BuSh lies again. How come he hasn't fired Rove as promised?

[fossten]

More proof that the Karl Rove (non)story is nothing more than a LibDem anti-Bush smear campaign.


White House Watch: Bracing for new Rove attacks
Posted 8/4/05

By Paul Bedard

White House officials and senior Republican strategists are bracing for a new round of attacks on Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove's involvement in the CIA leak probe, as Democrats move to take advantage of the slow news cycle in August. But insiders say they don't expect to hear anything new in the charges.

"There is no new news," says one senior White House adviser and Rove ally. "Rove is cool as a cucumber."

The Democrats, nonetheless, are looking at the case involving the leak of the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame as a way to paint the White House as stonewalling a legitimate investigation. Coupled with the Bush administration's decision not to provide all documents related to Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts, some Democrats believe they can make the case that the White House isn't being honest with the public. Part of the strategy was unveiled this week when the Democratic National Committee released a fact sheet titled "Mr. Bush, Tear Down That Stone Wall." The opening paragraph said the theme will be built on every day.

"A daily service of the DNC, 'Mr. Bush, Tear Down That Stone Wall!' will highlight a specific fact that has been revealed and what Americans deserve to know about the White House's involvement in the improper and possibly illegal disclosure of an undercover CIA agent's identity for political gain." A DNC official said that "our main point has been that this is about more than just Rove; there was an internal working group focused on discrediting Joe Wilson," Plame's husband, who before her CIA connection was leaked had publicly criticized the Bush administration for its handling of intelligence on Iraq's weapons-making capability.

Democrats claim that Rove was a part of the discrediting operation. "This is bigger than Rove," said the official.

 

[97silverlsc]

More like:

 

[mespock]

More like:

Well that's about how is it but if you are one of those conservative you can get way with murder!!!

Amazing how the law only sees what the conservatives want them to see..

Damn it great to be liberal!!! It's easier to wake up in the morning and know you have a life...

 

[Kbob]

Well that's about how is it but if you are one of those conservative you can get way with murder!!!

Amazing how the law only sees what the conservatives want them to see..

Damn it great to be liberal!!! It's easier to wake up in the morning and know you have a life...

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahashahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahashahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhhhahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahhhahahahahahahahahhahahaahahahahahhahahahhahahaha.

You crack me up with your naivete. (me wipes tears from eyes)

 

[MAllen82]

.

 

[fossten]

.

:I

 

[MAllen82]

haha, sorry, I posted in the wrong thread, and didn't know how to delete it.

 

[97silverlsc]

Karl Rove Indicted on Charges of Perjury, Lying to Investigators
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Report
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051306W.shtml
Saturday 13 May 2006

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald spent more than half a day Friday at the offices of Patton Boggs, the law firm representing Karl Rove.

During the course of that meeting, Fitzgerald served attorneys for former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove with an indictment charging the embattled White House official with perjury and lying to investigators related to his role in the CIA leak case, and instructed one of the attorneys to tell Rove that he has 24 hours to get his affairs in order, high level sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said Saturday morning.

Robert Luskin, Rove's attorney, did not return a call for comment. Sources said Fitzgerald was in Washington, DC, Friday and met with Luskin for about 15 hours to go over the charges against Rove, which include perjury and lying to investigators about how and when Rove discovered that Valerie Plame Wilson was a covert CIA operative and whether he shared that information with reporters, sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said.

It was still unknown Saturday whether Fitzgerald charged Rove with a more serious obstruction of justice charge. Sources close to the case said Friday that it appeared very likely that an obstruction charge against Rove would be included with charges of perjury and lying to investigators.

An announcement by Fitzgerald is expected to come this week, sources close to the case said. However, the day and time is unknown. Randall Samborn, a spokesman for the special prosecutor was unavailable for comment. In the past, Samborn said he could not comment on the case.

The grand jury hearing evidence in the Plame Wilson case met Friday on other matters while Fitzgerald spent the entire day at Luskin's office. The meeting was a closely guarded secret and seems to have taken place without the knowledge of the media.

As TruthOut reported Friday evening, Rove told President Bush and Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten, as well as a few other high level administration officials, that he will be indicted in the CIA leak case and will immediately resign his White House job when the special counsel publicly announces the charges against him, according to sources.

