Informative! When I get a look at a blog like this, well structured and relevant...well, it makes me realize how badly I stink. Not literally, of course, but figuratively.
Good stuff though.
Take care.
NYT, NPR, and all that other lefty drek seems not so far off after all eh? Yes on Scootter. Not yet on Rove. Yes on a grand jury extension, though the rules on a second extension are not clear.
You should read the NYT more, Matto
Rove is most likely not being indicted at the moment because Luskin worked his balls off the last few days to keep it from happening. Rove was offered a deal a couple of testimonies ago, and again last week, and declined, but that suggests that Fitzgerald is far from indictment happy.
But the fact that Rove and the White House are going to remain distracted by the investigation and potential fallout from it will continue to keep him from doing his Mr. Potter routine full time in his back office lair. Only Rove could have kept the fractious GOP segments united to back the Miers nomination, and since he wasn't on the job full time the confederation felll apart. The Evangelicals may be spoiling for a fight over a new nominee more to their liking, but not all conservatives are. If Rove is again too distracted to keep all the groups pulling on the same rope it could mean trouble as far as confirmation of the new nominee.
And do you really believe conversations such as those Rove is being questioned about can just 'slipp his mind'? Me neither.
>>>The Evangelicals may be spoiling for a fight over a new nominee more to their liking, but not all conservatives are.
You've got this the wrong way around. Believe me, ALL conservatives are spoiling for a fight over judicial philosophy and the direction of the courts -- we have been for almost 20 years.
But I don't think you'll all be fighting for the same thing.
Also, I don't know how much GWB and the White House itself wants a fight. They have a lot on their plate not moviing forward as it is, and the Miers nomination was at least in part because GWB believed (incorrectly) there would not be a controversial confirmation.
And the Evangelicals don't care who is a constitutional "constructionist," "originalist," etc. All they care about is seating somebody who will help make sure people other than themselves can't get abortions, gay couples can't get married, God stays in the Pledge and prayer gets into public schools, and the nation takes the next steps toward being the Fundamentalist Christian theocracy they think it should be.
So much of that national Evangelical agenda is so at odds with traditional federalist principals that hold sacred the sovereignty of state government. The conservative base is made up of a bunch of strange bedfellows, that's for sure.
That anonymous entry was me (surprise).
OK, Scooter is going to resign once the indictment is announced. Do you all think it's the right move for the White House, rather than digging in?
By extension, should Rove step down and let the administration move on and refocus regardless of whether indictments are on the horizon or not?
5 counts against Scooterm including "one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of making false statements and two counts of perjury in the CIA leak probe. The charges allege Libby lied to FBI agents and committed perjury while testifying before a grand jury.'
And as far a the ongoing investigation into Rove, being smoke, it sounds like an expanded inquiry (if granted) will press a handful of State Department and National Security Council people for more information. So, I'd say the reports of the death of this investigation are somewhat exaggerated.
Joe Wilson's lawyer has also announced a 3 pm ET press conference as well, apparently to announce the launch of a civil suit.
Oh please, oh please, Santa give me a Wilson civil suit. This will be a grand Fitzmas after all!
I expect a civil suit would be somewhat less politicized than this independent counsel mess and Wilson's own lies will (finally) come out into the press.
oh please, oh please.
BTW, read AJStrata, he is PISSED.
Where's my Fitzmas? Joe "the Show" Wilson issued a statement but hasn't launched a civil suit?!! Damn. Come on DU'ers push him to defend himself! Don't let Joey stand idly by and while the Bushies get away with such ridiculous slander against this most honest and private public servant!
I guess Joey realized that such a suit would actually bring the truth to light, and he would not look good in that light.
This bit from Dick Morris 9who despite being a former Clinton advisor has been very vocal in his opinion that Rove should not be indicted or made to step down) sums up a lot of my feelings on it.
-----
If The New York Times is correct (a big "if"), Cheney told his chief of staff, Scooter Libby, about Joe Wilson's wife and her possible role in his selection to go to Niger to verify the story about the sale of yellow cake to Iraq. While Cheney clammed up, Libby told the world, and possibly the grand jury, that he learned this from a journalist.
If Libby lied in public, it is unfortunate. If he did so before the grand jury, it could be criminal. Either way, the vice president knew that he was not telling the truth — yet did nothing in public, or presumably in private, to correct him...
Why did the vice president choose to remain silent and keep his role from public view? Did Cheney tell the prosecutor he was the one who told Libby about Plame? Did he tell the president?
Assuming the Times has its facts right, the burden of proof shifts to Cheney. It is incumbent on him to explain why he let his chief of staff mislead the public — for two years, including the entire 2004 presidential campaign.
There may be an innocent explanation for the veep's silence, or the Times may be wrong. But Dick Cheney owes us all an explanation.
-----
Taken along with Lawrence Wilkerson's description of how Cheney fixated on CIA agent Plame being Wilson's spouse when Powell showed that to him in a report, and with the the commonly cited working habits of Cheney and Scooter in which they spent hours together every day and each knew everything the other was doing, the "Cheney Cabal" interpretation has merit.
Scooter is falling on his sword like a good soldier and that is his job. It is also the job of the prosecuter to determine why Cheney let Scooter deceive the grand jury for two years if he indeed knew where his information came from.
Happy Fitzunnakah!
I can only hope that the integrity of this country's government can someday be restored. Fitz's quest for the truth is a first step. The treasonous and unlawful ways of members of this administration must end.
Furthur steps can be taken to straighten out our government;campaign finance reform initiatives, clean elections, term limits, balanced budgets. I'll go a step furthur and demand that any public official be held accountable for what they say in an official public role. Should a Congressman, President, Administration member or other elected or appointed official lie in an official governement role, they should be jailed.
To think that the very people who call you unpatriotic for not supporting the President, yet support acts of treason, is the ultimate in hypocrisy.
Fitzgerald is a great example of how a public servant should perform. The professionalism he's exhibited, and his regard for law and truth are honorable. Regardless of the results of his investigation, the way he's conducted the investigation is something for all in governement service to strive for. If the Administration cared as much about the truth as they did about furthering there agenda in Iraq the Fitgerald investigation may not have even been needed.
That was just the first day of Fitzmas. Dick has a lot to answer for if the corporate media ever decide to read the actual inditment.
39% aproval rating and falling.
"Assuming the Times has its facts right, the burden of proof shifts to Cheney. It is incumbent on him to explain why he let his chief of staff mislead the public — for two years, including the entire 2004 presidential campaign."
How would Cheney have known what his chief of staff said to the Grand Jury or the FBI? It would be illegal for Cheney to speak of testimony Libby had given, assuming CHeney was told and that is not a given.
Also, you are assuming a crime was committed. Do you know that Libby was trying to mislead? Just because someone is indicted doesn't mean they committed a crime. Patience.
I have nothing but patience. And fortunately, Fitzpatrick seems to as well.
It doesn't matter if Cheney knew precisely what was said by Scooter to the Grand Jury or FBI. Once it bacame public knowledge that he discussed Plame with reporters before her name was revealed by Novak, Cheney could have issued a statement as to whether Scooter's knowledge came from Cheney or not.
Not that I think he would, because I'm sure Cheney knew full well where Scooter got his info. I'm equally sure inulating Cheney from this issue if it blew up was by design.
er, I mean Fitzgerald.
Commenting by HaloScan
