Bush aide Karl Rove will not be indicted by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald for his role in the Valerie Plame CIA leak controversy, ending months of intense speculation about Rove’s legal fate.
Rove was said to be “elated” by the news, but any White House celebration should be tempered by the sober realization of how close the president’s closest political adviser came to being charged with wrongdoing for not revealing all that he knew about the Plame case. Rove’s ethics also remain under a cloud, tarnished by his reputation for mean-spirited attack politics. And with the trial of Lewis “Scooter” Libby coming up and the possibility that Vice President Dick Cheney will be called to testify, speculation of all kinds is sure to continue.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Daniel on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Health care reform would save state money
- American_Way on Health care reform would save state money
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on So they said
59 Comments
Dear Randy,
Charges against Scooter will be dropped before the end of the year. Shortly after November elections.
Hank
Just wondering Randy, how you would know the reason that Carl Rove was allegedly almost charged? Isn’t grand jury testimony supposed to be closed?
But you are right about his reputation being trashed. Do you suppose that was the plan all along?
And who was the Grinch that stole Fitzmas?
Sloppy work, Randy, saying that Rove “will not be indicted.” Here’s what Luskin said:
“In a statement, Mr. Luskin said, “On June 12, 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove.”
Doesn’t sound definitive to me. Sounds conditional. Sounds like a plea bargain for Rove to testify against someone to avoid prosecution. And if he balks or is playing for time, the statement leaves open the possibility of putting Rove back in the hot seat.
And if he DOES testify in accordance with a plea bargain, against whom? Scooter? Cheney?
Randy,
All that maters in the end is you, the other liberals, and journalist Bush bashers got to sensationalize the news with your gossip and spread of rumors.
It reminds me of trying to kill a witch. You sit around and drag the guys name through the mud and then when it is all over he is found innocent, but his name is now tarnished.
I sometimes wonder what the difference between the tabloids and the so called “main stream” media will be in another decade.
I am surprised there is not a thread about the beating of Al-Zarqawi here yet.
Nathan
Nobody drags Bush’s name through the mud. He handles that quite well without any help.
CF:
“. . . he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove.”
In prosecutor-talk, CF, that’s pretty definitive. One NEVER speaks in absolutes, but that’s pretty close. He won’t be indicted, absent a MAJOR change of circumstances.
There is no evidence that Zarqawi was beaten. But there is also no mention about how innocents were killed along with him.
Not too big on worrying about the innocent?
WAH WAH WAH!!! NATHAN
After 8 years of non-stop Clinton-bashing what is baing done to the Shrub is miniscule.
You know what your post is missing Ben…
Substance
As is yours nathan …
CF
Can we have an I TOLD YOU SO!!!
GMC70,
Oh, you mean like a last minute refusal to testify against Dick Cheney or Scooter Libby?
CF
We will have another one of those when Delay’s charges are dropped before a trial begins. Of course the damage is already done. And don’t be surprised if Libby walks.
Ben
And how many of Clintons associastes ended up in jail?
Or dead!
Hank
“Dear Randy,
Charges against Scooter will be dropped before the end of the year. Shortly after November elections.
Hank
Posted by: Hank Price | June 13, 2006 at 12:56 PM”
Noted for future reference, Hank. An uncommonly stupid assertion. As GMC70 will tell you, prosecutors usually don’t file charges they don’t intend to pursue. Unless, of course, Fitz has bigger fish in mind. . .
And Fitz had no case, you think Scooter would be fingering W.?
I find this outcome about Rove surprising, but considering they talked to the man, what, 4 or 5 times, it looks like something else might be in the works. What, I’m not sure.
The fact that seems beyond Hank’s comprehension is that some of us are looking at what is, not what we wish to be.
But then, he’d rather we just all look the other way.
P.S. Heckler: CLINTON! CLINTON! CLINTON! (just helping you out).
Isn’t it amusing when people like Nathan complain about Rove’s name being dragged through the mud when Rove masterminded many of those tactics in the first place.
For example, Rove masterminded the “public opinion poll” telephone call right before an election. The “disinterested” pollster would question the person on the other end of the phone about various statements and ask for a response. The questions never accused anyone of anything but they left an impression in the typical polled voter’s mind that was simply a smear. Questions would be worded along the lines of, for the presidential nomination race against a challenger, “If you were to find out that John McCain had had intimate anal sex with a fellow prisoner during his captivity in Vietnam, would this influence your opinion of him?”
I believe that Rove has been treated more than fairly by the independent counsel. He has been, after all, let off the hook… many of Rove’s victims over the years have never received such consideration.
Talk about lowering expectations, this from the Washington Post:
By Dan FroomkinSpecial to washingtonpost.comTuesday, June 13, 2006; 1:08 PM
“Senior White House political adviser Karl Rove’s successful avoidance of criminal charges in the CIA leak investigation is a huge win for the White House.”
Avoiding criminal indictment is a win? Really makes one look forward to the next victory…
Rage,
Keep hope alive!
Brian,
Any proof of your assertions?
Darsciple,
I can almost feel your pain.
Hank
Well, when Fitzgerald says its over, it will be over. Haven’t heard that out of him yet…
Dear DaDis,
It’s over.
Hank
The Bush administration is so corrupt, disloyal, inept, crooked, lying, misrepresenting, lawbreaking, treasonous, clumsy, mismanaged, backstabbing, cheating, reckless, annoying, callous, untruthful, uncaring, cruel, bankrupting and down right dumb.
But it does have a decider.
And they also keep the grass mowed.
I hope Plame does not know the identity of any rogue CIA agents?
WOW ED- Is that both barrels?
Yes, Hank,
Plent of proof. Go look up the South Carolina primaries.
Randy, slowly, slowly back away from the bong.
Wonder if the left will be drinking heavy tonight.
Watchout for the drunks on the road, could be a leftist.
“Ben
And how many of Clintons associastes ended up in jail?”
To answer the question:
Convictions or Guilty Pleas – 47indictments/misdemeanor charges – 61Plead the 5th/Fled the Country – 122
How many were pardoned Nick?
Did you count those?
Dear Brian,
SC primarys?
That’s merely an assertion. There is no proof that even links that crap to the Bush campaign.
Nice try though. The left thinks if they can repeat a lie enough that it eventually becomes fact.
McCain lost in SC because he vilified the conservative Christians. Period.
Hank
Somebody check on JR. He must have missed his 3pm wakeup call.
“How many were pardoned Nick?
Did you count those?”
Believe it or not the Bush administration declared Clinton’s list of last minute pardons classified. Juditial Watch filed a lawsuit to obtain the release of the information however, the last I heard they were still being stone walled.
A bit more for you on the pardons Nathan.
The Justice Department produced 915 blacked-out pages of records to Judicial Watch in reply to the Court of Appeals ruling, citing the “deliberative process” and other exemptions. There were a total of 177 pardons in the 950 pages, however the case is still being pursued for the remaining 4,300 pages remaining.
A bit more for you on the pardons Nathan.
The Justice Department produced 915 blacked-out pages of records to Judicial Watch in reply to the Court of Appeals ruling, citing the “deliberative process” and other exemptions. There were a total of 177 pardons in the 950 pages, however the case is still being pursued for the remaining 4,300 pages remaining.
A bit more for you on the pardons Nathan.
The Justice Department produced 915 blacked-out pages of records to Judicial Watch in reply to the Court of Appeals ruling, citing the “deliberative process” and other exemptions. There were a total of 177 pardons in the 950 pages, however the case is still being pursued for the remaining 4,300 pages remaining.
There’s one small problem that nobody seems to have noticed among all hysterical joy among the right.
The only person saying this is ROVE’S LAWYER.
From the linked article, “the move, made public by Mr. Rove’s lawyer, Robert D. Luskin, early today, brought a surprise . . . ”
Now that’s a totally disinterested source that we can all trust. No possibility he’d misrepresent anything, no sireebob.
Wow, a WE 3 for 1 sale.
