Comments on: The Hadley Email http://firedoglake.com/2005/12/03/the-hadley-email/ Firedoglake weblog Sun, 29 Nov 2009 02:10:12 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Lindy http://firedoglake.com/2005/12/03/the-hadley-email/#comment-33995 Lindy Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2005/12/03/the-hadley-email/#comment-33995 <p>if it can be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that they cheated in those elections, would that negate presidential pardons? I’m grasping at straws, here. I want these people to go to jail.</p> if it can be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that they cheated in those elections, would that negate presidential pardons? I’m grasping at straws, here. I want these people to go to jail.

]]> By: KVS http://firedoglake.com/2005/12/03/the-hadley-email/#comment-33996 KVS Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2005/12/03/the-hadley-email/#comment-33996 <p>What is the deal with Luskin? If Novak told him, Luskin becomes part of the case. If he told Rove, that is a crime - even with atty-client priveledge. So if Luskin is part of the case and has his own “piece of the acction”, doesn’t he have the ethical responsibility to recuse himself?</p> <p>I don’t care if he is a dem, 4-star general, or the pope — if he bit the apple, he should be cast out of the garden. (then we all can watch him burn at the stake!)</p> What is the deal with Luskin? If Novak told him, Luskin becomes part of the case. If he told Rove, that is a crime – even with atty-client priveledge. So if Luskin is part of the case and has his own “piece of the acction”, doesn’t he have the ethical responsibility to recuse himself?

I don’t care if he is a dem, 4-star general, or the pope — if he bit the apple, he should be cast out of the garden. (then we all can watch him burn at the stake!)

]]> By: Lindy http://firedoglake.com/2005/12/03/the-hadley-email/#comment-33997 Lindy Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2005/12/03/the-hadley-email/#comment-33997 <p>if it can be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that they cheated in those elections, would that negate presidential pardons? I’m grasping at straws, here. I want these people to go to jail.</p> if it can be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that they cheated in those elections, would that negate presidential pardons? I’m grasping at straws, here. I want these people to go to jail.

]]> By: Lindy http://firedoglake.com/2005/12/03/the-hadley-email/#comment-33998 Lindy Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2005/12/03/the-hadley-email/#comment-33998 <p>if it can be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that they cheated in those elections, would that negate presidential pardons? I’m grasping at straws, here. I want these people to go to jail.</p> if it can be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that they cheated in those elections, would that negate presidential pardons? I’m grasping at straws, here. I want these people to go to jail.

]]> By: Garrett http://firedoglake.com/2005/12/03/the-hadley-email/#comment-33999 Garrett Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2005/12/03/the-hadley-email/#comment-33999 <p>The 12 hours between finding out and notifying was September 29, 2003. I really think they might have gotten away with a full week before employee notification for the January 22, 2004 subpoenas. And that the press was on to it, and Scott was hiding it, in that March 5, 2004 gaggle dance.</p> The 12 hours between finding out and notifying was September 29, 2003. I really think they might have gotten away with a full week before employee notification for the January 22, 2004 subpoenas. And that the press was on to it, and Scott was hiding it, in that March 5, 2004 gaggle dance.

]]> By: Jack O’Roses http://firedoglake.com/2005/12/03/the-hadley-email/#comment-34000 Jack O’Roses Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2005/12/03/the-hadley-email/#comment-34000 <p>I smell a red herring named Vivace and a fake “bad” seaarch. </p> <p>Regardless of whether Rove gets nabbed for perjury or obstruction, which is pardonable by the Prez and forgivable by the base, it just so happens that this particular email has content that can be argued to prove that Rove was innocently trying to respond to scurrilous reports by Joe Wilson, and not trying to out a CIA operative.</p> <p>Vivace and the “bad” search” are merely the vehicles by which Rove brings the email “proof” into the light as we all debate and discuss the meaning of the “gap” in time before the magic email was “found.”</p> <p>“Bad” searches happen all the time and they confuse judges. Search programs are constantly evolving and there are differing standards for what constitutes an adequate search to determine whether a given piece of evidence exists. Are searches of headers alone deemed adequate under DoJ guidelines? Many possibilities for sowing confusion.</p> <p>The cover-up doesnt necessarily wait for the crime. Lets not forget the substantive matters underlying all this. Rove gives a rat’s ass about perjury/obstruction, and cares only about spinning the public and avoiding legal jeopardy inder the espionage statutes. The Hadley email goes right to the underlying substantive crime, negating intent. That’s why it’s out front right now, yet hidden just beneath all the buzz about Vivace.</p> I smell a red herring named Vivace and a fake “bad” seaarch.

Regardless of whether Rove gets nabbed for perjury or obstruction, which is pardonable by the Prez and forgivable by the base, it just so happens that this particular email has content that can be argued to prove that Rove was innocently trying to respond to scurrilous reports by Joe Wilson, and not trying to out a CIA operative.

Vivace and the “bad” search” are merely the vehicles by which Rove brings the email “proof” into the light as we all debate and discuss the meaning of the “gap” in time before the magic email was “found.”

“Bad” searches happen all the time and they confuse judges. Search programs are constantly evolving and there are differing standards for what constitutes an adequate search to determine whether a given piece of evidence exists. Are searches of headers alone deemed adequate under DoJ guidelines? Many possibilities for sowing confusion.

