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

POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Sunday, October 30, 2005 16:16
VIEWED: 3808
PAGE 1 of 4

1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE

SIGNYM

Thursday, October 27, 2005 4:02 PM

Just like Xmas when the parents won't wake up! (Thank you Stephanie Miller for that image ) Many many threads ago I started posting about this. At the time I cited a CIA officer who called into a small public radio station, his voice shaking with anger and fear, to say that this all originated from the Old Executive Office Building. You just can't fake that kind of raw emotion. You really can't. From those few sentences I perceived a deep animosity between the WH and the CIA, and realized that if the CIA knew who outed Plame they were actually in a position to do something about it and probably would.

So I spent hours figuring out who tennanted that building (and it ain't easy to find on-line) and narrowed it down to Cheney, Rice, and their respective staff. And having heard how Cheney haunted the CIA building looking for the WMD info that I assumed it was he.

I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that Fitzgerald is hoping to get Rove or Libby turn on the Big Guy (not Bush, he ain't the Big Guy he's the sock puppet). Wouldn't be surprised either if Bush pardons his indicted staff, just like his daddy did.

You may wonder how I knew this was coming. Well, I try not to operate with blinders. That's how I knew 9-11 was coming... and Afghanistan... and Iraq... and the anthrax letters... and the insurgency. (Which is why I was followed by the FBI- too many good, public guesses on my part.) All those people who claim to be hardball realists just ain't got a clue because they're operating on only HALF of the facts. If this sounds like "Nyah Nyah I told you so" that's because it is.

Please don't think they give a shit.

HERO

Thursday, October 27, 2005 4:28 PM

I agree. I can't wait to hear what they are going to come up with. Will they charge high ranking members of the Bush administration for repeating what everyone already knew or will it be for mis-remembering or mis-stating something during an investigation of something in which, it turns out, there is no underlying crime?

Perhaps they will surprise us. They could indict the person who illegally leaked the Grand Jury deliberations and testimony.

Or they could charge the Wilson's. After all she admitted she told her husband her status when they married, which was illegal. She also let it be known to numerous neighbors, who were recalled this week to give last minute testimony about what they knew and when they knew it.

Or they could just dump the whole thing since her status as a covert operative was terminated some years before she was unmasked (in the press that is, she unmasked herself long before she returned to a job in Langley).

Fact is, until something is done, we don't know what they will do. Only the Shadow knows what lurks in the hearts of jurors...and maybe the Washington Post or Greta Van Sustren.

On the upside, Miers is out. Now there will be an ultra-conservative woman appointed who will lead the charge to overturn Rowe. And if the Democrats balk, then obviously a woman can't get a fair hearing. Democrats should have seen this one coming, I called it the day Roberts was confirmed. Feint to the center then hard right, both women or minorities so they can't oppose the running back without offending damn near everyone. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! (For the record I support the Rowe reasoning, but feel the case needs to be revisited periodically to account for changes in the scientific foundation, ie the determinations about sustainable life are based on thirty-year old science and need modernization. Such periodical review will maintain Rowe until science develops enough to allow Rowe to die a natural death by shortening the abortion window rather then overturning sound legal and scientific reasoning.)

H

SIGNYM

Thursday, October 27, 2005 4:42 PM

Quote:
Will they charge high ranking members of the Bush administration for repeating what everyone already knew?

EVERYONE? Then why did it take a memo from the State Department to inform the White House.. a memo marked "S" to indicate it contained sensitive information?

Quote:
After all she admitted she told her husband her status when they married, which was illegal

No.

Quote:
She also let it be known to numerous neighbors, who were recalled this week to give last minute testimony about what they knew and when they knew it

And they unequivocally said they thought they knew her vey well and had no idea that she worked for the CIA.

Quote:
Or they could just dump the whole thing since her status as a covert operative was terminated some years before she was unmasked (in the press that is, she unmasked herself long before she returned to a job at Lnagley

Not true either.

Some people ignore the facts. Others... well, they just let Rush or Hannity of O'Reilly make them up for them!

Please don't think they give a shit.

HERO

Thursday, October 27, 2005 5:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Some people ignore the facts. Others... well, they just let Rush or Hannity of O'Reilly make them up for them!

As opposed to the Clinton News Network, Al Jazeera, and the Daily Show (which I admit...I too enjoy).

H

SIGNYM

Thursday, October 27, 2005 5:22 PM

You know Hero, you might have a point, if I hadn't actually been anticipating a terrorist attack for quite a number of years. I'm not a "fuzzy-headed liberal" who thinks everyone in the world loves us, I'm not so complacent that I have my head deep in the sand, nor do I think that problems can always be solved by negotiation. (When you have two groups with mutually opposing interests, what are ya gonna do?) But I'm not going around with the mindset that any Administration is golden. That is so terribly unrealistic that all reasonable people should reject that mentality out of hand.

