What did you think?

-P

http://edschultz.invisionzone.com/index.ph...ndpost&p=235899

Chip

Yeah, I thought Leopold deserved a separate thread.

Here's RawStory's take.

-P

Thanks for the link, P. What do I think? I think that when one has the money and power that Rove has things tend to go your way. I think people were bought off.

Quote from the article via the link you provided:
"To clarify: The entire basis for the information that 'Rove has been cleared' comes from a verbal statement by Karl Rove's attorney. No one else confirms that. As Karl Rove's attorney Robert Luskin is bound to act - in all regards - in Rove's best interest. We question his motives."

Many people are making the assumption that our legal system is still working. Well thanks to Rove and the rest of this "administration" our Constitution--the highest law in the land, formerly--has become all but meaningless if it gets in the way of their power.

Doesn't Patrick Fitzgerald's boss answer to Attorney General Gonzales? The same Gonzales who fought to remove the Geneva conventions. The same Gonzales who fights to remove--from the US Constitution--the inherent protections written into the Constitution to protect the American Public from an intrusive government? Gonzales is the big daddy of the Department of Justice--He is justice, baby, and you won't get any if it goes against any of his cronies.

Of course they want to destroy the credibility of bloggers. Duh! Do you expect anything less from this pack of liars?

Yeah, guys, get the truth from Karl Rove/Bush/Gonzales/Cheney/Snow or any of their group. There you go, now that's believable.

With all due respect, even if he cut a deal that was not what Lieopold reported. And for him to still insinuate that he is sticking my his sources is going to far. Because he should assume that if Roves attorney is reporting that there will not be an indictment. Then he should take it a face value.

IMO, Rove masterminded the whole thing and is guilty as hell.

I wouldn't give up yet. I don't think we've seen the entire story yet.

Also, I'm pretty sure that Fitzgerald has a completely independent status and Gonzales has no oversight on this.

-P

OOOOOOO-those wascally neocons pulled it over on us again. Wait till the instant replay. We'll get 'em then.

I believe Jason Leopold and believe that we will NEVER know what really happened. Just like we'll never know who formulated our energy policy.

....or who counted the votes.....

Looks like the full interview is now available here.

-P

I completely agree that we haven't seen the story. I've been following it at FireDogLake CIA Leak Archive and like Christy says:


But we've seen there's no congressional oversight, there's very little judicial oversight, there is no real journalistic challenge. We've seen that these guys will protect themselves and their agenda at all costs and if they can destroy Truthout and other blogs in the process, all the better.

Seriously--I'm asking because I don't know-- what is to prevent Gonzales from getting his hands into this investigation?

It might not happen in our lifetime, but I believe the information is out there in the form of discredited whistleblowers and others who are presently silent because they fear becoming discredited whistleblowers. --that's another law the president doesn't think he needs to abide by.

Eventually this will all be put together. Right now we still have people who still believe the crap this "administration" puts out.

As special counsel, Fitzgerald has the full authority of the Attorney General in this case. This is also known as plenary power, which was confirmed for Fitzgerald by the previous (acting) attorney general.

(I had to search for this info as I couldn't remember exactly how it played out-I'm no legal scholar).

Hope this helps.

-P

Thanks, Plunderer, but I'm still not convinced that Gonzales would abide by any laws, any protocols, any longstanding agreements, or anything else that doesn't suit him. I'm a kindergartener when it comes to law, but I sure can see someone who doesn't think the law--constitutional or international--matters in his own case.

Don't you think it's significant that the attorney general who approved the independent inquiry is gone and Gonzales is in? I haven't looked at that, so I'm wondering out loud.

I hope you are right. I just don't see any other explanation for how these guys are getting away with everything they've done and continue to do.

I don't really care that Rove's not being charged for this. What I want to know is "Where's the next god damned charge, investigation, or indictment?!" I want him and his lawyers buried nose deep in paperwork and legal proceedings.

The man (Rove) is scum and he'll get his come-up-ins sooner or later.

The left's mantra:

When you find yourself in a hole, keep digging.

I'm not the one with the shovel. I prefer to lean on the truth.

Much like the Dan Rather situation, I believe Leopold was possibly set up. However, I have to imagine as well that Leopold was correct, and that set things in motion that we didn't see. If you look at the slimy fingerprints on this process, you will see Gonzalez'. I would like to think Rove turned into a songbird and agreed to testify against Cheney, but I quit believing in Santa Clause over 40 years ago. IMO, Rove will be free, causing the attitudes of the WH to get even worse, if that's possible, because they got away with treason this time.

It seems like the lefties keep falling for tricks from those wascally neocons/righties. What's the problem here? A lack of intellect? Or maybe the "journalist" was just plain lying.

Please explain to us lefties why you feel that Leopold was/is incorrect. I see a lot of attacks but no evidence to prove your point.

Do you have anything intelligent to contribute?

Or do you wish to continue trolling?

As you know, a number of conservatives are allowed to have a voice on this board. We welcome them, but they don't troll. I can easily put a stop to you if you prefer the latter.

Last chance to shape up, buddy.

-P

I doubt he'll take your warnings to heart. All I've seen from this person is attacks. Good show of your authority, though! Let 'em have it!

I was wondering when Plunderer or AmtrackMatt would put a plug in this one.....
To O.Well, I'd really like to see a little more substance in your posts. They are not among the finest on this board. Sallie

I try to give everyone a chance.

It doesn't always work.

-P

Graciousness--Sallie personifies that concept. You're a true diplomat Sallie.

Five possible theories;

1. Gonzalez stepped in and stopped the indictment. I don't care what special prosecutor laws say, The Attorney General is the boss of all federal prosectors.
It would be like saying the CEO of a company couldn't "fire" a consultant hired by one of his employees, because the consultant doesn't work for the company. Yea, right.

2. The carrot, and stick approach. Fitz is told that if Rove is indicted he will never see the inside of a jail, because of a Bush pardon. However, if he is not indicted, he will co-operate in Libby case, and possibly a few other lower level indictments.

3. Lets make a deal. A variation of #2. Don't indict Rove, and Bush will not pardon Libby. Indict Rove, and both he and Libby get a pardon.

4. The ego approach. Don't indict Rove, and he will give up Cheney. You will then be the only lawman in US history to bring an indictment against a sitting VP. Fitz may be honest, but he's still got an ego. BTW. As part of the deal Cheney will of course be pardoned.

5. The hardline approach. Indict Rove and you will spend the rest of your legal life, defending jaywalkers, and people arrested for DUIs who can only afford the monthly payment plan. Don't discount this one. The legal community is somewhat close knit, and W has appointed a lot of federal judges that a defense attorney has to deal with on federal cases (Hint, Hint).

BTW. Luskin would have to be freakin nuts to say what he's saying, if FITZ holds a sealed indictment.

um, you forgot the obvious theory. Rove committed no crime. You see, my friends on the left, in order to get an indictment you have to provide at least some evidence that a crime has been committed by an individual or group of individuals. After 3 years of independent investigation not one person has been even charged with the crime for which the investigation was commissioned, that is to see if anyone criminally leaked the name of an undercover CIA agent. To the contrary, Fitz now says that that won't even enter into his only prosecution so far, that of Scooter Libby for obstruction and purjury. We'll see whether or not he is able to convict Scooter, but so far that is the absolute best he can do. The idea that somehow some blockbuster "secret deal" or future indictment of Cheney is coming is, frankly, silly. How about this, like Rather and Mapes before him Leopold put forth a fraudulent story and got caught on it. It looks like old Joe is going to be deprived of his "Karl Rove Frog March" that he so desired.

Finally, I love it when you constitutional scholars and law efficianodos on the left say things like "I don't care what special prosecutor laws say". Priceless.

But Rove is the DEVIL and he keeps getting Reps elected and we dont like that and how dare you say that Rather lied, even if the paper was forged we all know its true. Mapes is a true liberal hero and now Leopold has joined the ranks of liberal hero.

I think your concerns are very well founded.
Apparently so did Libby's defense team:
On Feb 23, 2006 they filed a motion (available here) arguing that Fitzgerald's authority was too broad and too independent. The motion asserted that the appointment of the Special Counsel violates the Appointments Clause which requires the advice and consent of the Senate for a "principal officer" who can exercise the power of the United States to approve an indictment and prosecute a case without further supervision by a superior officer.
Fitzgerald's response is here.
Judge Walton rejected the motion in April, but I would not count the issue out quite yet.