The cover-up doesnt necessarily wait for the crime. Lets not forget the substantive matters underlying all this. Rove gives a rat’s ass about perjury/obstruction, and cares only about spinning the public and avoiding legal jeopardy inder the espionage statutes. The Hadley email goes right to the underlying substantive crime, negating intent. That’s why it’s out front right now, yet hidden just beneath all the buzz about Vivace.

]]> By: Rayne http://firedoglake.com/2005/12/03/the-hadley-email/#comment-34001 Rayne Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2005/12/03/the-hadley-email/#comment-34001 <p>Garrett — I think it was 12-hours before Abu’s missive went out to staff; the rest is obsfucation intended to mask any continuing efforts to query this issue or any obstructive work on-going in the background. Hell, they’ve been obstructing for 2+ years now…</p> Garrett — I think it was 12-hours before Abu’s missive went out to staff; the rest is obsfucation intended to mask any continuing efforts to query this issue or any obstructive work on-going in the background. Hell, they’ve been obstructing for 2+ years now…

]]> By: Rayne http://firedoglake.com/2005/12/03/the-hadley-email/#comment-34002 Rayne Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2005/12/03/the-hadley-email/#comment-34002 <p>Hmm. Interesting line, jlr & neokneme. I’m wondering, though, whether Fitz’ next speaking indictment will cover this issue, though, preventing the public (read: wingers) from demanding his head because of this line. Believe it was speculated upthread that one attack on Fitz would be prosecutorial misconduct if the public perceived him to be too zealous or sloppy.</p> Hmm. Interesting line, jlr & neokneme. I’m wondering, though, whether Fitz’ next speaking indictment will cover this issue, though, preventing the public (read: wingers) from demanding his head because of this line. Believe it was speculated upthread that one attack on Fitz would be prosecutorial misconduct if the public perceived him to be too zealous or sloppy.

]]> By: Garrett http://firedoglake.com/2005/12/03/the-hadley-email/#comment-34003 Garrett Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2005/12/03/the-hadley-email/#comment-34003 <p>Rayne says: “Abu Gonzalez could be in for obstruction. The 12-hour delay isn’t enough, but add flawed document requests and it starts to smell very badly.”</p> <p>How about a week, then? January 22, 2003 subpoenas, January 29 Gonzales memos staff about it. </p> <p>Plus a March 5 <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/03/20040305-7.html#1">gaggle</a> where Scott clearly knows what the problem is, and definsively skirts it. When were White House employees told? “Immediately.” What was the exact date? Oh I don’t know, immediately. Then: “The latter part of January,” that is, not immediately, but a full week later, January 29. ??</p> Rayne says: “Abu Gonzalez could be in for obstruction. The 12-hour delay isn’t enough, but add flawed document requests and it starts to smell very badly.”

How about a week, then? January 22, 2003 subpoenas, January 29 Gonzales memos staff about it.

Plus a March 5 gaggle where Scott clearly knows what the problem is, and definsively skirts it. When were White House employees told? “Immediately.” What was the exact date? Oh I don’t know, immediately. Then: “The latter part of January,” that is, not immediately, but a full week later, January 29. ??

]]> By: neokneme http://firedoglake.com/2005/12/03/the-hadley-email/#comment-34004 neokneme Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2005/12/03/the-hadley-email/#comment-34004 <p><a href="http://www.haloscan.com/comments/firedoglake/113367194307625678/#181090">is it possible that it does not exist at all?</a> </p> <p> jlr presses the doorbell of truth. The resulting Ding-Dong is a tinfoil covered red herring ala Luskin. </p> <p>The only explanation that doesn’t create jeopardy for Rove is that Luskin made up the whole ruse for public consumption. No email, no trace, no evidence ever submitted to Fitz. Just public disinformation to shore up Rove’s cover. Sure Rover talked about the façade but there is no reason to believe Luskin actually gave Fitz anything he didn’t have to. This explains everything and is consistent with the exploding hypothesis M.O. we are always forced to suck on when the truth is revealed. We won’t get verification from the investigation itself except if there is an indictment stating the evidence. No evidence, no statement, no exposure of the Luskin fabrication. Those stinkers learned from Ollie – don’t screw with emails. Luskin’s MSM shills bought the whole email fish story hook, line and sinker. They would fall for it if the whole thing was made for public consumption. A make-believe story for the faithful. Sure had me going!</p> <p>And now that everyone has thought this thing through there isn’t any way to accept the BS story anymore.</p> is it possible that it does not exist at all?

jlr presses the doorbell of truth. The resulting Ding-Dong is a tinfoil covered red herring ala Luskin.

The only explanation that doesn’t create jeopardy for Rove is that Luskin made up the whole ruse for public consumption. No email, no trace, no evidence ever submitted to Fitz. Just public disinformation to shore up Rove’s cover. Sure Rover talked about the façade but there is no reason to believe Luskin actually gave Fitz anything he didn’t have to. This explains everything and is consistent with the exploding hypothesis M.O. we are always forced to suck on when the truth is revealed. We won’t get verification from the investigation itself except if there is an indictment stating the evidence. No evidence, no statement, no exposure of the Luskin fabrication. Those stinkers learned from Ollie – don’t screw with emails. Luskin’s MSM shills bought the whole email fish story hook, line and sinker. They would fall for it if the whole thing was made for public consumption. A make-believe story for the faithful. Sure had me going!

And now that everyone has thought this thing through there isnÂ’t any way to accept the BS story anymore.

]]>