I'm prolly going to be followed by the FBI (again) but here's another shoe yet to drop: Nobody has figured out who mailed those anthrax letters. The sophistication behind the production techniques (high purity, uniform size, anti-static coating and all that) should be enough to make anybody crap their pants just thinking about it. SOMEBODY out there is very, very good.

So fling away. You haven't hit the target yet Hero. You really don't know me at all.

Please don't think they give a shit.

DREAMTROVE

Friday, October 28, 2005 5:12 AM

Okay, just one factoid, and I'm not going to argue Valerie Plame, with anyone, but as a ranking official of the Bush Sr. Admin, Joe Wilson had the clearance to know his wife was a spy.

But really, the lefties are playing the fantasy game and I want to join in from the right side, so here's my fantasy evolution of the scenario:

They gnab rove, but the libby link leads to cheney, and they cut a deal for his resignation.

Under pressure from the Senate, Bush appoints McCain to succeed him. This goes reasonably well until the next Bush incompetence scandal, when Bush is pressured to resign. I figure this will take about 6 months.

Now President McCain appoints VP Powell. McCain/Powell start putting back the Bush mess convincingly enough that after a couple of years they run a successful campaign defeating a Kerry/Hillary ticket in '08.

My nightmare scenario looks like this. Same as above, only Bush appoints Jeb. Jeb/Condi run in 08, when the country is losing wars with syria, iran, and venezuela, and they lose resoundingly to kerry/hillary in '08.

I have nothing but respect for Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson, as does Bush Sr. I also want everyone on my side of the aisle to bear in mind when they post that whether you want to claim this is malicious intent as I believe, or simply incompetence and loose lips, that two dozen wmd agents, including one american, lost their lives because this leak, and so the concept "it didn't matter" is disrespectful to America, regardless of your political slant.

KJW

Friday, October 28, 2005 12:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
On the upside, Miers is out. Now there will be an ultra-conservative woman appointed who will lead the charge to overturn Rowe. And if the Democrats balk, then obviously a woman can't get a fair hearing. Democrats should have seen this one coming, I called it the day Roberts was confirmed. Feint to the center then hard right, both women or minorities so they can't oppose the running back without offending damn near everyone. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! (For the record I support the Rowe reasoning, but feel the case needs to be revisited periodically to account for changes in the scientific foundation, ie the determinations about sustainable life are based on thirty-year old science and need modernization. Such periodical review will maintain Rowe until science develops enough to allow Rowe to die a natural death by shortening the abortion window rather then overturning sound legal and scientific reasoning.)

H

I assume you mean Roe v. Wade. Which was revisited in the 90s in Casey v. Planned Parenthood in exactly the way you want. You really need to keep up on your case law, but kudos for foreseeing a change in the law a decade after in happened. :)

GEEZER

Friday, October 28, 2005 2:30 PM

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

"Keep the Shiny side up"

DREAMTROVE

Friday, October 28, 2005 3:09 PM

Democrats actually aren't really the issue. If all republicans vote for someone, that person is confirmed because there are 55. But the problem is, even when pressured to do so even with a fairly extreme amount of pressure, the Senate can't bring itself to support the latest Bush appointees.

Bolton nomination folded, and now the Miers nomination. He should probably listen to the suggestions the GOP Senators are making, rather than brush them off, if he wants to get a nominee confirmed.

HERO

Friday, October 28, 2005 4:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by KJW:
I assume you mean Roe v. Wade. Which was revisited in the 90s in Casey v. Planned Parenthood in exactly the way you want. You really need to keep up on your case law, but kudos for foreseeing a change in the law a decade after in happened. :)

Thanks. I'm very familiar with Casey. Casey was a friend of mine, the governor that is. Last pro-life Democrat ever allowed in the Democratic Party. I left the party when Casey was not allowed to address the 1992 Democratic National Convention on that subject. Turns out the Republicans have a bigger tent when it comes to reproductive issues.

Quote:

...post-Roe neonatal care developments have advanced viability to a point somewhat earlier, these facts go only to the scheme of time limits on the realization of competing interests...The soundness or unsoundness of that constitutional judgment in no sense turns on when viability occurs. Whenever it may occur, its attainment will continue to serve as the critical fact.

We will all miss O'Conner, she can turn a phrase and a legal argument all in one.

Actually I am and always have been staunchly pro-life. However reading Casey, as I have, my legal opinion has changed to reflect the argument put forth above. I found it to be a sound and compelling argument that does much to address the concerns of the legitimate disagreements held by the two sides of the life debate.

I was merely voicing my opinion that Rowe should be periodically revisited without overuling the legal principals. Casey is a case-in-point or good example of what I mean.

Thanks. Try reading the pardon cases from the 1800's if you want a good legal debate. Everybody yells at Clinton for selling pardons, even though the Court said thats ok, but nobody yells at Bush for failing to recall Clinton's midnight pardons, which he had the power to do, even if he and no one else knew it.

H

1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE