Waiting for indictments: Libby, Rove and....

POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Sunday, October 30, 2005 16:16
VIEWED: 3808
PAGE 2 of 4

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE

SIGNYM

Friday, October 28, 2005 4:53 PM

Quote:
Well, Rove has been informed he won't be indicted today (10/28). Investigation not complete. Check any news source for details.

I heard that Fitzgerald is looking into the issue of who made that CLUMSY forgery of a uranium document. So Rove gets to dangle over he abyss for a while. Heh heh heh heh

"Keep the Shiny side up" Ooooh I will!!

Please don't think they give a shit.

HERO

Friday, October 28, 2005 4:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Well, Rove has been informed he won't be indicted today (10/28). Investigation not complete. Check any news source for details.
I heard that Fitzgerald is looking into the issue of who made that CLUMSY forgery of a uranium document. So Rove gets to dangle over he abyss for a while.

They'll never indict Rove. I'm as sure of that as I am that Mr. Sulu craves the loving embrace of a good woman.

What? DAMN IT!!!!

H

KJW

Friday, October 28, 2005 5:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

They'll never indict Rove. I'm as sure of that as I am that Mr. Sulu craves the loving embrace of a good woman.

What? DAMN IT!!!!

H

OK that was really funny.

Hero, as for Casey and Roe, I was just teasing with my quip. Actually, I think you are right that the issue needs to be regularly revisited. I also like the reasoning in Casey, it makes sound legal sense and like you said the science is constantly changing. If I had to be pinned to a side on the abortion issue, I would also be pro-Life, and as a Democrat I agree the party is a little too hardline on this issue, though I understand the reasons for that position.

Though on the other hand I find most Republicans who are pro-Life to favor the death penalty, in vitro fertilization, and preemptive war which to me makes no sense if one is pro-Life. Thus I am still in the Democrat camp. Ah, politics what is there not to love about it!

GEEZER

Friday, October 28, 2005 6:41 PM

Hmm. Interesting.

Quote:
The grand jury indictment charged Libby with one count of obstruction of justice, two of perjury and two false statement counts. If convicted on all five, he could face as much as 30 years in prison and $1.25 million in fines.

In each of the counts, the basic allegation against Libby is that he lied to investigators or Fitzgerald's grand jury about his conversations with reporters. He is not accused of purposely revealing the identity of a covert officer, the potential charge that Fitzgerald was initially appointed to investigate.

http://northernvirginia.cox.net/cci/newsnational/national?_mode=view&_
state=maximized&view=article&id=D8DH6IUO8

So we still have no one charged with outing Ms. Plame. I thought that was the whole purpose of the excercise...or was it?

Oh, and here's a link to the indictment.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libby_indictment_28102005.
pdf

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SEVENPERCENT

Friday, October 28, 2005 6:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Turns out the Republicans have a bigger tent when it comes to reproductive issues.

I'm sorry - Was this satire or sarcasm? I couldn't tell. Don't really want to derail this thread off-topic, but given that the GOP is the party of so-called 'pro-life;' the party that preaches abstinence-only programs scientifically proven to not work; the party supporting pharmacists refusing to fill prescription birth control; and the party that removed prophylactic information off the CDC website, I think their tent is not so big as you might like.

Good one Hero. You must have been kidding.

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

SIGNYM

Friday, October 28, 2005 7:40 PM

Quote:
So we still have no one charged with outing Ms. Plame. I thought that was the whole purpose of the excercise...or was it?

Actually, Special Prosecutors (like Independent Prosecutors) get to roam wherever the trail leads. Indicting anyone under the 1982 law is difficult because you have to prove "intent".

Quote:
Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States...

From you question I assume that you think it's okay that the VPs' Chief Aide deliberately lied to a Grand Jury about matters of national intelligence. However, the investigation is ongoing and we'll see what turns up.

Please don't think they give a shit.

GEEZER

Friday, October 28, 2005 7:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
So we still have no one charged with outing Ms. Plame. I thought that was the whole purpose of the excercise...or was it?
Actually, Special Prosecutors (like Independent Prosecutors) get to roam wherever the trail leads. Indicting anyone under the 1982 law is difficult because you have to prove "intent".
Quote:
Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States...
From you question I assume that you think it's okay that the VPs' Chief Aide deliberately lied to a Grand Jury about matters of national intelligence. However, the investigation is ongoing and we'll see what turns up.

Please don't think they give a shit.

No. I don't thnk it's OK. I'm just wondering if the whole investigation wasn't set up just so the special prosecutor could "get to roam" and cause discomfort to the administration. Hey, if you can have your grandiose conspiracy theories, why can't I have just one little one every now and then?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Friday, October 28, 2005 8:09 PM

Well, the investigation was requested by the CIA so you would have to look into their institutional motives. Possibly they wanted to get even for getting tarred with the "bad intelligence" rap all the time. (Oh, BTW, it appears that Cheney w/held important information from the Commission on that.) Possibly they were just pissed off at having an officer exposed.

Please don't think they give a shit.

XANDERHARRIS

Saturday, October 29, 2005 3:43 PM

sorry off topic.....

"the party that preaches abstinence-only programs scientifically proven to not work."

are you trying to suggest that abstinence doesn't work? that somehow you can have babies and get STDs from not having sex?

sorry i'm really big on self responsiblity and self control. abstinence is the perfect solution. i'm not saying that everyone should abstane, but common sense dictates that if you don't have sex, you won't have babies or get STDs. and be RESPONSIBLE for your actions if you choose to have sex.

SEVENPERCENT

Saturday, October 29, 2005 7:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by XanderHarris:
sorry off topic.....

"the party that preaches abstinence-only programs scientifically proven to not work."

are you trying to suggest that abstinence doesn't work? that somehow you can have babies and get STDs from not having sex?

Nope. That's not what I was suggesting at all; I do know how the human body works and that if tab A doesn't go into slot B, you wont have infant, C.

I said, the programs don't work (read the sentence). They have plenty of evidence to show that the programs themselves are ineffective, misleading, and unwilling to take into account factors that include kids who think anal sex isn't sex, or that aren't taught methods of contraception should they decide to have intercourse.

Here are a few links, just from the first few off a google search:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A26623-2004Dec1?language=prin
ter

http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/stateevaluations/

http://www.valleyskeptic.com/abstinence.html

And a good basic quote of the problem:

Quote:

Thus, when the president suggests that abstinence is 100% effective, he is implicitly citing its perfect-use rate—and indeed, abstinence is 100% effective if "used" with perfect consistency. But common sense suggests that in the real world, abstinence as a contraceptive method can and does fail. People who intend to remain abstinent may "slip" and have sex unexpectedly. Research is beginning to suggest how difficult abstinence can be to use consistently over time. For example, a recent study presented at the 2003 annual meeting of the American Psychological Society (APS) found that over 60% of college students who had pledged virginity during their middle or high school years had broken their vow to remain abstinent until marriage. What is not known is how many of these broken vows represent people consciously choosing to abandon abstinence and initiate sexual activity, and how many are simply typical-use abstinence failures.

Note that the problem isn't with abstinence, it's with a party that continually chooses to ignore the failure rate of abstinence and chooses to mislead young people about the value of prophylactic measures. Abstinence is a great method -- If you can get it to work. And therein lies the problem, and my point. Short of chastity belts, electric shock treatment, and tracking devices, abstinence only programs are typically going to be a waste of time.

And again, sorry for the threadjack -
------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE