Rove and that Fitzgerald had to thoroughly check that out before letting Rove off the hook?

For some reason the Wilson quote jumped out at me. :shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #72
74. Good point.
Cheney's "authority" to declassify was acquired in the period in question. It is open to debate if he actually has that power -- which is why Scooter Bug had Dick check with Bush about declassifying the NIE. More, there is no evidence that the president can declassify a NOC's identity for crude political purposes, and surely the VP cannot.

Your point is extremely important. Thank you for reminding us of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #74
75. Ah.....so if this is what happened then Cheney would
Edited on Thu Jun-15-06 02:11 PM by KoKo01
definitely be the Big Fish for Fitz to focus on. Not knowing whether Cheney's power to "declassify" could be challenged legally or rather knowing that he (Fitz) wouldn't have a way to challenge it within the parameters of his investigation he might have felt that there was no way he could charge Rove with anything except perjury and even then there were some discrepancies with Matt Cooper's testimony which might have blocked the perjury charge. Rove is a small fish with so many excuses that might have panned out, whereas Libby was the one (acting on Cheney's wishes) who was the second in command who had the responsibility orchestrating the leak to the Media. Rove, (in this case), was the lackey Political Op who helped carry it out...but not to the extent that Libby did with Judith Miller where there were documented timeline lies. :shrug: Is that what it might be?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #75
77. A lot of federal prosecutors
would have charged Rove. He wouldn't have had the 4th and 5th chance to "explain" himself. There are "experts" saying Mr. Fitzgerald didn't know if he could get a conviction or not. I respectfully disagree; he had to have known he likely could have. But likely could have is half way between absolutely could not (what some pundits claim) and absolutely can (Libby).

My opinion -- and it is nothing more than that -- is that Mr. Fitzgerald recognizes the case is of enormous political significance. It doesn't mean he gave Rove a break; it does mean that it is impossible not to consider the implications. Libby is clear-cut. No question there. But in a case with anyone at this level, the prosecutor has to be sure. He won't charge otherwise. For example, to consider going the next step up, and that is Cheney, he has to have a solid case. That requires having a very high level witness. Scooter doesn't look ready to pop on Cheney yet. He has a sense of loyalty to old Dick Cheney, in a sense that cannot be applied to Rove.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #77
79. I see what you say...
Edited on Thu Jun-15-06 05:42 PM by KoKo01
A friend of mine who goes back to Nixon days said to me that until we have a John Dean who will turn and expose the inner workings of these "evil doers" we are still taking "pot shots in the dark."

I was around during Nixon...so I value this friends opinion. Until someone leaks...we are in the dark. And, given that so many in this Mis-Administration go back to Nixon...one would think they "learned their lessons" and anyone like John Dean was long ago "routed out" and it's such a closed group we are very unlikely to see anyone turn and spill the beans about what's gone on.

Truly sad.. It means we learned nothing as a Nation since Watergate. Everything else has been a "weak band-aid" on the festering pustulence.

:-(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #77
81. Interesting! Fitzgerald has said in his filings that he isn't intending
to call Rove in the Libby trial but, pre-supposing he has intentions of seeking an indictment against Cheney, Rove could very well be that high level witness needed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stop the bleeding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #81
82. Don't forget the other Dick in this trial/investigation
Edited on Thu Jun-15-06 07:59 PM by stop the bleeding
Armitage has been ushered "undercover" into the courthouse on more than one occasion I believe as reported on Countdown. The key word is uncover as in Fitz did not want anyone else to know about Dick Armitage, sounds like to me the police(Fitz) and the principle(Walton) have spoken at length with another member of the clan of 7, a member that is not 5 time Newman. - --- Dick Armitage is gonna help nail Dick Cheney in my humble opinion. I am saying this partly because of the timing of the filings putting Cheney into the spotlight in redards to Wilson's article, and this was about the same time Countdown reported the Armitage covert courthouse visits.

