Posted on 06/12/2006 2:55:05 PM PDT by Sam Hill
Fitzgerald has a problem because he has to prove that Rove intentionally lied about not talking to Cooper but that's almost impossible to prove because Rove voluntarily corrected to record. There will be no charges.
As someone posted on another article, this is just the MSM's attempt to get Zarqawi's killing out of the news.
"As someone posted on another article, this is just the MSM's attempt to get Zarqawi's killing out of the news."
I wouldn't call "Truthout" MSM.
Well, gee, don't you think Rove hired him in the first place? HAAAHAAAA
"So, this quack then takes a month to come up with another 'story' to explain his last 'story'."
Worse than that, it took him three weeks to seize upon a theory already advanced by other crackpots/jokers.
No, it isn't, but given the kinds of "sources" MSM has, I wouldn't be surprised if this "story" makes some headlines.
BTW, off topic, but Brit Hume just talked about TIME's "errors"* on the Haditha story. No credit given, but glad to see it being given air time.
(*Errors in quotes because I think they were intentional.)
That's great. (And the lack of credit is typical,alas.)
"06 cr 128"By Marc Ash,
Mon Jun 12th, 2006 at 02:26:21 PM EDT :: Fitzgerald Investigation
Just a general review of Jason Leopold's latest article on the Fitzgerald investigation/Rove indictment - for clarity.
Once again we will attempt to clearly separate what we know from what we believe - and why. What we know will be based on official records and official statements. What we believe will be based on single source information and general background information obtained from experts. The conclusions we arrive at should be considered carefully, but not taken as statements of fact, per se.
We know for certain several things about federal indictment "06 cr 128" (Sealed vs. Sealed). The indictment was returned by the same grand jury that has been hearing matters related to the Fitzgerald/Plame investigation. The indictment was filed in the time frame (around May the 10th) that the indictment of Karl Rove was first reported. The title of the indictment, Sealed vs. Sealed, is unusual. Typically a sealed federal indictment will be titled, "US vs. Sealed." The indictment has been sealed for roughly five weeks, an unusually long time (although not unheard-of). We know that experts watching the Fitzgerald/Plame investigation are keeping a very close eye on "06 cr 128" (Sealed vs. Sealed). We know that we attempted to contact Karl Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, on two occasions while researching this issue and both calls went unreturned.
Now for what we believe: We believe that federal criminal indictment "06 cr 128" (Sealed vs. Sealed) is directly related to the Fitzgerald/Plame investigation. That's based on a single credible source and the information discussed above. We believe that Karl Rove is cooperating with federal investigators, and for that reason Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald is not willing to comment on his status. That is based, again, on a single credible source, and background information provided by experts in federal criminal law. We believe that the indictment was returned and filed "on May 10 2006." Same single credible source, and details from the filing records. We believe that if any of the key facts that we have reported were materially false or inaccurate some statement to that effect would be forthcoming from Fitzgerald's staff. That is based on the same single credible source.
Brief note to our regulars:
One negative consequence of the Rove indictment firestorm has been that so much of what we cover that is so important to the community has been pushed into the background. There's a war going on, the right to vote is in doubt, democracy itself is under attack. Let's work together to keep our focus.
Marc Ash, Executive Director - t r u t h o u t
director@truthout.org
FWIW, I have been reliably informed that this PACER record was checked out when it was new, and that the number on the filing is from the Libby case.
And that it seems to be a discovery issue involving Time magazine.
The executive summary: A story claiming that Rove had been indicted on May 12 was circulated by "TruthOut". The DUmmies cheered... and then started getting ugly when they found out that they'd been had.
If the Federal Grand Jury issued the indictment, then it would by definiton be US vs sealed.
Me thinks the author stumbled on a typo or some sort of placeholder.
"This reporter" looks like the kind that probably has, in his home, a closet full of used girl's bicycle seats or something equally perverted.
"We believe that Karl Rove is cooperating with federal investigators, and for that reason Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald is not willing to comment on his status."
I guess this would cover all the bases when there is no indictment because Rove has always been cooperating with the investigators as ordered by the President.
Exactly, so it makes no sense that it would be an "extra" layer of secrecy.
Sealed vs. Sealed.
First thing I thought of was "Spy vs. Spy" from Mad magazine.
ok .. I admit I just woke up from a nap
Fitz has been sitting on sealed indictment for over a month and has done nothing about it??
I'm going back to bed
What does that mean
Truthout thinks Fitz will announce on the 19th??
Of what month??... or year for that matter *L*
Isn't Farrakhan obsessed with 19?
Rove is now a whistle blower ????
BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA .... Oh geez they are just toooo funny
The Salon article, published on Aug. 29 and written by Jason Leopold, a freelancer, accused Mr. White of having tried to obscure losses at Enron by sending an e-mail message to someone he supervised at Enron instructing him: "Close a bigger deal. Hide the loss before the 1Q."Leopold's defense is on the web as well, and he reads like one big whackjob.Salon editors removed the article on Tuesday, saying they could "no longer stand by the story in its entirety." Salon editors began investigating the article after an editor at The Financial Times told them that seven paragraphs of Mr. Leopold's article were copied directly from an article in The Financial Times.
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.