Details of Rove's discussions with the president and Bolten have spread through the corridors of the White House, where low-level staffers and senior officials were trying to determine how the indictment would impact an administration that has been mired in a number of high-profile political scandals for nearly a year, said a half-dozen White House aides and two senior officials who work at the Republican National Committee.

Speaking on condition of anonymity Friday night, sources confirmed Rove's indictment was imminent. These individuals requested anonymity saying they were not authorized to speak publicly about Rove's situation. A spokesman in the White House press office said they would not comment on "wildly speculative rumors."

Rove's announcement to President Bush and Bolten comes more than a month after he alerted the new chief of staff to a meeting his attorney had with Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald in which Fitzgerald told Luskin that his case against Rove would soon be coming to a close and that he was leaning toward charging Rove with perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to investigators, according to sources close to the investigation.

A few weeks after he spoke with Fitzgerald, Luskin arranged for Rove to return to the grand jury for a fifth time to testify in hopes of fending off an indictment related to Rove's role in the CIA leak, sources said.

That meeting was followed almost immediately by an announcement by newly-appointed White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten of changes in the responsibilities of some White House officials, including Rove, who was stripped of his policy duties and would no longer hold the title of deputy White House chief of staff.

The White House said Rove would focus on the November elections and his change in status in no way reflected his fifth appearance before the grand jury or the possibility of an indictment.

But since Rove testified two weeks ago, the White House has been coordinating a response to what is sure to be the biggest political scandal it has faced thus far: the loss of a key political operative who has been instrumental in shaping White House policy on a wide range of domestic issues.

Rove testified that he first found out about Plame Wilson from reading a newspaper report in July 2003 and only after the story was published did he share damaging information about her CIA status with other reporters.

However, evidence has surfaced during the course of the two-year-old investigation that shows Rove spoke with at least two reporters about Plame Wilson prior to the publication of the column.

The explanation Rove provided to the grand jury - that he was dealing with more urgent White House matters and therefore forgot - has not convinced Fitzgerald that Rove has been entirely truthful in his testimony and resulted in the indictment.

Some White House staffers said it's the uncertainty of Rove's status in the leak case that has made it difficult for the administration's domestic policy agenda and that the announcement of an indictment and Rove's subsequent resignation, while serious, would allow the administration to move forward on a wide range of issues.

"We need to start fresh and we can't do that with the uncertainty of Karl's case hanging over our heads," said one White House aide. "There's no doubt that it will be front page news if and when (an indictment) happens. But eventually it will become old news quickly. The key issue here is that the president or Mr. Bolten respond to the charges immediately, make a statement and then move on to other important policy issues and keep that as the main focus going forward."

 

[97silverlsc]

CIA Leak Court Filing Focuses on Cheney
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060513...sZGsKWs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-
By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer Sat May 13, 7:30 PM ET

WASHINGTON - In a new court filing, the prosecutor in the
CIA leak case revealed that Vice President
Dick Cheney made handwritten references to CIA officer
Valerie Plame — albeit not by name — before her identity was publicly exposed.

The new court filing is the second in little more than a month by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald mentioning Cheney as being closely focused with his then-chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, on Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson, who is married to Plame.

With the two court filings, Fitzgerald has pointed to an important role for the vice president in the weeks leading up to the leaking of Plame's identity.

In the latest court filing late Friday, Fitzgerald said he intends to introduce at Libby's trial in January a copy of Wilson's op-ed article in The New York Times "bearing handwritten notations by the vice president." The article was published on July 6, 2003, eight days before Plame's identity was exposed by conservative columnist Bob Novak.

The notations "support the proposition that publication of the Wilson Op Ed acutely focused the attention of the vice president and the defendant — his chief of staff — on Mr. Wilson, on the assertions made in the article and on responding to those assertions."

The article containing Cheney's notes "reflects the contemporaneous reaction of the vice president to Mr. Wilson's Op Ed article," the prosecutor said. "This is relevant to establishing some of the facts that were viewed as important by the defendant's immediate superior, including whether Mr. Wilson's wife had 'sent him on a junket,' the filing states.

The reference is to the fact that the CIA sent Wilson on a trip to Africa in 2002 to check out a report that
Iraq had made attempts to acquire uranium yellowcake from Niger.

Wilson concluded that it was highly doubtful an agreement to purchase uranium had been made.

The Bush administration used the intelligence on supposed efforts by Iraq to acquire uranium from Africa to bolster its case for going to war.