Mr. Price?I am touched. You miss me.
For the last 2 days you have attacked me in one way or another and I have not responded. I will now.
I note Hank that for me at least your email is no longer live. Mine is. I question the relevance of your post above as anything more than a personal attack on me. MY Email is still accessible to you or anyone else. Why not send your attacks to me directly instead of disrupting the thread? I prefer to settle disagreements privately and in a gentlemanly fashion. Obviously you are no gentleman.
I will if I can attend the next meet up at the Eagle. I invite you to get as much in my face personally as you do behind the safety of your keyboard.
Hank,
Of course there’s proof. Rove wouldn’t be recognized as such a master of the nasty campaign if he weren’t. If you think that proof sufficient for conviction in a criminal case is necessary, then you misunderstand the difference between proof beyond a reasonable doubt and preponderance of the evidence. Futher if you DO bekieve that Rove was innocent as a newborn babe then the Bush campaign was filled with a huge bunch of bumblers who couldn’t control those ‘independent’ groups sponsoring those polls, TV, and newspaper ads. At a minimum, if you believe this, then the Bush campaign should have come out against such tactics on its behalf.
Don’t let your mind wander – it’s too small to be let out on its own.
Joe Williams?
“Wonder if the left will be drinking heavy tonight.Watchout for the drunks on the road, could be a leftist”
Um Joe? I have an email from you in which you stated that you do not call leftists drunks and cigarette addicts. (Even though the history of this blog clearly has you saying so on many occasions) Shall I cut paste and post here? Or would you care to apologize for your earlier post?
I do not like to get away from the thread. With my last two posts I have not. Rove is allowed to go unpunished for trashing the reputation of Valerie Plame. He and the Swift Boat Veterans paid off by bush and Hank Price were similarly afforded the opportunity to lie and get rewarded for it. Joe Williams also makes outrageous claims and then gets a pass. (Well no one calls him relevant here so maybe that is redress enough)
Point is that last week a liberal poster to these blogs caught all kindsa hell from his own side for “going too far”. I ask again as I did then, how can you go too far against people whose province is lies and personal attack?
We better get just as down and dirty as these folks are prepared to. One hopes we will get and afford each other the pass that they get.
Dan Froomkin says:
“Now, without charges against Rove in the offing, the media should demand answers to a slew of questions. The overriding issue: Just because Rove wasn’t charged with a crime doesn’t mean his conduct meets the standards the public expects from its White House.”
Asking for accountability from this White House?, surely Mr. Froomkin is as unreasonable as some we’ve heard from on this thread.
Complete article here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/06/13/BL2006061300764.html
JR,
You’re getting a little delusional! I show a little concern about your absence and I’m attacking you? Personally? Really!
I’ve been atacking you for the last wo days? Really! My email isn’t live? Really!You are gettin stranger and stranger my little man.
Hank
Care to call me a little man in person?
I can prove what I have posted.
Can you?
“Somebody check on JR. He must have missed his 3pm wakeup call”
That’s one Hank.
JR!
It’s called sarcasim. Get over youself.
I said that what I state is not to be taken literally and it doesn’t assume that all people who subscribe to leftism are drunks.
As I applies that when you say that all Republicans are evil crooks you assume that every single one is. DOUBLE STANDARD?
Here is your words, exactly from your hate mail.
……………………………
From JR:
“Before I go on, let me be clear that I hate conservatives. Most especially I hate bush conservatives. I afford them no quarter on this forum and I ask none.”
…………………………..
My e-mail responds I show no hate and I stated that I have no problems with leftist, just that I disagree with them. I don’t despise or hate them (just repeating myself).
Sure I can be brash and I poke fun at them. But that is hardly the attitude you have.
Honestly I thought you were banned JR, from the WE Blog. I thought somebody reported you as you make some serious threats on here.
I haven’t reported you, because I could care less. Just a blow hard in my opinion.
“I would bet that you listen to Rush more than I do except I think he goes off the air before you get up each day. He’s only on until 2pm!”
Hank Price
That’s from yesterday hank.
You know, when I said you have been baselessly attacking me the last two days with no response?
You already owe me one apology Hank. Why not quit while you are behind?
Um Joe?
What threats have I ever made on this forum?
Can you cite them or was your conclusion that I had been banned simply wishful thinking on your not so thinking part?
Your quote of me my email to you is an honest one. I DO hate conservatives. I DO expect to be badly treated by them and I give them no slack.
Your assertion that your posts here are sarcasm would be valid if they were not so prevelant.
Shall I do a bonedig to show occasions where you say that “leftists” are abusers of liquor and cigarettes? Maybe your take on Western Ks farmers would show you in a better light?
You posted contents of email I sent you Joe. I considered this a private matter among gentleman. Shall I share publicly what you sent me?
Rage
“P.S. Heckler: CLINTON! CLINTON! CLINTON! (just helping you out).”
Ben brought Clintons name up. I try to avoid using it until a leftist uses it, not always but most of the time.
Joe, I don’t think I’ve ever saw JR make much of any kind of threat on these boards. But don’t let facts get in your way. Just continue babbeling…it’s what we expect from you.
You thought JR was banned?You really are delusional.
BTW, Joe, what do you want to be when you grow up?
Dear JR,
I guess I do owe you an apology. I got to thinking about my comment above and you might actually not sleep in until the afternoon. I apologize. It could be that your mother doesn’t let you particpate on the BLOG with your WEBTV hookup until her soaps are over.
I still love ya, and the offer for lunch is still open.
Hank
XXX and JR!
From JR just a few posts eariler:
“Care to call me a little man in person?”
What is that suppose to mean? You tell me XXX and JR.
Plus “hating conservatives” is a pretty bold statement. When you hate people, you will justify anything to them. Hilter hated the Jews. Radical Islamics hate Americans. What did they do to the people they hate? Why do you think we laws on our books that defines “Hate Crimes”.
I know JR depises Hank and Nathan and XXX you are only defending JR because he is a leftist like you, and that’s fine, but JR attacks are all fair in game as Hank’s and Nathan.
Hey Joe,
JR isn’t really as bad as he seems on the BLOG. And XXX is just a big ol’ teddy bear in person. Both are really likeable people!
I really do like JR, hell I would ignore him if I didn’t. Calling him a little man is not really an attack where I come from, it’s no more than a friendly little poke. And implying that he sleeps in late is nothing compared to an “attack”.
Posting on this BLOG is like walking past a cafeteria at school while a food fight is going on. You can walk by and remain clean, or you can walk in and pick up a pie. But if you then get a little whipped cream on your shirt you really can’t complain.
Now JR will throw his share of pies, and I find it best to just duck most of the time, but I’m weak, every now and then I have to fire back. Doesn’t mean I don’t love him.
Hank
Well, the boss just caught me screwing off, got to go to work. I’m leaving town early today to go and get a puppy in St. Louis.
Tell JR I’m sorry I missed him when he gets up.
Hank
Hank,The business regarding sleeping into the afternoon was a lame joke once. Twice, I have to wonder what the hell you’re thinking.
I’m pretty thick-skinned myself. I usually consider the source! :)
“Keep hope alive”? Okie-dokie, Mr. Hankey! I DO hope that it will not be established that outing a covert operative is okay.
What “covert” operation was she working on at the time anyhow?
Randy would win a Pulitzer prize for tortured logic (if they only gave one)…still, kudo’s for the intellectual, “Just because you’re not indicted doesn’t mean you’re not guilty,” gymnastics.
I could get so much said about ‘ol Hank while he is away.
I do have a bit more class than he does though.
Gosh Hank I didn’t know there was a scheduled time for blogging! I’m sorry I’ve been “late” to the forum here recently and you have felt it necessary to divert completely from the subject of the thread to take a shot at me.
I invite other readers to scroll up. This is a debate I had not even joined when you interrupted it to take your shot Hank.
Oh I don’t mind you insinuating that I sleep late simply because I am not “here” in any other way than it was not only off topic but also wrong.You DID manage to stay to the thread topic of trashing peoples reputations. By demonstrating it.
