PDA

View Full Version : The Rove Indictment Story as of Right Now



SnakebyteXX
05-20-2006, 06:52 PM
The Rove Indictment Story as of Right Now

By Marc Ash,

Fri May 19th, 2006 at 04:23:39 PM EDT :: Fitzgerald Investigation

On Saturday afternoon, May 13, 2006, TruthOut ran a story titled, "Karl Rove Indicted on Charges of Perjury, Lying to Investigators." The story stated in part that top Bush aide Karl Rove had earlier that day been indicted on the charges set forth in the story's title.

The time has now come, however, to issue a partial apology to our readership for this story. While we paid very careful attention to the sourcing on this story, we erred in getting too far out in front of the news-cycle. In moving as quickly as we did, we caused more confusion than clarity. And that was a disservice to our readership and we regret it.

As such, we will be taking the wait-and-see approach for the time being. We will keep you posted.

Marc Ash, Executive Director - t r u t h o u t
mailto:director@truthout.org

web page (http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2006/5/19/162339/178)

Gayle in MD
05-21-2006, 10:31 AM
Man oh man, the suspence is KILLING me! There is another reporter, also, who was saying last week that he had sources telling him that Rove would be indicted. I think he will be indicted, mostly because Bush has distanced Rove from the White House policy affairs, just as he did with Goss, who people are now saying is mixed up in this whole CIA corruption/Watergate/prostitute/poker/travel/limo/ affair, LOL. When they said Rove would be taken off White House policy, I thought something was definately up with the indictment.

Now, scuttlebutt around Washington has shifted over to no indictment. JEEZE!

My one secret source says...Rove is going to be indicted.
go figure!

According to my understanding of the whole Plame affair, Rove SHOULD be indicted. I have always thought the Novak's testimony would have cinched it, since Rove was definately his source, and it was his article which outed Plame.

Gayle in Md.

SnakebyteXX
05-21-2006, 10:51 AM
Gayle, whether he SHOULD be indicted or not in my opinion that 'partial' apology is total BS. The gist of the original news release from the good folks at truthout.org was that Rove HAD BEEN indicted. Either he has or he hasn't. It defies imagination that he WAS indicted and an entire week has now elapsed without any real information to indicate truthout got the truth out.

Right now it would appear that truthout just stuck their foot in their mouth in a big way and have thus far only managed to get it 'partially' out.

Snake

Gayle in MD
05-21-2006, 11:34 AM
I agree, they screwed up, for sure...didn't mean to ignore your original point.
Now, what's your theory about the screw up? And the investigation?

Do you think Fitzgerald might have gotten pissed about a factual leak, and dicided to make all of us wait long enough to punish the media folks that got the heads up?

Do you think Rove's lawyer cut a deal? And Rove is off the hook?

Do you think the jury would hear all the info about how the administration was focussed on the whole Wilson thing, how they could discredit him, Cheney writing on the news copy of the article, and all, but still believe that Rove and Libby didn't remember anything about it?

We know Rove told Cooper, which Rove originally denied, but he says he forgot that he and Cooper had talked about Wilson, or his wife being with the CIA, but the e-mail that his attorney found, had been sent to Hadley, telling Hadley that he had managed to steer Cooper off Wilson's contention that the yellow cake theory was irrational, and not true, and that the administration knew it wasn't true, which the administration was forced to acknowledge when they withdrew the President's State of the Union statement on Yellow cake, and Saddam.

We know that Rove's sttorney got a heads up from Vivica Novak, (no relation) warning Rove's attorney that a reporter was going to say that Rove did in fact tell him about Wilson's wife, this after Rove's first testimony stating the contrary.

We know that Novak barked out at reporters once when they asked him who his source was..."Ask the President, I'm sure he knows!"

We know that Libby told Miller...about Plame...

We know the administration was mad about Wilson's story on the yellow cake.

And, we know that Valarie WAS a covert operative, who WAS outed by the Novak story.

so...what's your take? Just wondering, OK?

Gayle in Md.

SnakebyteXX
05-21-2006, 07:05 PM
I'm not at all certain but if I were in a high muckety-muck position politically and was ultra worried about leaks I might just concoct something SO juicy that who ever learned about it and was leak inclined would know that it HAD to be let out of the bag. Then I'd sit back and watch and wait until the leaker leaked the leak. Going that route I'd be killing two birds with one stone. First I'd find out who amongst my most trusted of trust worthies wasn't so trustworthy after all and second I'd get to anonymously discredit a thorn in the side newsie like the truthout dude.

Works for me.

Snake

DickLeonard
05-22-2006, 04:42 AM
Snakebyetex How do you think the Mafia culled their ranks.####

Gayle in MD
05-25-2006, 08:13 AM
LOL...the leaker, may be sleeping with the fishes /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif