Update: David Shuster is reporting that Rove was questioned extensively today regarding Viveca Novak's supposedly exculpatory conversation with Robert Luskin.
Karl Rove's history of appearing before the Grand Jury was largely unknown until he testified for what is believed to be the third time in October of 2004.
Fitzgerald took over the case in January of 2004 and immediately issued a number of subpoenas for documents pertaining to the case. He also specifically subpoenaed Matt Cooper regarding his July 2003 article, A War on Wilson. But since Rove had not issued a waiver for Cooper to speak to Fitzgerald, he obviously thought he was in the clear when he initially spoke to the FBI (recap here) and the grand jury, and that Cooper would be the firewall between him and Fitzgerald.
First Grand Jury Appearance: February, 2004
We now know that Rove's first appearance happened in February of 2004, according to the Washington Post on December 3, 2005:
One person familiar with the case said the [Viveca] Novak-Luskin conversation is not what prompted Rove to change his testimony in the case. In fact, this person said, Novak told Luskin about the Rove-Cooper connection before Rove's first appearance before the grand jury in February 2004. In that appearance, Rove testified that he did not recall talking to Cooper about Plame. It was not until October 2004 that Rove told the grand jury he recalled the Cooper chat.
Set aside the Vivac-Luskin stuff for the moment because that's a conversation unto itself. What did Rove say when he appeared? According to the NYT (11/4/05):
In his testimony to the grand jury in February 2004, Mr. Rove did not disclose the conversation with Mr. Cooper, saying later that he did not recall it among the hundreds of calls he received on a daily basis.
[]
In February 2004, when Mr. Rove testified about his conversations with reporters, he recalled the [Robert] Novak conversation, but no other interviews with reporters -- an omission that Mr. Fitzgerald has investigated as a possible false statement or perjury. Mr. Rove said he had forgotten the discussion with Mr. Cooper, the lawyers said.
Mr. Fitzgerald did not learn of the Cooper conversation until months later when a search of Mr. Rove's e-mails uncovered the e-mail that he had sent to Mr. Hadley. ''Matt Cooper called to give me a heads-up that he's got a welfare reform story coming,'' Mr. Rove wrote in the message to Mr. Hadley that was first disclosed in July by the Associated Press.
''When he finished his brief heads-up he immediately launched into Niger,'' Mr. Rove wrote. ''Isn't this damaging? Hasn't president been hurt? I didn't take the bait, but I said if I were him I wouldn't get Time far out on this.''
Matt Cooper got a waiver from Libby and gave a deposition to Fitzgerald in August, 2004. On July 23, 2005 VandeHei and Leonnig writing in the Washington Post reported that at that time Fitzgerald was surprised to learn that Libby was not Cooper's original source:
Lawyers involved in the case said there are now indications that Fitzgerald did not initially know or suspect that Rove was Cooper's primary source for the reporter's information about Plame. That raises questions about how much Rove disclosed when first questioned in the inquiry or how closely he was initially queried about his contacts with reporters.
[]
Also, when first questioned in the days after Plame's name appeared in the press, Rove left the impression with top White House aides that he had talked about her only with Novak, according to a source familiar with information provided to investigators.
Initially, Fitzgerald appeared focused on the theory that Libby had leaked Plame's identity, according to lawyers involved in the case. He had interviewed three other reporters about their conversations with Libby, but all three indicated he either did not discuss Plame or did not reveal her identity.
He also sought testimony from Cooper about his July 2003 story in Time. In 2004, Cooper obtained a waiver from Libby to discuss their conversation, as had the three other reporters.
Cooper and his attorneys were surprised that Fitzgerald agreed to ask Cooper questions only about his conversations with Libby, sources familiar with the investigation said.
The sources said Fitzgerald looked surprised in the August 2004 deposition when Cooper said it was he who brought up Wilson's wife with Libby, and that Libby responded, "Yeah, I heard that, too."
The prosecutor pressed Cooper to then explain how he knew about Wilson's wife in the first place, and Cooper said he would not answer the question because it did not involve Libby, the sources said.
Second or Third Appearance: October 15, 2004
Viveca Novak, writing in Time Magazine said that Rove made his third appearance before the grand jury on October 15. Rove evidently volunteered to testify this time, but the testimony came two days after Judge Thomas Hogan found Matt Cooper in contempt of court for the second time for refusing to testify and it became apparent that Cooper would in fact have to reveal that Rove was his source.*
Said Gold Bars at the time:
"My client appeared voluntarily before the grand jury and has cooperated with the investigation since it began," said Rove's attorney Robert Luskin. "He has been assured in writing as recently as this week that he is not a target of the investigation."
From the Washington Post, 12/03/05:
It was not until October 2004 that Rove told the grand jury he recalled the Cooper chat.
And according to VandeHei and Leonnig in the Washington Post on October 20, during this appearance Rove may have ratted out Libby:
White House adviser Karl Rove told the grand jury in the CIA leak case that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, may have told him that CIA operative Valerie Plame worked for the intelligence agency before her identity was revealed, a source familiar with Rove's account said yesterday.
In a talk that took place in the days before Plame's CIA employment was revealed in 2003, Rove and Libby discussed conversations they had had with reporters in which Plame and her marriage to Iraq war critic Joseph C. Wilson IV were raised, the source said. Rove told the grand jury the talk was confined to information the two men heard from reporters, the source said.
Rove has also testified that he also heard about Plame from someone else outside the White House, but could not recall who.
Fourth Appearance: October 14, 2005
According to Newsweek, this appearance before the Grand Jury evidently dealt with the discrepancies between Rove's testimony and that of Matt Cooper and also with the Hadley email that surfaced between Rove's third and fourth appearances (quite belatedly, as it seems to have been in response to Fitzgerald's initial subpoenas of January 2004):
In Cooper's account, Rove told him the wife of White House critic Joseph Wilson worked at the "agency" on WMD issues and was responsible for sending Wilson on a trip to Niger to check out claims that Iraq was trying to buy uranium. But Rove did not disclose this conversation to the FBI when he was first interviewed by agents in the fall of 2003—nor did he mention it during his first grand jury appearance, says one of the lawyers familiar with Rove's account. (He did not tell President George W. Bush about it either, assuring him that fall only that he was not part of any "scheme" to discredit Wilson by outing his wife, the lawyer says.) But after he testified, Luskin discovered an e-mail Rove had sent that same day—July 11—alerting deputy national-security adviser Stephen Hadley that he had just talked to Cooper, the lawyer says. In the e-mail, Rove said Cooper pushed him on whether the president was being hurt by the Niger controversy. "I didn't take the bait," Rove wrote Hadley, adding that he warned Cooper not to get "far out in front on this." After reviewing the e-mail, Rove then returned to the grand jury last year and reported the Cooper conversation. He testified that the talk was initially about "welfare reform"—a topic mentioned in the e-mail—and that Cooper then changed the subject. Cooper has written that he doesn't recall a discussion of welfare reform.
Why didn't the Rove e-mail surface earlier? The lawyer says it's because an electronic search conducted by the White House missed it because the right "search words" weren't used. (The White House and Fitzgerald both declined to comment.)
The Washington Post also reported that there were other discrepancies between Rove's and Cooper's testimony regarding their conversation:
Besides Cooper, at least two other people have testified before the grand jury since Rove last answered questions: New York Times reporter Judith Miller, who was questioned after initially refusing to appear and serving 85 days in jail, and Rove's secretary.
[]
Rove's secretary was questioned about why a phone call from Cooper to Rove in 2003 was not recorded in White House phone logs, according to sources familiar with the probe. She reportedly explained that Cooper called the main switchboard and his call was not logged because it was rerouted to Rove's office.
One apparent conflict between Rove's and Cooper's accounts centers on Rove telling the grand jury that he and Cooper talked primarily about welfare during their conversation, according to lawyers familiar with Rove's account. Cooper has said the grand jury asked him repeatedly about the welfare portion of his discussion with Rove, but Cooper said that, although he left a message for Rove about welfare reform, their conversation that day centered on Wilson.
Since Rove's fourth appearance, the most notable thing to have become public is the conversation between Viveca Novak and Robert Luskin that Team Rove say puts him in the clear. There are a many conflicting stories about these particular events which Luskin claimed at the time provided a perfectly reasonable explanation for why his client did not find the Hadley email until long after he was aware of the original subpoenas. Luskin also claimed that the Viveca Novak conversation was the the reason Rover had his memory jarred. The Viveca Novak story is a long and convoluted one but if it is as Luskin said part of Rove's defense for his faulty memory, Rove was no doubt questioned about it during his four hours with Mr. Fitzgerald today.
Note: Pollyusa's kos diary of last year is indispensable in the reconstruction of these appearances, and there is a persuasive argument made in the comments that Rove's third trip to the grand jury happened in July of 2005.
* Paul Lukasiak also reminds me that Rove's "offer" to testify came after Time Magazine said they would hand over Matt Cooper's notes.
Login Here
Share This
Spotlight
FITZ!
Luck of the Irish!
It’s time for Fitzgerald to salt that slug.
Fitzo de Mayo!
SuperFitz!
Kazuza tambien …
We know know
Wouldn’t the newly discovered emails be just as, if not more, notable than the Viveca stuff?
I can see now that I’ll need to get some major league outlining/database software to follow along… ;>
Hi Jane.
Glad to see you and Christy fully engaged again.
Christy, hope you and the fam had a nice time going to see the Mouse.
Any bookies at the lake?
What’s the over/under on a Rove indictment?
Go Fitz. Haven’t read this thread. Can’t help myself. The pic for this thread has Repug hair and triple chins.
Integrity is still hot.
Blank Kludge, let us know what works.
Here’s a question.
Vivnovka was put on leave when her story broke.
Anyone know whether she’s back working for Time–or any other media outlet?
And for that matter, this was discussed in some places this morning, but the NY Post, a bastion of journalistic integrity, says Woodward’s in a bit of trouble.
The WaPo has agreed to hand over to Libby the memo he wrote at some point about his role. I wonder if there’s a connection (or if Post gossip has any basis in reality).
Anyway, if Judy (who still hasn’t published that promised story at Atlantic) and Vivnovka and Woodward have lost their job security because of this, why hasn’t Novak?
a fitz by any other name would smell as sweet……
justice.
Viveca Novak recently took (or was taken) an early retirement from Time…
i think viveca got fired, didn’t she?
Now that Fitz has put his other case behind him, we may see more rapid process on the Rover indictment.
Vivac did lose her job, ew. She took some kind of severence package as a result of “downsizing” (*ahem*) and left Time earlier this year.
Robert Novak also blew it at CNN and got separated. He still has his syndicated newspaper column though.
I’d be happy to see Fitz take his sweet time and come up with indictments, oh, say, on the anniversary of the Libby take down. That would make for a delicious “October Surprise.”
Yeah, I could wait for that.
this may be perfectly obvious to everyone else, but is viveca novak related to robert novak?
this may be perfectly obvious to everyone else, but is viveca novak related to robert novak?
bonzarella says:
April 26th, 2006 at 5:32 pm
No.
And thanks for the NY Post link, ew; I’d heard people talking about it but didn’t see it. I have a hard time believing the Post cares much about its “credibility” being shot by Woodward when they continue to employ Debbie Howell, Jim Brady, Steno Sue and Fred Hiatt. What’s one more?
bonzarella– no according to all reports… but that don’t mean it is the trooth. Although, I think it is :)
David Shuster just said on Countdown that Rove’s attorneys are really worried about their client. They didn’t like the fact that Rove had to testify for 3 hours to clear up “one” simple issue.
*ilson46201 says:
April 26th, 2006 at 5:30 pm
Robert Novak also blew it at CNN and got separated. He still has his syndicated newspaper column though.
is he not dishing at FAUZX too?
I know he signed on to Fox in Dec, ppirt, but since I do not watch, I have no idea if he has been serving sos on Faux.
Got a Target letter today saying the retail chain will not allow the Comstock Army to set up kettles for the Rover Defense Fund on store property during Fitzmas.
Drip, drip, drip…
Yahoo news: #2 story
MSNBC: #3 story
Reuters: #2
CBS: #1 “more top stories”
ABC: #3 “top headline”
(And something that says “E.U. Officials Allege Secret CIA Anti-Terror Flights ” gotta love that
LA Times: #2 headline.
Every time this hits the news they lose another couple of points.
