Posted on 05/13/2006 7:58:01 PM PDT by rface
First of all, you don't put somebody in front of a grand jury at the end of an investigation or for the fifth time, as Karl Rove testified a couple, a week and a half ago, unless you feel that's your only chance of avoiding indictment. So in other words, the burden starts with Karl Rove to stop the charges.
Secondly, it's now been 13 days since Rove testified. After testifying for three and a half hours, prosecutors refused to give him any indication that he was clear. He has not gotten any indication since then. And the lawyers that I've spoken with outside of this case say that if Rove had gotten himself out of the jam, he would have heard something by now.
And then the third issue is something we've talked about before. And that is, in the Scooter Libby indictment, Karl Rove was identified as 'Official A.' It's the term that prosecutors use when they try to get around restrictions on naming somebody in an indictment. We've looked through the records of Patrick Fitzgerald from when he was prosecuting cases in New York and from when he's been US attorney in Chicago. And in every single investigation, whenever Fitzgerald has identified somebody as Official A, that person eventually gets indicted themselves, in every single investigation.
...the lawyers that I've been speaking with who know this stuff say, don't bet on Karl Rove getting out of this.
I suspect that the left is putting all their hopes into this newest scandal, but like all the scandals before, this one will fail to gain any traction, since Rove is as innocent and as pure a newly fallen snow. (I know that statement sounds corney - but I believe it is true)
It's the new Fitzmas, I guess...
More proof that the Dims hold on to false hope.
This may be true, but weren't they saying the same thing when it was the fourth time?
What a little worm that sheister..er.. shuster is..(small caps used to denote disrespect).
Davis Shuster: Cub reporter.
BTW..
If they want to crack this thing wide open they should look at the dinner guest list of the
R-U-S-S-E-R-T-S and M-A-T-H-E-W-S....
His bits on HARDBALL are slanted against the Bush administration, and he editorializes throughout his pieces.
Once in a while, I'll tune in to see if Matthews is talking about something other than the Plame leak.
He rarely does. Really. He was talking about the Plame leak when everybody else was focused on the NSA surveillance brouhaha.
What? That's what I say. Let's say that Rove is guilty as sin, that he had a little black book and he called everyone out there to tell them all about someone's CIA wife. Let's also say he lied to investigators.
What happens? He goes to jail? Big deal. What of it? I'm sorry, but there's nothing to this story. A political gotcha doesn't make up for nearly a decade of soundly trouncing the Democrat party. There's no prize here. Are they implying that public satisfaction with the president might actually dip lower than congress? Fat chance of that.
A Rove indictment makes it all that much harder for Rats to gain traction because all they have is a party of wackos waiting for camera time to chase away more voters. So indict Rove, send him to jail - it'll make the mid terms that much easier.
This guy is about as beliveable as Kieth Oberman
With Shuster's track record, this is good news for the VP.
"the lawyers that I've been speaking with who know this stuff say, don't bet on Karl Rove getting out of this."
This isn't journalism, it's tea party gossip and speculation. Exactly what is it that Rove isn't getting out of?
It makes sense....anther election year and the lawyers, MSM and CIA doing everything to undermine the election process.
OJ is NOT looking for the real killers?
Idiot. You don't put yourself in front of a grand jury ONCE if you are guilty. You don't appear twice if you are trying to hide something. You don't appear 3 times if you aren't trying to be helpful. You don't appear 4 times if you think the first three times put you in jeopardy. And if the prosecuter hasn't got you after 4 times, you'd never appear a 5th time if you were afraid of being indicted for inconsistant testimony.
Actually, I don't know that last paragraph to be true, but it makes more sense than Rove appearing a 5th time "trying to say something" to get himself out of earlier problems. Whatever is hanging over Rove, he's obviously talked it over with his lawyer who has communicated it with the prosecuter.
I don't know what's going to happen, but we've been misled so many times now about Rove's indictment that it seems clear that whoever these people's sources are, they aren't in the know.
Really, David, and just where did you obtain your vast knowledge about Grand Jury investigation? When you are attempting to come up with an answer to that one, when and where did you serve as a U.S. Attorney, or independent investigator, (if one can call Patty Fitz, "independent"?) Which law school did you attend and how much Constitutional Law classes have you taught since obtaining your J.D.?
Oops, I forgot, you're not a jurist, a U.S. Attorney, a lawyer, you went to journalism school and now that you are with NBC, you are committed to a fair and balanced approach to news reporting.
You must mean "David Shyster" of PMSNBC.
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.