Posted on 10/20/2005 7:18:02 PM PDT by frankjr
NYT FRIDAY: Rove and Libby have been advised that they may be in serious legal jeopardy, but only this week has Fitzgerald begun to narrow the possible charges. The prosecutor has said he will not make up his mind about any charges until next week, government officials say... Developing...
However, true evangelical conservatives...(not the so called elitist)...have long stopped caring what the Kristols of politics think or say....
...and knowing Dr.James Dobson who is 3rd!!! in line behind Paul Harvey and Rush Limbaugh, and who can count on millions and millions of devoted listeners...
...can be counted on remaining faithful to Bush and Bush types, and not running off the reservation.
The former (Bush official who is an "ex"). No way could it be a Clintonista and be referred to as "a former administration official" who is giving out info as to what Karl Rove supposedly said to others inside the White House.
I've been saying the same thing. If the evidence is weak, or made up of lies it will all come out in court. I don't understand all the panic and pardon talk on this thread. Why even consider a pardon if the evidence will show no wrong doing. Welcome the investigation like Delay has.
Very well, thank you. Neuticles made me think of that old thread in 98 or so about the French gaydar. We were so politically incorrect!
I see ya' around all the time, I just try not to stare, or butt in. ;) You CR types are nearly extinct. It's good for a two-party system, not so good for FR.
Stay well.
Bluff on the river based on his earlier strengths and hands...
Let's see, he's narrowing POSSIBLE charges, he's still figuring out if there are any charges and Rove and Libby could be in very serious legal trouble? Wow, NY Times have got there base covered no matter what happens.
An excellent idea!
I agree.
“Lawyers involved in the case” is so vague that it could refer to lawyers representing any number of journalists who have been interviewed by Fitzgerald. Which means these “lawyers involved in the case” the NYT has anonymously quoted may not be all that sympathetic to Rove and Libby. Consider that if these lawyers were part of either the special prosecutor’s team or were a part of Rove’s or Libby’s legal team that they would have confirmed or denied that target letters had been sent by the special prosecutor to Rove or Libby. But they didn’t. And the NYT piece is written as though these “lawyers involved in the case” weren’t even asked if target letters had been sent. I suspect that’s because there is no sense in asking someone a question who would have no idea what the answer is. Reporting an 'I dunno' would have undermined the entire authoritative premise that the NYT is relying on for its piece.
Instead it was said that Rove and Libby had “been advised that they may be in serious legal jeopardy.” That sounds like an answer from people who are not in a position to know whether target letters have been sent – i.e. lawyers who are not part of the special prosecutor’s team and who are not part of Rove’s or Libby’s legal team. Further, any time a person is brought before a grand jury to testify in a case where he is not given assurances that he will not be prosecuted, it is reasonable to assume that he would be warned that it is possible that he could fall into “serious legal jeopardy” by the statements he makes. Sounds rather boilerplate.
If these lawyers that the NYT used as its source had been asked about target letters and they had refused to comment that could have been reported too. After all, the NYT did report on other lawyers who are in a position to know about target letters when it wrote in the VERY SAME PIECE: “Lawyers for the two men [Rove and Libby] declined to comment on their legal status.”
But a 'no comment' from the "lawyers involved in the case" that the NYT is relying on to indicate that Rove and Libby may be in “serious legal jeopardy” would have made no sense considering all the other 'inside' information they had divulged. Also an answer of 'no comment' would have undermined the piece almost as bad as an answer of 'I dunno'. So the NYT didn't ask these “lawyers involved in the case” about whether target letters had been sent because they were in no position to know. That way the NYT doesn't have to report an answer that would undermine the premise of the whole piece.
Since there are no new facts presented, the NYT's report is a cheap excuse for rank speculation.
Bottom line: Nothing new here.
Wanna have some fun? FIRE FITZGERALD! It can be done... but it would be wrong!
Actually, one of the clues that Fitzgerald is working with is that the branch of the CIA that Miller thought Plame worked for was incorrect. She was not in WINPAC, she was undercover.
That's another piece of evidence that tells me that the CIA planned this whole thing. Well, too bad Cheney's team took the bait.
Conservatism is in trouble of a dickless fop like Tucker Carlson is one of our major spokesmen.
All smoke, no bbq beef.
Who actually decides to press charges - the GJ or the prosecutor himself? I've worried all along that if it's the jury, they will get caught up in the thrill of being big shots, of making history, and will go for any flimsy indictment they can come up with, just so they can then go before the TV cameras and be celebrities. The media will lionize them as heroes "speaking truth to power," and there might even be book deals in it for some of them.
NYTimes now reporting no indictments likely!(from NewsMax)
NYT: Indictments Unlikely in Plamegate
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1506607/posts
was thinking the same thing here. quidnunc is just looking for impeachment hearings?? !!!!
Yes, the Flavia woman (I could not remember her name on an earlier post) most definitely said that Fitzgerald talked to Italian investigators about the Jan 2001 break-in at the Niger Embassy in Rome while investigating this case. I thought, yes, now this is going in the right direction. I still say Wilson knew about the forgeries before they were submitted to US Intel agencies. He admitted it until he was called on the dates and then said he "misspoke". BS.
If this is true ... Larry is trusting the Rove Camp?
That's another piece of evidence that tells me that the CIA planned this whole thing. Well, too bad Cheney's team took the bait.
Could be, but it would really be a stretch to indict Rove or Libby for outting Plame as an undercover agent when they thought she had a plain old "desk" job here in the U.S.
This does sound like a rope-a-dope attempt by the CIA to bring down the Bush administration. I can only hope Fitzgerald realizes it and doesn't get sucked in.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.