After the invasion, with the Bush White House under pressure because no weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq, Wilson wrote the op ed piece for The Times. In it, he accused the Bush administration of exaggerating prewar intelligence to exaggerate an Iraqi threat from weapons of mass destruction.

Defending the administration against Wilson's accusations, Libby and presidential adviser Karl Rove promoted the idea that Wilson's wife, Plame, had sent him on the trip to Africa. Administration critics have said such a move was an attempt to undercut Wilson's credibility.

 

[fossten]

Karl Rove Indicted on Charges of Perjury, Lying to Investigators
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Report
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051306W.shtml
Saturday 13 May 2006

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald spent more than half a day Friday at the offices of Patton Boggs, the law firm representing Karl Rove.

During the course of that meeting, Fitzgerald served attorneys for former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove with an indictment charging the embattled White House official with perjury and lying to investigators related to his role in the CIA leak case, and instructed one of the attorneys to tell Rove that he has 24 hours to get his affairs in order, high level sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said Saturday morning.

Robert Luskin, Rove's attorney, did not return a call for comment. Sources said Fitzgerald was in Washington, DC, Friday and met with Luskin for about 15 hours to go over the charges against Rove, which include perjury and lying to investigators about how and when Rove discovered that Valerie Plame Wilson was a covert CIA operative and whether he shared that information with reporters, sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said.

It was still unknown Saturday whether Fitzgerald charged Rove with a more serious obstruction of justice charge. Sources close to the case said Friday that it appeared very likely that an obstruction charge against Rove would be included with charges of perjury and lying to investigators.

An announcement by Fitzgerald is expected to come this week, sources close to the case said. However, the day and time is unknown. Randall Samborn, a spokesman for the special prosecutor was unavailable for comment. In the past, Samborn said he could not comment on the case.

The grand jury hearing evidence in the Plame Wilson case met Friday on other matters while Fitzgerald spent the entire day at Luskin's office. The meeting was a closely guarded secret and seems to have taken place without the knowledge of the media.

As TruthOut reported Friday evening, Rove told President Bush and Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten, as well as a few other high level administration officials, that he will be indicted in the CIA leak case and will immediately resign his White House job when the special counsel publicly announces the charges against him, according to sources.

Details of Rove's discussions with the president and Bolten have spread through the corridors of the White House, where low-level staffers and senior officials were trying to determine how the indictment would impact an administration that has been mired in a number of high-profile political scandals for nearly a year, said a half-dozen White House aides and two senior officials who work at the Republican National Committee.

Speaking on condition of anonymity Friday night, sources confirmed Rove's indictment was imminent. These individuals requested anonymity saying they were not authorized to speak publicly about Rove's situation. A spokesman in the White House press office said they would not comment on "wildly speculative rumors."

Rove's announcement to President Bush and Bolten comes more than a month after he alerted the new chief of staff to a meeting his attorney had with Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald in which Fitzgerald told Luskin that his case against Rove would soon be coming to a close and that he was leaning toward charging Rove with perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to investigators, according to sources close to the investigation.

A few weeks after he spoke with Fitzgerald, Luskin arranged for Rove to return to the grand jury for a fifth time to testify in hopes of fending off an indictment related to Rove's role in the CIA leak, sources said.

That meeting was followed almost immediately by an announcement by newly-appointed White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten of changes in the responsibilities of some White House officials, including Rove, who was stripped of his policy duties and would no longer hold the title of deputy White House chief of staff.

The White House said Rove would focus on the November elections and his change in status in no way reflected his fifth appearance before the grand jury or the possibility of an indictment.

But since Rove testified two weeks ago, the White House has been coordinating a response to what is sure to be the biggest political scandal it has faced thus far: the loss of a key political operative who has been instrumental in shaping White House policy on a wide range of domestic issues.

Rove testified that he first found out about Plame Wilson from reading a newspaper report in July 2003 and only after the story was published did he share damaging information about her CIA status with other reporters.

However, evidence has surfaced during the course of the two-year-old investigation that shows Rove spoke with at least two reporters about Plame Wilson prior to the publication of the column.

The explanation Rove provided to the grand jury - that he was dealing with more urgent White House matters and therefore forgot - has not convinced Fitzgerald that Rove has been entirely truthful in his testimony and resulted in the indictment.