I am sorry if my earning a living, spending time with my son , helping my Mother and my Great Aunt and getting ready for company this weekend are more important to me than blogging these last couple days. Clearly it is important enough for you to defraud your employer! Good on YOU!
I don’t even mind your implication that I live with my Mother. Actually, for a few weeks late last year that was true. I’m sorry I was not “here” then too instead of helping out as much as I could with my dying father. Maybe I should go look at what you posted about me back then? As Rage says. I trust folks to consider the source. You are just about as credible as the Swift Boat veterans…..or george bush!I do spend alot of time helping mom out since my dad died. She occasionally thinks the housekeeping at my place could use her help.I AM going to ask that you draw the line at insulting my mom. Not to condemn or demean those who watch soap operas (as you seem to) but my mom is not among them. But hey what are facts to you? Let’s leave her outta the fight shall we? I’ll afford your mother the same courtesy.
I have a 12 year old son, 3 dogs and 2 cats in case you need an alternate target.
Oh and Joe Williams? Please watch closely as I tell Hank again that on the occassion of any future meetup I invite him to be just as abrasive and bold, factually deprived and just plain offensive in person as he is behind a keyboard.That isn’t a threat. It’s an invitation.
“And XXX is just a big ol’ teddy bear in person.”
Damn it Hank! Quit giving away my secret!
And Joe,”"Care to call me a little man in person?”
What is that suppose to mean? You tell me XXX and JR.”
Now I already got in trouble for a statement like that. But I still agree with it. A real man will look you in the eye and say what he thinks. A chickenshit will whine about being threatened by the suggestion.
“XXX you are only defending JR because he is a leftist like you,”
Say What?!?!? I’m a leftist? Boy, I’ve voted republican more times than you’ve voted. At the moment, I’m left of center. I suppose in your bizzare little world, that makes one a leftist? As usual, you don’t know what you’re talking about. When ever you post, it’s like someone let the children out. How old are you, Joe? I’m guessing about 13.
And BTW, JR doesn’t need me to defend him against you. Looks to me like he does a pretty good job of hacking you up on his own. JR is a friend and ally, something I’m sure you don’t understand.
“And XXX is just a big ol’ teddy bear in person.”
Damn it Hank! Quit giving away my secret!
And Joe,”"Care to call me a little man in person?”
What is that suppose to mean? You tell me XXX and JR.”
Now I already got in trouble for a statement like that. But I still agree with it. A real man will look you in the eye and say what he thinks. A chickenshit will whine about being threatened by the suggestion.
“XXX you are only defending JR because he is a leftist like you,”
Say What?!?!? I’m a leftist? Boy, I’ve voted republican more times than you’ve voted. At the moment, I’m left of center. I suppose in your bizzare little world, that makes one a leftist? As usual, you don’t know what you’re talking about. When ever you post, it’s like someone let the children out. How old are you, Joe? I’m guessing about 13.
And BTW, JR doesn’t need me to defend him against you. Looks to me like he does a pretty good job of hacking you up on his own. JR is a friend and ally, something I’m sure you don’t understand.
XXX
Very flattering. Thank you.
Not sure you needed to say it twice. I’m choking back a blush.
The feeling is mutual.
Um Joe?
XXX and I have been known to disagree. What because he never lays into me or me into him we are some leftist motorcylcle riding gang?
Maybe it is because we are just more agreeable and reasonable people?As such, the fact that he is on my right and I to his left occcasionally means we get each others back.Also XXX is not given to wild cartoonish posts as you often are. It’s hard to get behind an arguement or do anything OTHER than condemn it if it is not remotely of this world!
“I thought you were banned from the WEblog”HuH? Why? Is that even possible?
I get busy and miss a thread or two and Hank misses and goes trolling for me and Joe thinks I finally jumped the shark and got “banned”?
Maybe I need a bot or a ghost writer? Some of you miss me too much when I’m not about. It’s uh…..flattering.. I guess. Creepy but flattering.
Thanks…I think.