Luskin Never Said Rove Won't Be Indicted-It Was "Fitz Doesn't ANTICIPATE"

KittyWampus

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Jun-13-06 03:41 PM
Original message

Luskin Never Said Rove Won't Be Indicted-It Was "Fitz Doesn't ANTICIPATE"

indicting Rove.

Which would make sense if Rove was cooperating after being faced with a sealed indictment.

At this point Fitz anticipates Rove will cooperate because Rove has agreed.

And this scenario is entirely consistent with how Fitzgerald has operated in the past.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

WI_DEM

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Jun-13-06 03:42 PM
Response to Original message

1. let's just see what happens when it happens or if it happens

and let Fitz conduct his investigation. Other indictments will probably come. Let's just wait and see and have no more "Fitzmas" nonsense.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Strathos

(713 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Jun-13-06 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #1

2. Agreed

I've learned a HUGE lesson from this. Don't go bragging and boasting until the fat lady has sung, not when she's just warming up or even during the song. Wait until it's finished.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

arwalden

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Jun-13-06 03:48 PM
Response to Original message

3. Wait, wait... that doesn't make sense.

Wasn't Rove ALREADY indicted?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

OzarkDem

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Jun-13-06 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #3

4. Some people aren't happy with reality

Sorry, bud, but Rove isn't off the hook. Hate to ruin your day.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

arwalden

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Jun-13-06 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #4

6. Why Do You Assume That I Want Rove "Off-The-Hook"?

Edited on Tue Jun-13-06 04:05 PM by arwalden

What specific thing is it about my desire to hold Leopold accountable for his erroneous story that makes you believe that I'm supporting or defending Rove?

The Herculean logic you're using to arrive at that conclusion certainly bears explanation... or at the very least, a critical examination. So please, enlighten us.

Now is your chance to shine. Tell us all how it is that by my pointing out the obvious truth of Leopold being wrong, and by my reminding the reader that Rove was NOT indicted (as had been claimed), that I must therefore be a Rove supporter.

Go ahead. I'm waiting.

:popcorn:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

KittyWampus

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Jun-13-06 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #6

13. Actually, you're probably just doing your best to be a 'debunker'

Edited on Tue Jun-13-06 04:47 PM by cryingshame

if the past is any indicator. But that's just a guess.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

arwalden

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Jun-13-06 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #13

17. Sorry... Your Comment Makes No Sense.

I assume you were trying your best to make some clever remark... but it's clear that you missed whatever target you were aiming for. :shrug:

<< if the past is any indicator. >>

Hey... Stop living in the past! It sounds like someone's been carrying around a grudge with them for an awfully long time.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

KittyWampus

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Jun-13-06 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #3

12. That is entirely possible in the above scenario. And consistent w/ Fitz's

method of operation in the past.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

arwalden

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Jun-13-06 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #12

19. One More Time... Explain That Again...

... how exactly is "not indicted" the same thing as "has been indicted". :silly:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

aquart

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Jun-13-06 03:52 PM
Response to Original message

5. Is this the first time Fitz has NOT indicted "Official A"?

Or has it occurred before?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

OrangeCountyDemocrat

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Jun-13-06 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #5

7. I Think David Schuster Said This On Countdown

When he predicted rover would be indicted, I believe he mentioned that "Official A" has Always been indicted by Fitz in the past.

But Fitz never dealt with Der Fuhrer's administration before.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Snivi Yllom

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Jun-13-06 04:09 PM
Response to Original message

8. "Fitz Doesn't ANTICIPATE" = Rove was NOT INDICTED

It's not so hard to figure out.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

arwalden

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Jun-13-06 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #8

9. Oh You And Your Pesky Logic! Accuracy Is No Fun!!

Let's just pretend that he was indicted. That's much more fun. And we'll pretend that anyone who says anything different is a Rove supporter. Let's make believe that because "MSM" didn't report that Rove was indicted, then that actually means he WAS indicted.

Do you like my new tea-set? You can be the daddy and I'll be the mommy, and this teddy bear is our baby. Playing make-believe is fun!

Oh! -- One lump or two?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Kahuna

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Jun-13-06 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #9

20. Have I told you lately...

How much I adore you? :loveya: :loveya: :loveya:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

arwalden

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Jun-13-06 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #20

22. ~

:hi:

:loveya: back!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

OzarkDem

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Jun-13-06 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #8

10. Yet

Never say never. Let's wait until the investigation is complete before we exonerate Rove.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

KittyWampus

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Jun-13-06 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #8

14. Again, you totally jump to a conclusion not supported by evidence.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

KittyWampus

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Jun-13-06 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #14

15. Rove need not anticipate indictments leading to trial as long as he

Edited on Tue Jun-13-06 04:50 PM by cryingshame

cooperates.

This isn't very complicated and it's bizarre so many won't grasp it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Dinger

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Jun-13-06 04:39 PM
Response to Original message

11. Oh Please, Just Stop

It isn't even fun any more. I don't give a shit.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

tiptoe

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Jun-13-06 04:53 PM
Response to Original message

16. k & r!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

theboss

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Jun-13-06 04:55 PM
Response to Original message

18. Except, he was indicted back on May 12th according to Leopold

You can't unring a bell. You can't unindict someone.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Kahuna

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Jun-13-06 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #18

21. Gee whiz!!

:popcorn:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Wed May 15th 2024, 09:02 PM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.