Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NY Times: Karl Rove, Lewis Libby Likely Cleared on Leakgate Charges
newsmax ^ | 10/21/05 | newsmax

Posted on 10/21/2005 7:13:40 AM PDT by procomone

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-178 next last

Sounds like Drudge was wrong on what the article would be.,


21 posted on 10/21/2005 7:22:31 AM PDT by SmoothTalker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: procomone

Welcome to FR! If this is your first post, it's a good one.


22 posted on 10/21/2005 7:22:55 AM PDT by rightinthemiddle (We Self-Destruct. We Blame Bush. That'll Show 'Em!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: golfboy
It is the same story, read by different eyes and brains.

Drudge is a bit closer to the actual story.

23 posted on 10/21/2005 7:23:18 AM PDT by lugsoul ("They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: procomone

If the NYT is reporting that there may not be any indictments, there must be something to this. Does this indicate some truth hitting the ashen Grey Lady in the face? A little backtracking to CYA? I can't wait for the facts to come out...I think journalists' credibility is taking another dive with all of the innuendo and supposition. Oh well, too bad.


24 posted on 10/21/2005 7:23:48 AM PDT by soloNYer (My state needs to be dragged to the woodshed for a severe beating.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Condor51

"If true Chrissy Matthew's head will explode."

That is something I would like to see!!


25 posted on 10/21/2005 7:24:33 AM PDT by Polyxene (For where God built a church, there the Devil would also build a chapel - Martin Luther)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: procomone
Stewart was sentenced to jail in 2003 for lying to investigators after the Justice Department abandoned its insider trading case against her for lack of evidence.

Martha Stewart probably was guilty of insider trading and so there is at least an ounce of rationale (but not much more) for the pursuit of her case on a perjury basis.

But this is not a "lack of evidence" case since Ms. Plame did not fall under the protection of the applicable national security statute.

How can possibly justify indicting someone for being "untruthful" about their own perfectly legal actions? Beats me. Maybe there is a lawyer somewhere who can explain it.

26 posted on 10/21/2005 7:24:55 AM PDT by InterceptPoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: procomone

An error of omission? That is far different from lying about it a la "I did not have sex with that woman."


27 posted on 10/21/2005 7:25:40 AM PDT by NonValueAdded ("Is there anything that I can do that wouldn't inconvenience me?" Adrian Monk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

I think this is phoney.


28 posted on 10/21/2005 7:28:28 AM PDT by frankjr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: procomone

One difference between Fitzmas and Christmas is that on Fitzmas morning you might wake up to a pile of horse manure, but there's no pony!


29 posted on 10/21/2005 7:28:30 AM PDT by headsonpikes (The Liberal Party of Canada are not b*stards - b*stards have mothers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: InterceptPoint
How can possibly justify indicting someone for being "untruthful" about their own perfectly legal actions?

It happens all the time. Its called perjury. Lying under oath. If Libby or Rove lied under oath, they should be held accountable.

30 posted on 10/21/2005 7:29:14 AM PDT by conserv13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: frankjr

what's phoney?


31 posted on 10/21/2005 7:29:44 AM PDT by Perdogg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: conserv13

I wish people would read my postings. I posted the section 1623. There is a lot of important stuff in it.


32 posted on 10/21/2005 7:30:50 AM PDT by Perdogg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: procomone

NYT is outraged at leaks! Except for those supposed leaks coming out of Fitzpatrick's office.


33 posted on 10/21/2005 7:32:17 AM PDT by inkling
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: procomone
In Mr. Rove's case, Fitzgerald's prosecution may rest, not on any false testimony, but instead on Rove's failure to tell the grand jury early on about a conversation he had about Ms. Plame with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper.

Of course Miller omitted an entire meeting for which she had notes and for which there is a White House log. It will be interesting to prosecute an administration official for faulty memory and fail to prosecute a reporter for the same crime.

34 posted on 10/21/2005 7:32:32 AM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: headsonpikes

Well take down the Fitzmas Pole. The Annual Airing of Grievances was overshadowed by the confusion on just who has been naughty and who has been nice.


35 posted on 10/21/2005 7:33:14 AM PDT by small voice in the wilderness (Behold the Riderless Pony. Bringing doom and destruction on a smaller scale.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Yossarian
I guess it shows just how little they know!

BINGO!

36 posted on 10/21/2005 7:33:35 AM PDT by Mo1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Polyxene

"If true Chrissy Matthew's head will explode."

"That is something I would like to see!!"

If you could provide me with date and time, then I could record it to play at my Halloween party. This is a dagger in the heart of MSM.


37 posted on 10/21/2005 7:34:09 AM PDT by conservativepoet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Holy nothing Batman


38 posted on 10/21/2005 7:34:11 AM PDT by JIM O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: frankjr

This is the same story that was posted earlier, viewed through Newsmax's prism. It reiterates the other story saying there will be no indictments under the original charge, but possibly for secondary things like perjury. The headline is misleading.


39 posted on 10/21/2005 7:34:30 AM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: conserv13

It happens all the time. Its called perjury. Lying under oath. If Libby or Rove lied under oath, they should be held accountable.

_____________________

I woudn't want to have to repeat the same facts, to the best of my recollection, about something that happened two years ago FOUR different times in front of a grand jury and a prosecutor who's being pressured by the media to indict.


40 posted on 10/21/2005 7:34:38 AM PDT by rightinthemiddle (We Self-Destruct. We Blame Bush. That'll Show 'Em!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-178 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson