Is it possible that Fitz is holding the indictment over Rove's head

to keep Bush from pardoning Libby? I think that is a definite possibility, but I want a DU consensus.

I don't think that's his M.O.

On edit:
A DU consensus? That's a great oxymoron!

:rofl:

:D

Like it or not folks, things really are very hard to prove in court! That's why Libby was indicted for lying to the GJ, and not for many other things we all believe he did!

I realize it's difficult, but this story will soon be replaced by another one. The Abramoff case has many more tenticles, and few have been grabbed. Have a little patience.

bigger fish--perhaps VP Cheney? But who knows?

He hasn't announced that Rove will not be indicted; he hasn't announced that his investigations are over. And I seriously doubt that it's taken him this long to realize that he either can't or shouldn't indict Rove. I think Rove, possibly unwittingly, gave Fitz something that he can use against Bush and Cheney--something he was willing to give up Rove for.

:headbang:
rocknation

I didn't hear much of the news the day it was announced but I thought Fitzgerald came out and confirmed what Luskin said...that Rove was not going to be indicted. If Fitzgerald DIDN'T confirm that fact I still have hope something is up.

That, you will never get. ;)

I think there is something going on behind the scenes, but I don't think that's it.

I think Rove would fall on his "sword" <he he..sorry> anyway, yep take an indictment for the sake of his prez, be the hero of the repuks and if found guilty...presto...prez pardon.

No president has every pardoned someone from their own administration, during an ongoing investigation into their own administration.

w wll do whatever the fuck he wants. As always.

self-preservation can trump all else, especially if one were to be a sociopath like Bush.

although it might take the Democrats at least getting back the House for that to happen.
That's my gut instinct anyway for what it's worth.
The question then is if Bush would really care.

for granting a pardon? Under what charge? I understood that a presidential pardon was absolute. I could be wrong, but that's my understanding.

;)

http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcolumn/01_columns/030601.htm

SNIP

"But unforgivable is what former President George Bush did. He protected himself--a former Reagan administration official--in an ongoing investigation when he pardoned Reagan's Defense secretary, Casper Weinberger, and the rest of the Iran-Contra gang of six.

"At the time, Independent Counsel Lawrence E. Walsh bitterly charged that "the Iran-Contra cover-up, which has continued for more than six years, has now been completed"--by presidential fiat. Walsh called it "evidence of a conspiracy among the highest-ranking Reagan administration officials to lie to Congress and the American public" and said that, "in light of President Bush's own misconduct," he was "gravely concerned" about Bush's decision to pardon others.

:Bush could easily have been said to have covered up his own potential culpability--far short of anything Clinton has been accused of doing in his pardon of Marc Rich or anyone else. Nor did the Bush Iran-Contra pardons pass the one-more-pardon-before-leaving-the-White-House "smell test" so liberally applied to Clinton's pardons; the pardon came after intensive lobbying by former Reagan aides and many last-minute White House meetings."

SNIP

first of all because these crimes were committed during the Reagan administration. Poppy claimed plausible deniablity, so he was never legally implicated in Iran/Contra.

against him.

I think it more likely though that it was either hung over his head to force him to cooperate or wasn't there to begin with. But who knows? Anything's possible here. :)

but I believe things are not quite as they seem right now. Rove is great at getting bad news delayed until after elections so who knows. I am however going to let it go and wait... if anything is going to happen it will happen in time nothing I do or say will change it.

after lurking here since a friend at work turned me on to this site.

Am I allowed to say...we need to let this go?

But thanks anyway.:-)

See how we all agree around here?

Welcome to DU, bobby911.

...I don't think "lurker" is necessarily the right word?

I'm so proud of you all, I could just poop.

Truth is, some pieces do fit for this picture to solve the puzzle.

Did a certain now infamous DU'er hitch his "journalistic" credibility wagon to:

A. A Stallion?

B. An Ass?

This is not over yet. I still have a lot of faith in that "infamous DU'er." Yep.