hold on, latest on Leopold, Rove, Indictment - Did it happen?

ok ok ok, based on the latest thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1462928&mesg_id=1462954

If we are to believe truthout (and I trust them more than Luskin or Rove), then it seems that Rove was indeed indicted. TO says that "we found out something we were not supposed to find out"...

Does this mean that NO ONE IS SUPPOSED TO KNOW ROVE GOT INDICTED. That is why Luskin GOT PERMISSION to tell the world that Rove was off the hook from FITZ. FITZ needs Rove for the rest of the case, but NO ONE is supposed to know that.

What to believe?

On edit:
Look at what Luskin actually said:
"We believe the special counsel's decision should put an end to the baseless speculation {TO} about Mr. Rove's conduct"
He was directing that quote directly to Truthout. It was meant for them.

Here is the latest from TO
http://forum.truthout.org/blog/

do you think the Gonzales DOJ would pull to squash the indictment? :shrug:

was gone when Comey resigned?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1424344

I think the statement made was verbal only and nothing is shown in writing was that Karl
Rove would not be indicted unless circumstances change, now we have Bush announcing to
that Fitz's investigation is over and that he did a heckuva job. Fitz
says nothing, and Leopold and Truthout are trashed and smeared by everyone. Does this
seem like a familiar pattern???? Hmmmmmm!

In October, Libby was charged with obstruction of justice and lying to FBI agents and a grand jury during the investigation. He has pleaded not guilty and is scheduled to go to trial in January.

That prompted speculation that Rove, too, could face charges since he had also spoken to reporters in the case.

"We believe the special counsel's decision should put an end to the baseless speculation about Mr. Rove's conduct," Luskin said.

On Air Force One flying back from a surprise trip to Iraq, Bush said of the decision: "It's a chapter that has ended. Fitzgerald is a very thorough person. I think he's conducted his investigation in a dignified way. And he's ended his investigation."

http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/swissinfo.html?siteSect=143&sid=6806820

because if in print, I think Mr. Luskin would have called for a press conference and FOX news cameras to read it publically and gloat.

they tend to like paper, notarized, sworn affadavits, even your jury summons is in writing.

to let an unindicted person know that they would not be indicted.

but we were told by Luskin that there was a written document

criminally in the Plame affair, I just KNEW in my deepest deep that he would not be charged with ANYTHING as long as the current administration was in power. Guilt or innocence mean nothing in this case. Everyone in a position to decide Rove's fate knows how vital this man is to Bush. There was no way that they would take chances with his freedom.

Not only do I believe the Gonzales-DOJ would prevent charging Rove, but I just felt that even Bush was more ready to step in to protect Rove than he was prepared to do when it came to Ken Lay. Rove is Bush's alter ego and Bush knows that he can't make it through the day without this man when it comes to career. We can see how things went to hell for Bush during the time that Rove was occupied with the Grand Jury and Fitzgerald.

Just look at the very obvious lies this administration has told the public and you get a good idea at how BushCo would have worked to keep Rove free and available to run things for GWB. Talk about wagging the dog!

At any rate, I deliberately refused to allowm myself to get excited about the possibility of Rove being indicted. If Democrats are learning one lesson very well, it is DISAPPOINTMENT...over and over and over and over and over.......Yes, there ARE some successes and some positive events, but on the whole, our leaders do not even follow up those successes with words or actions of conviction.

He beet them with leeks.

Nor am I inclined to excoriate TO, Marc Ash, Will Pitt, or Jason Leopold. Something is going on. It may be that the only thing I have to base that statement on is the fact that Fitz has never confirmed Luskin's declaration but my intuition is strong on this one. I haven't waded into the debate, at all, and I don't intend to do so, now. I just sense that there's much more than meets the eye, here. That's all.

Mr. Fitzgerald & Co. are not allowed to comment on any of this. If they press charges, as with Libby, they can speak to the issues involved. Otherwise, they cannot.

Perhaps more significant is the quiet that is coming out of the republican quarters. As our favorite Beatle said, "A conspiracy of silence speaks louder than words!"

It is not over.

I don't think either side of the argument has enough info to make any kind of conclusion. Given the track record of this administration, I'm certainly not going to give them the benefit of belief.

lackey Joe DeGenova and the media crowing over Rove "getting off" makes it even more complicated.

I wish Fitz would confirm or deny he sent Rove a Fax. I don't know why he wont because that would verify something he's done and not be revealing anything about what he's doing.

I'm not sure that TO wasn't used in some way. They could have personal motivations for standing by their story or they really do believe their sources are so sound they are confused as to why they were taken for a ride.

It's hard to sort it out. I wonder if we will ever know...if pardons shut the whole thing down.

I wonder why Fitz's office cannot confirm something they have put on paper... If they put it on paper and faxed it, and the Attorney of record reveals it to the public, where is the harm in the prosecutor's office confirming? It has been made public by Rove's Lawyer, therefore, it is a public document...

so I think it's safe to assume that he did.

The only thing I am sorry about is this lasted til only June - thats it.

I don't care what happens to Rove -

He is not our problem.

Joe

For leaking classified information? How would that be for irony?

I have to assume Rove got off until something official says otherwise.

ney

at least for now. I believe this Truthout story.

in another month. Until then I'm off this subject.

TO claims that Fitzgeralds camp leaked the indictment to them in order to put pressure on Rove. That would be against the law, and would be total justification for shutting down Fitzgerald.

Nice one TO, not only have you misled us, but now you may have destroyed our chance to see justice done.

Leopold/TO/Rove/Fitzgerald/Cheney etc?

Just to piss you off :P

Of course it could also be that I just want to share my opinion like anyone else. Of course if you have a problem with that...

Some of us have speculated they could have been used by either side, too.

Who knows....

I would assume THEIR "speculation" in regards to their sources would be fairly accurate. But hey, I don;t really believe there are sources, so who knows?

What I do know is that it doesnt matter if it is true or not. The suggestion coming from a left leaning blog/news site that Fitzgerald's camp may have used illegal leaks to put pressure on Rove is more than enough for Bush (Rove) to shut down the investigation.

I mean, who is gonna argue with that? Fox News? CNN? Who? The bloggers? The same bloggers who would be forced to say that it was a left leaning blog/news site that got the story wrong in the first place?

it says that at all.

Here it is verbatim, you tell me what YOU think it means:

"He did not. Fitzgerald appears to have used the indictment, and more importantly, the fear that it would go public, to extract information about the Plame outing case from Rove.

Yes, it does appear that Truthout was used, but not lied to or misled. The facts appear to have been accurate. We reported them, and in so doing, apparently became an instrument."

for sure that it is distinct from your quote -- verbatim -- "TO claims Fotzgerald's camp leaked the indictment to them ..." Your quote is distinct from the one from TO. While it is possible to read the TO quote and reach the conclusion you did, it is only one possibility. Because there are other equally valid interpretations, it would be correct for a person to say, "I think they are saying..." But it is not correct to say, "TO claims ..." when that is merely your interpretation.

There are at least two other possibilities of who served as TO's sources, for reasons that would fit the TO statement even better than your interpretation.

just a story written by people who were not there... we have to say.. no.

Larisa wrote something saying.. Truthout doesn't know what exactly happened.

Rove's lawyers office or Fitz's office. Ken Starr was followed 24/7 by media anxious to view his every step. This is the most puzzling thing. That no one has tracked the whereabouts of Luskin or Fitz. Has anyone even verified he took his cat to the vet?

In another time...reporters would have been all over this, with rumors of someone as powerful as Rove possibly being indicted swirling for months.

The whole thing is just beginning to smell bad from all angles.

that there WERE reporters staking them out? That maybe THAT is why the rest of the media didn't run with this story?

What happened? I don't see anything on the site but an AP story on Leopold and his low-life ethics. Nothing from T.O.

Discussion here.

strange...

Thanks for the link though.

Not only that it was the 2nd story that brought him down at a time when TO's rep was in the crapper.

Luskind has not produced the letter

and Fitz's office true to form is not leaking

So, did Rove try to goad Fitz's office to force something and possibly blow up the case?
Why won't Fitz release the letter? or a press conference?

I once posted that I believed Leopold and Pitt, I don't think that they 'made' things up but were clearly intentionaly duped or misled.

So what's the truth? only Fitz seems to know, and he doesn't leak

They seem to be suggesting they were "used" as an "instrument" to put pressure on Rove. Who else would want to do that but Fitzgerald's team?

Of course, it could all be bullshit and there was no indictment and therefore no leak....

We haven't seen any indication that Fitzgerald's team has leaked anything, ever, during this investigation, to the best of my knowledge. OTOH, there have been repeated leaks apparently coming from Rove's and Libby's legal teams. Who benefits from the current brouhaha? Who loses? Karl's claiming to be in the clear and trial balloons are being floated vis a vis a Libby pardon. Truthout's rep is in the crapper. Fitzgerald has said nothing and as far as we know is chugging along, working on the case against Libby and perhaps against others.

because if it was Luskin then they are lying about how and why the information was leaked to them. Unless they are claiming Luskin was trying to use TO to put pressure on Rove to cooperate with Fitzgerald?

If that is the case, then Luskin should be considered a hero by TO, which is clearly not the case.

he already had one.

You know what they do to people who are on to them, you'll be suicided!

That's what Luskin claims Fitzie said/wrote. ...Not to indict at this time.

The period comes after those three words, not after indict.

They got what they needed when the actual hearings were not scheduled until after the 2006 elections ... Just as they fought to keep any discussion about the lies about Iraq until after the 2004 elections ...

My sense is that somehow, Rove's lawyer knows he bought enough time to keep any hammer from dropping on Rove until after these upcoming elections ... Then, sometime between November 3 and the hearing, Bush is going to pardon everyone associated with it ...

I don't like it, but that is how it is going to play out ... By then, he won't even try to make the pretense that he cares anymore ... He will be asked about it, and literally will say, I am the president, I can do what I want ...