Has Bush's Brain Given Notice?

[jillian]

Of course you do. You know the reason for this name, and it's not a reversal of what you think it originally meant. But he is a friend of mine, so's Jim, who inexplicably keeps calling mods off of you. Neither post here.

This:

Hey, I've always been an equal-opportunity polly basher..

is a staple of both of you. There's no difference between the two parties, we're all doomed. And religion is the bane of society. I know. I know. I know.

He told me you'd admit being cult mem-er...friends, and that you'd attack this nic.

The blog writer swears that Rove will be indited Wednesday now, but if he's true to form, he's wrong again. And YOU started this, to the left of the far left is still far left, what kind of doctor IS Doom, went to a Carribean med school?

God bless you both, He must have a reason you are both here.

'Til later.

Are you confusing me with someone else? Seriously. Because while Grump and I joined together, no one else we know is here. And you're writing like your joining when we did is somehow significant. I don't know who "He" is or Jim. And, frankly, I don't see where the mods would have any quarrel with me.

So there ya go.

 

[jillian]

You keep saying "the right." WHO exactly? Whitewater was a landscam, plain and simple. Hillary was involved in Whitewater. Her name came up.

And you are incorrect concerning Starr. He was directed by Reno to shift the focus of the Whitewater investigation. Starr, on his own, would have no grounds to within the scope of the investigation.

I know that given what I've read of your posts, you don't believe that just because someone's "name [comes] up" doesn't mean they're guilty of anything. As I've said, Starr pretty much picked that bone clean and didn't get real far. And we both know how much he wanted to get something.

For your amusement, though.... today, in commenting on the Rove thing, Walter Shapiro, on Salon.com, wrote the following:

But the big story of this dispiriting week for Bush is that Godot-like drama called, "Waiting for the Grand Jury." Rove's indictment has been confidently forecast on the blogosphere more often than Fidel Castro's downfall with, thus far, similar results. In contrast, I will confess to being the only journalist on the Web who has no idea when or whether Patrick Fitzgerald will charge Rove with a crime in the CIA leak inquiry.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/05/16/bush/

I liked the Godot reference.

Mostly, as I said...it's all a question mark. And Reno had no say as far as I know in how far Starr went.

 

[Dr Grump]

Are you confusing me with someone else? Seriously. Because while Grump and I joined together, no one else we know is here. And you're writing like your joining when we did is somehow significant. I don't know who "He" is or Jim. And, frankly, I don't see where the mods would have any quarrel with me.

So there ya go.

I have absolutely no idea what UnAmerican is on about either. Maybe he/she should change his/her handle to VastLeftWingConspiracy...

 

[jillian]

I have absolutely no idea what UnAmerican is on about either. Maybe he/she should change his/her handle to VastLeftWingConspiracy...

 

[Gunny]

I know that given what I've read of your posts, you don't believe that just because someone's "name [comes] up" doesn't mean they're guilty of anything. As I've said, Starr pretty much picked that bone clean and didn't get real far. And we both know how much he wanted to get something.

For your amusement, though.... today, in commenting on the Rove thing, Walter Shapiro, on Salon.com, wrote the following:



http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/05/16/bush/

I liked the Godot reference.

Mostly, as I said...it's all a question mark. And Reno had no say as far as I know in how far Starr went.

Odd how you dem's appear to have a mental block concerning a key factor. Starr's investigation was into the Whitewater land scam and Hillary's possible involvement. He was not free to change the focus of that investigation to something totally irrelevant to that investigation without being told to by the Attorney General. That was Janet Reno.

Whitewater was a proven land scam. Attorney Hillary Clinton was involved in Whitewater. I find it completely appropriate to investigate her involvement since it turned out to be a crime.

I have no problem with investigating Rove. I DO have a problem with you lefties continually judging him guilty before the fact since the first day his name was mentioned.

I have a problem with a supposed covert agent who was "covert" long past the usual grace period of coming out of the field, and who drove from home to CIA Headquarters and back daily. All anyone had to do was watch the gate to find out where she worked.

I have an even BIGGER problem with the left trying to shift the blame of her supposed cover being blown by someone in Bush's administration when Plame got Wilson the job. He came back and went overboard trying to sling mud at Bush -- something you lefties like to do. In the course of investigating his story, a reproter was told "his wife" got him the job.

There're enough holes in the whole damned story to sink the Titanic. SO I can only conclude it is just another bullshit, partisan attack by the never-say-die left in there continuing effort to indict every single Republican who holds public office.

 

[Annie]

I know that given what I've read of your posts, you don't believe that just because someone's "name [comes] up" doesn't mean they're guilty of anything. As I've said, Starr pretty much picked that bone clean and didn't get real far. And we both know how much he wanted to get something.

For your amusement, though.... today, in commenting on the Rove thing, Walter Shapiro, on Salon.com, wrote the following:



http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/05/16/bush/

I liked the Godot reference.

Mostly, as I said...it's all a question mark. And Reno had no say as far as I know in how far Starr went.

Hmmm, 15 convictions or guilty pleas aren't 'significant'?

 

[Dr Grump]

He was not free to change the focus of that investigation to something totally irrelevant to that investigation without being told to by the Attorney General. That was Janet Reno.

He changed focus and then three days later asked Reno for permission to do so...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/special/starr/starr231.htm

 

[Gunny]

He changed focus and then three days later asked Reno for permission to do so...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/special/starr/starr231.htm

No sale. Clinton-Lewinsky was not within the scope of what he was appointed ot investigate. Legally, he could not do so without permission FIRST.

 

[jillian]

Update on the Rove Indictment Story

By Marc Ash,

Wed May 17th, 2006 at 12:52:48 PM EDT :: Fitzgerald Investigation
(38 comments, 503 words in story)

For the past few days, we have endured non-stop attacks on our credibility, and we have fought hard to defend our reputation. In addition, we have worked around the clock to provide additional information to our readership. People want to know more about this, and our job is to keep them informed. We take that responsibility seriously.

Here's what we now know: I spoke personally yesterday with both Rove's spokesman Mark Corallo and Rove's attorney Robert Luskin. Both men categorically denied all key points of our recent reporting on this issue. Both said, "Rove is not a target," "Rove did not inform the White House late last week that he would be indicted," and "Rove has not been indicted." Further, both Corallo and Luskin denied Leopold's account of events at the offices of Patton Boggs, the law firm that represents Karl Rove. They specifically stated again that no such meeting ever occurred, that Fitzgerald was not there, that Rove was not there, and that a major meeting did not take place. Both men were unequivocal on that point.

We can now report, however, that we have additional, independent sources that refute those denials by Corallo and Luskin. While we had only our own sources to work with in the beginning, additional sources have now come forward and offered corroboration to us.

We have been contacted by at least three reporters from mainstream media - network level organizations - who shared with us off-the-record confirmation and moral support. When we asked why they were not going public with this information, in each case they expressed frustration with superiors who would not allow it.

We also learned the following: The events at the office building that houses the law firm of Patton Boggs were not in fact a very well-guarded secret. Despite denials by Corallo and Luskin, there was intense activity at the office building. In fact, the building was staked out by at least two major network news crews. Further, although Corallo and Luskin are not prepared to talk about what happened in the offices of Patton Boggs, others emerging from the building were, both on background and off-the-record. There were a lot of talkers, and they confirmed our accounts. We do have more information, but want additional confirmation before going public with it.

THE 24 HOUR THING

We reported that Patrick Fitzgerald had, "instructed one of the attorneys to tell Rove that he has 24 business hours to get his affairs in order...." That does not mean that at the end of that 24-hour period, Fitzgerald is obliged to hold a press conference and make an announcement. It just means that he has given Rove a 24-hour formal notification. Fitzgerald is not obliged to make an announcement at any point; he does so at his own discretion, and not if it compromises his case. So we're all stuck waiting here. Grab some coffee.

 

[dilloduck]

Update on the Rove Indictment Story

By Marc Ash,

Wed May 17th, 2006 at 12:52:48 PM EDT :: Fitzgerald Investigation
(38 comments, 503 words in story)

For the past few days, we have endured non-stop attacks on our credibility, and we have fought hard to defend our reputation. In addition, we have worked around the clock to provide additional information to our readership. People want to know more about this, and our job is to keep them informed. We take that responsibility seriously.

Here's what we now know: I spoke personally yesterday with both Rove's spokesman Mark Corallo and Rove's attorney Robert Luskin. Both men categorically denied all key points of our recent reporting on this issue. Both said, "Rove is not a target," "Rove did not inform the White House late last week that he would be indicted," and "Rove has not been indicted." Further, both Corallo and Luskin denied Leopold's account of events at the offices of Patton Boggs, the law firm that represents Karl Rove. They specifically stated again that no such meeting ever occurred, that Fitzgerald was not there, that Rove was not there, and that a major meeting did not take place. Both men were unequivocal on that point.

We can now report, however, that we have additional, independent sources that refute those denials by Corallo and Luskin. While we had only our own sources to work with in the beginning, additional sources have now come forward and offered corroboration to us.

We have been contacted by at least three reporters from mainstream media - network level organizations - who shared with us off-the-record confirmation and moral support. When we asked why they were not going public with this information, in each case they expressed frustration with superiors who would not allow it.

We also learned the following: The events at the office building that houses the law firm of Patton Boggs were not in fact a very well-guarded secret. Despite denials by Corallo and Luskin, there was intense activity at the office building. In fact, the building was staked out by at least two major network news crews. Further, although Corallo and Luskin are not prepared to talk about what happened in the offices of Patton Boggs, others emerging from the building were, both on background and off-the-record. There were a lot of talkers, and they confirmed our accounts. We do have more information, but want additional confirmation before going public with it.

THE 24 HOUR THING

We reported that Patrick Fitzgerald had, "instructed one of the attorneys to tell Rove that he has 24 business hours to get his affairs in order...." That does not mean that at the end of that 24-hour period, Fitzgerald is obliged to hold a press conference and make an announcement. It just means that he has given Rove a 24-hour formal notification. Fitzgerald is not obliged to make an announcement at any point; he does so at his own discretion, and not if it compromises his case. So we're all stuck waiting here. Grab some coffee.

You with the FBI aren't you. Admit it.

 

[jillian]

You with the FBI aren't you. Admit it.

LOL! Nah...though I do have an acquaintance who does work for the DHS.

and ya noticred I didn't write that, didn't ya?

 

[Dr Grump]

No sale. Clinton-Lewinsky was not within the scope of what he was appointed ot investigate. Legally, he could not do so without permission FIRST.

Whether it is a sale or not is irrelevent. The link I provided showed he did exactly what you said he couldn't do. If you have a link to prove otherwise I'm all ears....

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Whether it is a sale or not is irrelevent. The link I provided showed he did exactly what you said he couldn't do. If you have a link to prove otherwise I'm all ears....

Whats wrong with an investigator following the evidence? He didn't "shift" focus. He followed the smoke. He did exactly what any good investigator would do. He followed the evidence until he found the "smoking gun." In this case it was a smoking cigar. Don't fault the man for being a good investigator.

 

[Mr.Conley]

Still waiting to see if this is true.

How long has it been now? A week?

 

[Dr Grump]

Whats wrong with an investigator following the evidence? He didn't "shift" focus. He followed the smoke. He did exactly what any good investigator would do. He followed the evidence until he found the "smoking gun." In this case it was a smoking cigar. Don't fault the man for being a good investigator.

I'm not faulting him in this particular instance. Gunny said Starr couldn't follow the evidence without Reno's permission. My link shows that he did follow it without her permission (initially). As for faulting him, why he followed the Lewinsky evidence is beyond me. What did she have to do with the price of fish in China? So she was playing around with the president. And? Wasn't illegal as far as I know. A bit pathetic on both their parts, but illegal? Nope. And she was a willing participant unlike Jones...

 

[jillian]

I'm not faulting him in this particular instance. Gunny said Starr couldn't follow the evidence without Reno's permission. My link shows that he did follow it without her permission (initially). As for faulting him, why he followed the Lewinsky evidence is beyond me. What did she have to do with the price of fish in China? So she was playing around with the president. And? Wasn't illegal as far as I know. A bit pathetic on both their parts, but illegal? Nope. And she was a willing participant unlike Jones...

Jones' story is questionable, too. Her waiting til the last day before the statute of limitations ran to file the case, at the behest of the Arkansa crew who were out to trash Bill pretty much killed her credibility in my book.

And before anyone asks... people settle cases for all kinds of reasons... most of which have nothing to do with whether they did something wrong or not.

 

[Dr Grump]

And before anyone asks... people settle cases for all kinds of reasons... most of which have nothing to do with whether they did something wrong or not.

Yeah, but gonig by his previous record I reckon he was up to no good. Why Lewinsky had to be aired in public is my concern. I can see no reason for it. You can argue pattern of behaviour, but after Flowers, there was no doubt he was a philanderer. With Jones, it was whether his advances were wanted by her. With Lewinsky there was no doubt...

 

[jillian]

Yeah, but gonig by his previous record I reckon he was up to no good. Why Lewinsky had to be aired in public is my concern. I can see no reason for it. You can argue pattern of behaviour, but after Flowers, there was no doubt he was a philanderer. With Jones, it was whether his advances were wanted by her. With Lewinsky there was no doubt...

I hear ya. But from what I've seen of Bill Clinton, he didn't really have a probem finding women to philander with. I figure if someone said "no", he'd have just moved on. I don't count asking as harassment. That only starts after the other person declines, IMO.

I just don't find her any more trustworthy than Julianne Goldberg or that cow who violated Monica's trust.

 

[Dr Grump]

I hear ya. But from what I've seen of Bill Clinton, he didn't really have a probem finding women to philander with. I figure if someone said "no", he'd have just moved on. I don't count asking as harassment. That only starts after the other person declines, IMO.

I just don't find her any more trustworthy than Julianne Goldberg or that cow who violated Monica's trust.

You've never met that KIND of man have you Jill? I doubt he would have moved on.

Fair enough, especially re Jonah's mama and her fugly sidekick...

 

[jillian]

You've never met that KIND of man have you Jill? I doubt he would have moved on.

I never met that kind of man who was *successful* at it who didn't move on. I've found it's usually the ones who aren't who keep on keeping on. But I'll give you the possibility.

Fair enough, especially re Jonah's mama and her fugly sidekick...

lol...