Posted on 10/14/2005 6:06:39 AM PDT by rabair
Re#39 Yep. If Rove and Libby were in trouble, they would have stepped down by now...
If there is trouble it worth take it specially if it means it will prove his total innocence.
funny, Rove appears again and everyone is just waiting for the indictment. Miller appears again and she's just there to clear up her previous testimony and present newly "found" notes.
Not really. I'm sure they didn't do anything wrong, and don't think that anything will happen. But the prosecutor could decide to get them for making honest mistakes in their testimony. I would think the prosecutor would have to have proof of intent to lie or obstruct before indicting anyone at this high a level, so it may be that the 4th appearance by Rove is to allow Rove to give a reasonable explanation for why his statements conflict. In that case, Fitz would just be making sure he has ample cover for not indicting Rove, because the MSM will go crazy if Rove or Libby is not indicted.
Could be. Could be too that, having false statements from others (nee presstitutes), he wants Rove's affirmations. Who knows what other evidence Rove has besides his testimony. We know about the e-mail but did he keep contemporaneous notes or a journal? I would in speaking with the snakes in the MSM....
I'm sure any contemporaneous notes or journal info would have been presented in Rove's prior testimony. It's my understanding that Rove did not recall the Cooper conversation in his first GJ appearance, but that he and his lawyer found the email, gave the info to Fitz, and went back before the GJ long before Cooper ever testified. Anything Rove would have had to say on the topic should have been covered prior to Cooper testifying. So, it seems the most likely reason for today's appearance is to clarify things and make it clear to the GJ that he has never intentionally lied or witheld information.
Didn't Rush say Rove ASKED to testify again? Gee that makes a difference doesn't it?
Rove didn't ask to testify again. He offered to testify again if Fitz needed any more info or clarification. This happened in July after the Cooper testimony. Fitz took him up on the offer last week.
Actually, I agree with him. This is just silly. The whole question could have been answered in about a day. All you have to do is get the CIA to tell you if a) Plame was ever a covert agent as covered under the law and b) if so, when was the end date of her last assignment. The investigation should have ended right then and there.
No. Most places, you can tape your own conversations for your own recordkeeping purposes. It's just when you tape 3rd party calls that you get in trouble.
I was wondering if he still was in there. It certainly sounds like more that just some minor clarifications. They must be going though transcripts of his previous testimony word by word and asking questions on any seeming contradictions. He went in at 9 a.m. and it's 12:30 EDT now. Three plus hours.
I'm no lawyer so don't know what's ethical and/or legal at this point. Given that the GJ is about to wrap up, an official letter right now would seem to be unnecessary; the prosecuter can do just about anything he wants if he feels there is new information pointing in the direction of Rove and Liddy.
Is it just me or does it seem like the Dems are trying to throw up all the arguments used against Clinton, even if they don't actually apply? For example: Clinton perjured himself... so they complain Bush lied about Iraq and should be impeached for it.
Clinton helped the Chinese with technology and hurt our national security... so they want to indict someone for hurting national security... enter Rove.
It just seems to me they are rehashing their crimes and trying to make them stick to Conservatives... even if the analogies or correlations are false.
and I bet they would sell their firstborn to get a good sex scandal from the WH.
"Target MUST receive 'Target Letter' w/rights."
The grand jury manual also says it's DOJ policy that targets receive the letter with an advice of 5th Amendment rights before testifying. USAM 9-11.151
Of course, Rove wouldn't have to disclose the fact if he's gotten one, but his lawyer continues to deny that Rove has gotten a letter.
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.