Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Has there been anything on the Rove indictment??? I keep thinking

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
 
movonne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-24-06 10:06 AM
Original message
Has there been anything on the Rove indictment??? I keep thinking
about what I read that maybe gonzales had the indictment sealed...God I hope not, but anything is possible in this administration...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
kstewart33 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-24-06 10:14 AM
Response to Original message
1. My bet is that something will happen tomorrow or Friday.
Most "sources" are saying action (or not) will come by the end of May. Can't see Fitz acting over Memorial Day. So late this week seems more likely.

Sealed or not, an indictment's the same.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MallRat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-24-06 10:23 AM
Response to Original message
2. deleted...
Edited on Wed May-24-06 10:24 AM by MallRat
...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldLeftieLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-24-06 10:27 AM
Response to Original message
3. There is no indictment
That's all anyone knows.

There is no indictment.

Gonzales is recused from this matter, and cannot intevene. Plus, courts seal indictments, not AGs.

Relax.

When something valid happens, Patrick Fitzgerald will announce it.

Until then, no one knows anything, except that there is no indictment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hugin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-24-06 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. I have a question for you...
I heard yesterday that Fitzgerald isn't a "Special Prosecutor" in the
sense of previous investigations and therefore lacks the autonomy and
independence of a "Special Prosecutor". Which, what I was reading, came
to the conclusion there are many avenues of impeding or overturning
the current investigation.

I'm not up on my nuance in these matters. But, doesn't that mean this
could all really be for nothing? Someone behind the scenes could just
throw the switch and it would be over?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldLeftieLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-24-06 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. Read up on Fitzgerald,
read about his other job, the one in Illinois. Find out how the law works, and under what kind of mandate he's currently operating with regard to the Plame outing. You'll appreciate it more if you research it yourself, and it's readily available in a multitude of sources.

Then, understand that, in our legal system, there is no "behind the scenes." Someone's told you that there are people who can make things happen within the judicial system, but those people lied to you. Same as that article claimed a "sealed indictment" had been handed down almost two weeks ago, which was, and continues to be, absolute twaddle.

You'll like what you learn about Fitzgerald and his impeccable reputation for hard work, fairness, and getting to the heart of the matter. His conviction record ain't bad, either.

It's all for something, and the legal system is working. Perhaps not as quickly as some people would wish, but the wheels of justice, as they say, grind exceedingly slow, and exceedingly fine. The results may not comport with the bloodlust for a Rove indictment that seems to compell a lot of people to do and say silly things, but the results will be whatever Fitzgerald and his brilliant staff can glean from what has happened.

In the meantime, the really big story is the Libby case. That's where the action is, in case you were wondering. The CIA hasn't taken kindly to how this administration has treated them - particularly Mary McCarthy - and that has turned out to be very, very bad news for Scooter Libby. So, keep your eye on that, and watch what happens.

Have fun.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
movonne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-24-06 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #8
20. Thank you ... I appreciate your post ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-24-06 10:29 AM
Response to Original message
4. Gonzalez can't seal anything
Only the judge can do that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-24-06 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #4
17. Not only that, Gonzalez cannot TOUCH this case
He is REEEEEEEEECUSED and REFUSED!!! He has absolutely NUTHIN' to do with it, he can't touch Fitzgerald, though we know he'd dearly love to dip his beak in. That's what happens when you are formerly a WH counsel with working ties to those under investigation!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-24-06 10:33 AM
Response to Original message
6. Where did the newspaper clipping with
Cheney's handwriting come from? It was filed May 12, 2006 in the Libby case...

I know Libby would not of supplied evidence against himself, and I know Cheney would not release evidence that incriminates himself... So how did Fitzgerald get this important piece of information?

Anyone have any ideas on this????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-24-06 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. My best guess is that is was turned over by a cooperating witness.
Libby knows who it is you can be sure. I think that is why Fitz included that little tidbit in his filing, to fuck with Libby's head. Now who could that have been?? Rove, Hadley, Matalin, take a guess. That is all we can do until the book comes out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-24-06 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. It had to be someone in the know
Edited on Wed May-24-06 10:49 AM by dogday
This came from Cheney's desk....You have to wonder who had that kind of access???? The May 12, 2006 of this document is also telling....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-24-06 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. That is just the date the info was stuck into a Fitz filing.
We don't know when Fitz got the handwritten notes on the NYT edition. If you read the motions and responses you will find that Team Fitz adds a little snark in each and every one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-24-06 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. True but it was a late evening filing
and that gives me pause...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemReadingDU Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-24-06 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #9
15. could be Armitage
The word is that Armitage is cooperating
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-24-06 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #6
18. Probably right out of the files
If it's a working memo from the VP, even if it is written on toilet paper, they keep it. And make ten copies....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deansyawp Donating Member (64 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-24-06 10:35 AM
Response to Original message
7. no news
No new news other than more speculation, as far as I know. The $64,000 question is whether the Grand Jury is meeting today, and if it is, if it's meeting with Fitz re: Rove, but this is unknown (as opposed to the customary entirely unhelpful "the GJ is scheduled to meet," which, of course, means absolutely nothing). Presumably members of the SCLM (Schuster?) are waiting outside the courthouse to see if they can see anything, so we'll know if they see anything interesting ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChickMagic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-24-06 11:02 AM
Response to Original message
12. I have much better accuracy with my magic 8 ball
than I do with the ramblings of pundits. I asked it
this morning if Rove will be indicted today and it
said "Most likely". That's as close to the truth
as we're gonna get.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jersey Devil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-24-06 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. Pundits said in October there would be as many as 27 indictments
I'm not sure if they meant "indictments" or "counts in indictments" but in either case they were way off base, as usual.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChickMagic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-24-06 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. I remember that
My magic 8 ball said "not likely" when asked about all the counts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AuntPatsy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-24-06 11:40 AM
Response to Original message
19. You have it exactly with this administration and it's lackies anything
is possible, to ignore that very real threat and the very fact that they continualy ignore the law of this land pretty much limits those who are attempting to stop them.
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 Mon Apr 29th 2024, 12:02 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