Some White House staffers said it's the uncertainty of Rove's status in the leak case that has made it difficult for the administration's domestic policy agenda and that the announcement of an indictment and Rove's subsequent resignation, while serious, would allow the administration to move forward on a wide range of issues.

"We need to start fresh and we can't do that with the uncertainty of Karl's case hanging over our heads," said one White House aide. "There's no doubt that it will be front page news if and when (an indictment) happens. But eventually it will become old news quickly. The key issue here is that the president or Mr. Bolten respond to the charges immediately, make a statement and then move on to other important policy issues and keep that as the main focus going forward."

You'd better hope this doesn't turn out to be false, or that website will have to change its name.

How come none of the Drive-by Media sources have jumped ALL over this story? It's NOWHERE else in the media.

 

[Calabrio]

If he wants to be taken serious, or generate discussion, could SilverLSC stop document dumping so much crap from completely irreputable sources? It's really annoying, and the crap is so skewed and so innaccurate it can't be discussed. It's so bad, you just have to dismiss the entire thing.

 

[fossten]

If he wants to be taken serious, or generate discussion, could SilverLSC stop document dumping so much crap from completely irreputable sources? It's really annoying, and the crap is so skewed and so innaccurate it can't be discussed. It's so bad, you just have to dismiss the entire thing.

Hah. Try getting him to do that. He's an amateur drive-by blogger, spewing forth baloney in the hopes it gets a rise out of conservatives. It doesn't matter how many times you OWN him, he keeps doing it.

This has been mentioned many times before, and nobody takes him seriously.

 

[fossten]

Where are you, Phil? No response to the absolute REFUTING of your lefty wacko article?

 

[fossten]

Oh, Phiiiiiiiiilllll! Yoo-hoo!

Quoting Marc Ash, Tim Grieve from salon.com


http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/05/20/truth...

From Truthout, an apology, of sorts, for reporting Rove's indictment

A week after proclaiming that Karl Rove has already been indicted on charges of perjury and lying to federal investigators, Truthout has issued a rather inscrutable partial apology.

"The time has now come. . . to issue a partial apology to our readership for this story," Truthout Executive Director Marc Ash said in a post on the site Friday. "While we paid very careful attention to the sourcing on this story, we erred in getting too far out in front of the news cycle. In moving as quickly as we did, we caused more confusion than clarity. And that was a disservice to our readership and we regret it. As such, we will be taking the wait-and-see approach for the time being. We will keep you posted."

An apology for "getting too far out in front of the news cycle"? How's that again? Where we come from, reporters try to get out in front of the news cycle. It's called aggressive reporting, breaking some news, a scoop. And it's not the sort of thing that warrants an apology -- unless, of course, you've gotten the story wrong.

...


So, once again, why the "partial apology" now?

Ash said that Truthout needs to "cool down the reactor a little bit" as it tries to learn more about the "cycle" on which Fitzgerald's legal team is working. "We're not in a position to continue on without an official confirmation," he said. "Unless we get some official confirmation, we're going to look stupider and stupider."

 

[fossten]

Ash said that Truthout needs to "cool down the reactor a little bit" as it tries to learn more about the "cycle" on which Fitzgerald's legal team is working. "We're not in a position to continue on without an official confirmation," he said. "Unless we get some official confirmation, we're going to look stupider and stupider."

Other than Barry's self-indulgent "Bush poll numbers" thread, this is the longest thread I know of in this forum, and it's TOTALLY BOGUS.

Guess who looks stupider and stupider?

Oh Phil! Where are you?

 

[fossten]

Just a little happy trip down memory lane...

These quotes are all from this thread, circa mid-July 2005.

How do you like your crow Bryan?

Bryan,

Rove may not have committed any crime. In that case the President has no obligation to get rid of him. However, If indeed he did reveal an agent's identity in revenge for criticism is that not a major moral infraction? Rove has been referred to as "Bush's Brain". Should that person be advising our CIC?

Bryan,

Don't be naive. This isn't over yet.

Gloat all you want. It's not over.

Whatever you say Bryan. I guess we'll just have to wait for the Justice Dept. ruling.

- Barry

But your statement that she, not Rove deserves scrutiny is idiotic. Revealing the identity of a covert CIA operative is a crime akin to treason.

The Justice department is conducting the investigation, not the NYTimes.

It's far from over, Repugs!!

- 97SilverLSC (Phil)

So Barry, if Rove is exonerated, will you apologize?

It's time to pay the piper, libs.