Latest Libby Filings...strategy's clearer, could spell trouble for Fitzboy

Barbara · Apr 27, 2006

Re: Rove testifying again

heybeerman said:

He'll throw himself on the grenade and Bush will pardon him. However, this could scuttle the mid terms for the REEPS and that would be a just delightful.
Click to expand...

Unlikely.

He might be distracted, but he'll still be a major player in this year's campaigns.

os_mutante · Apr 27, 2006

Didn't Rove step down from Bush's royal court to focus on midterm elections?? Oh baby, this could be better than Barcelona getting in the final...

heybeerman · Apr 27, 2006

Re: Rove testifying again

Barbara said:

Unlikely.

He might be distracted, but he'll still be a major player in this year's campaigns.
Click to expand...

You don't think that him getting indicted will have any affect on the elections?

Barbara · Apr 27, 2006

Re: Rove testifying again

heybeerman said:

You don't think that him getting indicted will have any affect on the elections?
Click to expand...

I refuse to have hope. You can't make me.

Karl K · Apr 27, 2006

Re: Rove testifying again

Dan Loney said:

Naturally.

EDIT - hey, guess what, Fitzboy isn't in trouble after all!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060427/ap_on_go_ot/cia_leak_2
Click to expand...

I used Fox News because it was the ONLY media source that printed Luskiin's statement -- about as unequivocal as it can get -- as far as I can tell.

I would have quoted the Daily Kos if they had had it.

heybeerman · Apr 27, 2006

Re: Rove testifying again

Karl K said:

I used Fox News because it was the ONLY media source that printed Luskiin's statement -- about as unequivocal as it can get -- as far as I can tell.

I would have quoted the Daily Kos if they had had it.
Click to expand...

I'm finding it everywhere, but that's ok.

this is a good synopsis.

mmmm, I smell popcorn.

Karl K · Apr 27, 2006

Let's see I get slammed for quoting Fox News -- and again, the only reason I did so was because it had Luskin's unequivocal statement -- and then, what, heybeerman quotes TRUTHOUT??

Taking it SERIOUSLY?

This guy can't even keep his own stories straight.

First he says this:

attorneys and government officials who have remained close to the probe saying that a grand jury will likely return an indictment against one or two senior Bush administration officials.
Click to expand...

and then he says this

Hadley and Rove remain under intense scrutiny, but sources said Fitzgerald has not yet decided whether to seek charges against one or both of them.
Click to expand...

Jesus, which is it? Indictments or no?

The guy can't even remember what he wrote 6 paragraphs before.

Karl K · Apr 27, 2006

On the issue of whether Fitzgerald actually has the authorization to indict, Walton's opinion is just the beginning.

This one's going to go as far on appeal as Libby's team can take it.

Hmmm...how do you think Roberts, Alito, and Scalia might react?

obie · Apr 27, 2006

Re: Rove testifying again

heybeerman said:

Tradesports

GOP Control of the Senate 79.1 bid 79.4 offer
GOP Control of the House 55 bid 56 offer
Click to expand...

Who would've thought a few months ago that a Democratic House was more likely than a Democratic Senate? Of course, the Senate is more complicated to win because it's a race to 51 for the Dems, and 50 for the GOP. Dems need all five major incumbent toss-ups - MT (Burns vs. Tester / Morrison), MO (Talent vs. McCaskill), OH (Dewine vs. Brown), PA (Santorum vs. Casey), and RI (Chafee vs. Whitehouse). And, they need to hold MN and NJ. And, they need one more -- maybe TN with Frist out. It's tough.

On the Pres race, it's good to see Warner futures moving upwards over the past few months.

Claymore · Apr 27, 2006

Karl K said:

On the issue of whether Fitzgerald actually has the authorization to indict, Walton's opinion is just the beginning.

This one's going to go as far on appeal as Libby's team can take it.

Hmmm...how do you think Roberts, Alito, and Scalia might react?
Click to expand...

Oh come on. This was a Hail Mary from the outset; I highly doubt it goes any further.

heybeerman · Apr 27, 2006

Karl K said:

Let's see I get slammed for quoting Fox News -- and again, the only reason I did so was because it had Luskin's unequivocal statement -- and then, what, heybeerman quotes TRUTHOUT??
Click to expand...

I hid it under the guise of The Scoop from NZ, no one caught it.

Karl K said:

Taking it SERIOUSLY?
This guy can't even keep his own stories straight.
First he says this:
and then he says this
Jesus, which is it? Indictments or no?
The guy can't even remember what he wrote 6 paragraphs before.
Click to expand...

It's all speculation at this point, I've been having a mini orgasms all day that he might be brought down. Here's a link that seems to think he won't.

Conclusion
U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald is not the salvation of America from the Bush Administration, one of the few Presidencies in U.S. history that drifts perilously close to being a criminal enterprise. Mr. Fitzgerald has secured a five-count indictment against a man whose name three years ago would have been unfamiliar to all but the most serious policy wonks. That's all Mr. Fitzgerald has measurably accomplished in 846 days; and even if Mr. Fitzgerald were tomorrow to announce indictments of far better-known officials of the Bush Administration—men such as Karl Rove and Dick Cheney—along with a far lesser known host of minor, shadowy neo-conservatives, thugs, and common liars within the White House, the history of the future would not change materially. The war in Iraq has already become a part of the American experience for years to come, and some 2,500 American soldiers will not suddenly come back to life. The federal budget surpluses of the Clinton Administration have been squandered, and the national debt, instead of being paid down as it could have been, now threatens to push against a mind-numbing ten trillion dollars. A phony "debate" about the future of the Social Security Pension Fund prevented prudent, actuarially sound adjustments that would have ensured solvency of the Trust well into the second half of the century. The federal judiciary has been filled with judges some have described as a frightful cabal of Dominionists who will ensure that, generations after the current minions of neo-conservativism and theocratic enlightenment have been hanged, their policies will still be shaping the rule of law in the land. And the Supreme Court now has a density of extremists sufficient to guarantee that the civil rights and liberties long assumed to be a progressively more expansive part of the privileges of American citizenship will vanish over the coming years.

In other words, the rule of law was in the end no vanguard against the onslaught of those with a new vision of America, that shining beacon of liberty now and after this era the pious and corrupted land of the less-than-free, a nation felled by men and women no force on Earth could stop before they had wrought their destruction.
Click to expand...

Karl, I can't believe that you are proud to be on "that" side. This guy is right. I'll have my little O over this but it's too late, the dark side has won and it will take a long time to repair the damage.

superdave · Apr 27, 2006

The problem with Rove's "I wouldn't lie because I know the truth would come out, and I'm not stupid" is that the Bushies were obviously, and publicly (there's a great quote from Bush himself) assuming that the journos would never have to testify on their anonymous sources.

As for Karl's motive red herring, dude, it's been covered! Was it Waas? Anyway, the whole point of the whole thing was to make sure there was no substantive congressional or journalistic inquiry into how we got into Iraq until after the 2004 election. IOW, it was less a coverup than a delaying move, and it worked.

Karl K said:

I get on my knees every day and thank God I am not you.
Click to expand...

I heard it was for an entirely different reason.

superdave · Apr 27, 2006

Karl K said:

On the issue of whether Fitzgerald actually has the authorization to indict, Walton's opinion is just the beginning.

This one's going to go as far on appeal as Libby's team can take it.

Hmmm...how do you think Roberts, Alito, and Scalia might react?
Click to expand...

If I understand this post correctly, you're saying Libby will be able to beat the rap due to Bush v. Gore 2, Electric Bugaloo.

Um, great, Karl, great.

PS...you forgot Thomas. That's OK, we all try our very best to.

chaski · Apr 27, 2006

Karl K said:

On the issue of whether Fitzgerald actually has the authorization to indict, Walton's opinion is just the beginning.

This one's going to go as far on appeal as Libby's team can take it.

Hmmm...how do you think Roberts, Alito, and Scalia might react?
Click to expand...

Cert. denied.

Chicago1871 · Apr 27, 2006

Karl, your batting average makes even this guy look like Hank Aaron.

Karl K · Apr 27, 2006

chaski said:

Cert. denied.
Click to expand...

Just in case everyone is unclear, THIS is a prediction.

What I have written on this subject, and I daresay many others, if not all, is not.

uclacarlos · Apr 27, 2006

Chicago1871 said:

Karl, your batting average makes even this guy look like Hank Aaron.

Click to expand...

If Bush were the drunken (?**) skipper and/or designer of the Titanic, as the boat tip towards the sky as it prepared to sink to the bottom of the Atlantic, Karl would be there screaming that this was all just a conspiracy of our "ilk" to bring down all that is right and just in the world.

**I can't recall if the captain was drunk or if that was just the Exxon guy.

Karl K · Apr 27, 2006

so we get this overwrought sentiment

one of the few Presidencies in U.S. history that drifts perilously close to being a criminal enterprise.
Click to expand...