Just my opinion ;)

on edit: I can't believe that I am 24 hours late to this thread, I didn't get the "memo"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #82
83. There's been some "buzz"
about Armitage. I would like to think that someone will pull the plug on this administration, but having seen Armitage's credentials...I do wonder if he would do it. He's kind of an unpleasant looking man...seems very "full of himself," but the rumors are that he and Powell did try to put breaks on Bush/Cheney. But, then those rumors are probably coming from the same folks who've decieved us time and time again. Who really can look at Colin Powell the same way as many of us did years ago. He might be "leaking" but do we know if he is leaking to save his own skin or to save the Bush Adminstration...given that it now seems he lied for them in ways that really mattered before the UN. He left the worst out...but kept in enough to send us into Iraq. He may be loyal to Bush and the "Office of the President" and will never, ever tell all he knows. :shrug: Same with Armitage. He might only tell so much and not all of it..figuring on Pardon's which is the Bush/Reagan History.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #83
92. I was talking to
a friend the other day, about the amount of unresolved issues this country has left over from Vietnam. People who did what Dick Armitage did in that conflict are very, very different than the Dick Cheneyites. The fact that Armitage met with Mr. Fitzgerald without a lawyer, and Cheney hired a private attorney, indicates that each has a very different "comfort level" in potentially tough situations. Armitage isn't as willing to sacrifice American soldiers as Cheney is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #92
93. I didn't know that Armitage
Edited on Fri Jun-16-06 07:48 PM by KoKo01
met without a lawyer. I've seen info that Armitage like Powell was not a "Willing" accomplis in the Plamegate fiasco.

I'd like to believe that there were some who tried to "Push Back." I'd like to separate Armitage from Powell (Powell, I have NO RESPECT FOR) but it seems to me that SOMEONE should have spoken out.

Back to Nixon where John Dean turned and gave evidence bringing Nixon down ...I'd like to think that someone in this "crazy cabal" would have recognized a "Renegade Government" and TURNED and been AGRESSIVE in their turning so as to cause a huge ruckus...like Dean or Dan Ellsberg....but no one so far seems to have the "clout" or perhaps the "backing of an 'informed people'" who could get anyone to listen to them.

I'd like to think that Armitage and a few others were TRUE PATRIOTS...so thanks for your post and info.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-17-06 07:22 AM
Response to Reply #93
96. I think that Powell
betrayed America, and I think he has character flaws that make it impossible to respect him. In an article Carl Bernstein wrote earlier this spring, he noted that Powell has told plenty of friends in private things about VP Cheney that need to be said publicly, in from of a Senate panel investigating the lies that led the country to war.

I don't think that Armitage has the type of cross-over appeal that people like Clarke, Dean and Wilson have shown. I do not think democrats and progressives will ever have reason to feel comfortable embracing him. And I do not see him providing the intellectual appeal to our side that a Kevin Phillips continues to offer in his fascinating books. But he can be viewed as a tough soldier who in his own way is trying to do what is best for the country. Armitage has long intimidated guys like Scooter Libby, who in his fantasy life dreams about being the man Armitage is.

Armitage has a degree of loyalty to the men and women in uniform that people like Bush, Cheney, and Libby lack. His experience in Vietnam created an appreciation for what war really is, that the chicken hawks simply do not have. And those experiences created a similar bond with the Agency, that he had to have been repulsed by the outing of Plame.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 08:55 PM
Response to Reply #82
86. LOL, I, too, was late to the thread, it has been very interesting reading!
Re Armitage, he has been speculated about for sure and could be playing a part as well. Having been the Deputy Secretary of State and not a member of WHIG, the information he would provide would be, imo, different than that which Rove could provide to Fitzgerald with regard to the leak of Valerie Plame's name, etc.

I am in the group that believes Rove has turned, agreed to "continue to cooperate" with the investigation, he has little choice to do otherwise, imo, or he will again be facing charges. It is all speculation to be sure but it is very interesting to try and put the pieces together while, as H2O Man has said, only seeing the top of the iceberg while Fitzgerald sees what is underneath.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wordpix2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #74
88. true, the Cheney "authority" to declassify whatever he wants is debatable
Edited on Thu Jun-15-06 10:23 PM by wordpix2
Of course with this criminal gang, whatever they want, they will do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Patsy Stone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 09:33 PM
Response to Reply #72
87. Yes. There is a moment they didn't know:
From the May 5th Hearing transcript:

MR. WELLS: Just so the record is clear what the grand jury testimony is. He said that the disclosure of the material was a go, then it was a stop and then it was a go. Then he is asked at some point was it possible that you went too fast. He says I could have made a mistake but I know I was supposed to go, then I was told to stop, and then I was told to go.

I wrote a post about it. How strange that they "stopped". What would make thme stop? Um, Unka Dick? Could you go get this thing signed off on?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 03:55 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC