Has Bush's Brain Given Notice?

jillian

Princess
Apr 4, 2006
85,728
18,111
2,220
The Other Side of Paradise
This story is all over the left side of the blogosphere.....Chris Matthews mentioned it tonight, too. Developing...

******
Rove Informs White House He Will Be Indicted
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Report

Friday 12 May 2006

Within the last week, Karl 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, sources confirmed Rove's indictment is 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 attorney, Robert Luskin, did not return a call for comment Friday.

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.

Late Thursday afternoon and early Friday morning, several White House officials were bracing for the possibility that Fitzgerald would call a news conference and announce a Rove indictment today following the prosecutor's meeting with the grand jury this morning. However, sources close to the probe said that is unlikely to happen, despite the fact that Fitzgerald has already presented the grand jury with a list of charges against Rove. If an indictment is returned by the grand jury, it will be filed under seal.

Rove is said to have told Bolten that he will be charged with perjury regarding when he was asked how and when he discovered that covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson worked for the agency, and whether he discussed her job with reporters.

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.

Sources close to the case said there is a strong chance Rove will also face an additional charge of obstruction of justice, adding that Fitzgerald has been working meticulously over the past few months to build an obstruction case against Rove because it "carries more weight" in a jury trial and is considered a more serious crime.

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 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."

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051206Y.shtml
 
jillian said:
This story is all over the left side of the blogosphere.....Chris Matthews mentioned it tonight, too. Developing...

******
Rove Informs White House He Will Be Indicted
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Report

Friday 12 May 2006

Within the last week, Karl 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, sources confirmed Rove's indictment is 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 attorney, Robert Luskin, did not return a call for comment Friday.

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.

Late Thursday afternoon and early Friday morning, several White House officials were bracing for the possibility that Fitzgerald would call a news conference and announce a Rove indictment today following the prosecutor's meeting with the grand jury this morning. However, sources close to the probe said that is unlikely to happen, despite the fact that Fitzgerald has already presented the grand jury with a list of charges against Rove. If an indictment is returned by the grand jury, it will be filed under seal.

Rove is said to have told Bolten that he will be charged with perjury regarding when he was asked how and when he discovered that covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson worked for the agency, and whether he discussed her job with reporters.

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.

Sources close to the case said there is a strong chance Rove will also face an additional charge of obstruction of justice, adding that Fitzgerald has been working meticulously over the past few months to build an obstruction case against Rove because it "carries more weight" in a jury trial and is considered a more serious crime.

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 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."

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051206Y.shtml

Oh goody---they finally nailed him !!
 
The moment Rove is indicted, I will believe this article. Until then, let's what and see.

I wonder what the effects of a Rove indictment would be on the administration and especially the midterm elections
 
Karl Rove Indicted on Charges of Perjury, Lying to Investigators
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Report

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 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."

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051306W.shtml
 
This again.

Consider the source.....truthout? Why would THEY get this story first?

It'd be different if the article ONE source.

Time will tell again.
 
UnAmericanYOU said:
This again.

Consider the source.....truthout? Why would THEY get this story first?

It'd be different if the article ONE source.

Time will tell again.

Hence the question mark in the thread title....although Chris Matthews mentioned it on Friday, too. But then again, the questions arise from someone who thinks other folk are "unamerican". I wonder why that is.... :dunno: :D

But just so you know, I won't believe it til I see it either.

I am kind of interested, though, in why the right is so quick to demand "proof " of everything that concerns this admin, while still spouting unproven allegations having to do with the last president. But there ya go! (I'm not saying you're wrong to want proof this time...just should have been the same last time around, too).
 
Once again, the looney left grabs a bogus accusation and tries to ride its coattails home.

The glaringly obvious inconsistencies in the accusers' allegations being completely ignored is about as criminal as it gets. The left has been determined to trump up any charge they can against whoever they can in the Bush administration simply because they are sore losers.

If ANYONE should be indicted for supposedly outting Plame, it's her big-mouthed husband. If not for his delusions of grandeur, this wouldn't even be an issue.
 
jillian said:
Hence the question mark in the thread title....although Chris Matthews mentioned it on Friday, too. But then again, the questions arise from someone who thinks other folk are "unamerican". I wonder why that is.... :dunno: :D

But just so you know, I won't believe it til I see it either.

I am kind of interested, though, in why the right is so quick to demand "proof " of everything that concerns this admin, while still spouting unproven allegations having to do with the last president. But there ya go! (I'm not saying you're wrong to want proof this time...just should have been the same last time around, too).

And just what exactly would those unproven allegations be?
 
jillian said:
All the stuff Starr investigated and didn't get anything on and which the right persists in talking about. :duh3:

All of WHAT stuff? It was Starr's job to investigate. He investigated what he was told to by the Attorney General, a Clinton appointee.

I'm not sure what "stuff" you specifically are referring to. All I can say is they didn't prove any "stuff" on OJ either.
 
GunnyL said:
<snipped>
If ANYONE should be indicted for supposedly outting Plame, it's her big-mouthed husband. If not for his delusions of grandeur, this wouldn't even be an issue.

I think the indictments are for perjury, lying to the Grand Jury, I don't know if any of the indictments are for the offence of revealing the identity of a covert agent.
 
Diuretic said:
I think the indictments are for perjury, lying to the Grand Jury, I don't know if any of the indictments are for the offence of revealing the identity of a covert agent.

Apparently the stategy now is to drag you enemies before the grand jury as often as you can. Sooner or later you can catch em if you ask the right questions often enough. Our 2 party system is working so well :rolleyes:
 
dilloduck said:
Apparently the stategy now is to drag you enemies before the grand jury as often as you can. Sooner or later you can catch em if you ask the right questions often enough. Our 2 party system is working so well :rolleyes:

Accepting for a moment the claim that political enemies are dragged before the Grand Jury, I have to ask, then on what basis does the Grand Jury hand down an indictment? It requires evidence does it not? Do you really believe that a Grand Jury can be suborned by a prosecutor to hand down indictments based on false or no evidence or just on the persuasive power of the nice man in the good suit?

I don't think so.

Now, if someone is going to go into a legal process - Grand Jury or trial or whatever - and they are going to lie then they'd better be very good at it because they will get found out. If you've ever been cross-examined by a competent counsel you know that the best insurance policy you can have is to tell the truth. You can be asked questions about one incident from a dozen different angles and if you're telling the truth you will be unshakeable as a witness. The moment you try and lie, you will go down like a ton of bricks.

I'm not commenting about Libby or any other person who has ever been in front of a Grand Jury. An indictment is merely an allegation to be tested by a court of record.
 
Diuretic said:
Accepting for a moment the claim that political enemies are dragged before the Grand Jury, I have to ask, then on what basis does the Grand Jury hand down an indictment? It requires evidence does it not? Do you really believe that a Grand Jury can be suborned by a prosecutor to hand down indictments based on false or no evidence or just on the persuasive power of the nice man in the good suit?

I don't think so.

Now, if someone is going to go into a legal process - Grand Jury or trial or whatever - and they are going to lie then they'd better be very good at it because they will get found out. If you've ever been cross-examined by a competent counsel you know that the best insurance policy you can have is to tell the truth. You can be asked questions about one incident from a dozen different angles and if you're telling the truth you will be unshakeable as a witness. The moment you try and lie, you will go down like a ton of bricks.

I'm not commenting about Libby or any other person who has ever been in front of a Grand Jury. An indictment is merely an allegation to be tested by a court of record.

How's the old saying go----"a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich". Put any politician under oath and start questioning them ( Rove was there 5 times I believe). They are bond to slip up on something even if it's totally unrelated to the "crime" at issue.
Personally I could care less--I like watching politicians get thier asses handed to em.
 
dilloduck said:
How's the old saying go----"a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich". Put any politician under oath and start questioning them ( Rove was there 5 times I believe). They are bond to slip up on something even if it's totally unrelated to the "crime" at issue.
Personally I could care less--I like watching politicians get thier asses handed to em.

Indict a ham sandwich? Jeez get rid of them then, seriously. I know, I know, a topic for another thread :D
 
Diuretic said:
I think the indictments are for perjury, lying to the Grand Jury, I don't know if any of the indictments are for the offence of revealing the identity of a covert agent.

Correct. It is Rove's statement he was incorrect in his initial statement. Do you REALLY believe they are going to prove he made erroneous statements with criminal intent?

No. But he'll go down anyway simply as another sacrifice to the left's petty, partisan war against Bush and/or his administration.

Put in true context, his so-called offense is trivial at best, and without evidence of criminal intent, a worthless and bogus allegation.
 

Forum List

Back
Top