...and then we get Fitzboy, who can't find a REAL crime to indict on, indeed, can't even USE the word "covert" as it applies to Val Gal, stooping to indict on a alleged mis-statement about an incident that means absolutely nothing.

THAT's what is criminal, ladies and gentlelent. Millions of dollars spent on a effin' wild goose chase over absolutely and totally NADA.

What a joke.

You see, that's what you guys are cheering on. A joke. A complete joke.

Claymore · Apr 27, 2006

Karl K said:

so we get this overwrought sentiment

...and then we get Fitzboy, who can't find a REAL crime to indict on, indeed, can't even USE the word "covert" as it applies to Val Gal, stooping to indict on a mis-statement about an incident that means absolutely nothing.

THAT's what is criminal, ladies and gentlelent. Millions of dollars spent on a effin' wild goose chase over absolutely and totally NADA.

What a joke.

You see, that's what you guys are cheering on. A joke. A complete joke.
Click to expand...

More irony from the king of unintentional comedy.

uclacarlos · Apr 27, 2006

Karl K said:

so we get this overwrought sentiment

...and then we get Fitzboy, who can't find a REAL crime to indict on, indeed, can't every USE the word "covert" as it applies to Val Gal, stooping to indict on a mis-statement about an incident that means absolutely nothing.

THAT's what is criminal, ladies and gentlelent. Millions of dollars spent on a effin' wild goose chase over absolutely and totally NADA.

What a joke.
Click to expand...

Yeah. None of these guys ever got a blow job.

National security vs. bj

Yeah. Let's spend millions researching a goddamn blow job.

EDIT: God I can't wait to see what the fallout from this "joke" is.

Karl K · Apr 27, 2006

uclacarlos said:

Yeah. None of these guys ever got a blow job.

National security vs. bj

Yeah. Let's spend millions researching a goddamn blow job.
Click to expand...

And that TOO was a waste. They are a both equally silly.

uclacarlos · Apr 27, 2006

Karl K said:

And that TOO was a waste. They are a both equally silly.
Click to expand...

The CIA disagrees.

And I know that you're hell-bent on the fact that Plame wasn't "covert", but the CIA, you know... the experts in the field... disagree.

heybeerman · Apr 27, 2006

Karl K said:

so we get this overwrought sentiment
one of the few Presidencies in U.S. history that drifts perilously close to being a criminal enterprise.
Click to expand...

But thats exactly how I feel. You being from the right or at least aligned with it wouldn't feel that way.

Karl K said:

...and then we get Fitzboy, who can't find a REAL crime to indict on, indeed, can't even USE the word "covert" as it applies to Val Gal, stooping to indict on a alleged mis-statement about an incident that means absolutely nothing.
Click to expand...

Perjury is not a crime? It was serious enough to send all the rats scurrying.

Karl K said:

THAT's what is criminal, ladies and gentlelent. Millions of dollars spent on a effin' wild goose chase over absolutely and totally NADA.

What a joke.

You see, that's what you guys are cheering on. A joke. A complete joke.
Click to expand...

If Rove gets indicted, that's an indication that its not a joke. What will be a joke is if little becomes of it. I believe that this is just the tip of the iceberg of corruption in the government. Now I'm not saying that the Democrats are wonderful either. I'm saying that this is the most corrupt, incompetant and damaging administration ever. I want them all hanging from the yard arm. Then we can bring the next set of crooks in and start all over again.

chaski · Apr 27, 2006

Karl K said:

Just in case everyone is unclear, THIS is a prediction.
Click to expand...

That prediction is so solid that there should be an [R] in the thread title.

uclacarlos · Apr 27, 2006

heybeerman said:

Now I'm not saying that the Democrats are wonderful either. I'm saying that this is the most corrupt, incompetant and damaging administration ever. I want them all hanging from the yard arm.
Click to expand...

This is what really depresses me about this administration.

They had the backing of the entire country to do what is just, honest, decent and right to defend our country and protect our citizens. We even had the entire WORLD backing us.

Instead, BushCo got seriously greedy and took that good will as a carte blanche to do whatever they goddamn wanted. This was crystal clear to me on Sept. 12, 2001, when Bush began to use dictatorial rhetoric.

When somebody dared to question them, they lashed out, completely disregarding the ramifications of their actions. Encharged w/ protecting our nation, they scoffed and did what they pleased to get back at someone who dared exercise their Constitutional rights!!!

THAT's criminal, Karl.

And THAT's why this shit ain't gonna die. Bc at least somebody has the decency to do what is right and just to protect our nation, its democracy, its citizens, its Constitution.