BYW:
“BRUSSELS, Belgium Apr 26, 2006 (AP)— The CIA has conducted more than 1,000 clandestine flights in Europe since 2001, and some of them secretly took away terror suspects to countries where they could face torture, European Union lawmakers said Wednesday.”
http://abcnews.go.com/Internat.....id=1893915
Drip drip drip…and there’s no reason this stops before November.
I was on a GJ once, a while back, and if you came and talked to us more than once, that meant the prosecutor thought you were a lying, verminous crapsack. Nobody made repeat appearances cuz they thought it was fun.
I wish Fitz would wait to do all this intriguing stuff until after the semester is over. I have too much crap to do.
Is Rove the first live witness to appear before this GJ?
Ghostman
John Casper 12
At this time I’d suggest a couple shots of Jameson and a couple pints o’Guinness.
——
Others might try using Word outlining function (ugh, you have no idea how much typing those words singes these digits).
Me, I’m gonna start playing with my Newton MessagePad 2000. ;>
Those of you w/PDA’s that have some more esoteric ‘contacts’ type thingies could kludge something together.
——–
While this was typed there’s 41 more posts…agrh..
I have a question.
Who is leaking the info about the latest Rove testimony to Schuster?
Does Schuster have direct knowledge?
Is it Luskin?
Is it Rove?
Is it Fitz?
Is it one of the grand jurors?
Is it someone else?
Jane, my balding head is currently exposed due to the fact that my hat is off to you.What an outstanding post.
It is NOT a grand juror leaking– they could go to jail for that– that is serious bad stuff.
It is Luskin and the WH, imho.
Say it again…FITZ!
ochreous says:
April 26th, 2006 at 5:46 pm
To add to what angie mentioned, it is not anyone on Team Fitz.
Schuster explicitly said his info came from Luskin
I have to go back and read all the previous threads today on Plame. Can someone just say whether Rove is a “subject” or “target” at this point? Is it still a big question?
I was curious about that (allegedly)Luskin leak to Shuster that he testified about Viveca. That’s along time for ‘one’ topic. But no word about what else might have been covered. But, I bet there was something else they talked about. But, what?
Yes, it’s the White House is springing a leak…again.
Holy crap, EW…did you see that little buried tidbit in the last paragraph of that NYPost article you linked?
“ Murblings and burblings will soon come out of the CIA. Mad as hell, they’re not going to take this anymore. Whenever something goes kerflooey warwise, globalwise or governmentwise, it’s always “There’s a gap in the CIA intelligence.” Insiders are telling outsiders there ain’t been no gap in their intelligence . . .“
Who’s been spilling to Cindy Adams, of all people? And is tidbit connected to the lede in the same article?
3 hours in front of a GJ is an eternity. Spin away fellers. Mr. Fitzgerald has plenty of time.Btw, can you say ,stenographer?
Jane @ 24
Strange as this might sound, Woodward still might have more integrity than that bunch. He’s certainly a better journalist, strictly speaking, IMHO.
Jane
The only reason I’d imagine they’d care is if that memo they turned over was really embarrassing. See, NYT is going to fight letting Libby embarrass them (NYT has, I suspect, a lot to lose). But WaPo isn’t. So I wonder if they just figure now is a time to put the old guy into retirement.
Some random thoughts after playing catch-up through all of today’s Fitz posts:
- Luskin parsed heavily. Rove’s a target, but not in the leak investigation…he’s a target for highly limited charges just like the ones that Libby got, on obstruction of justice, perjury and making false statements. At least that’s my take on the Lusk-spin. Bet you dollars-to-donuts the letter arrived about the time that Bolten was moved in and Rover moved out of policy.
- Rover will continue his current role as long as doing so doesn’t substantively affect the JAR; with JAR nearly in the basement already, Rover could do Gannon on the White House lawn and he’d still be on the payroll.
- Woodward, that used piece of Kleenex, has caused some heartburn to Rover somehow; this would be the only reason why WaPo would suddenly develop a conscience. Or Woodie isn’t cutting WaPo in on action related to a bookdeal and that’s caused a fit of conscience. Follow the money, I say.
Luskin is furiously spinning to get favorable press for his client. But he doesn’t have Judy anymore.
As a wise man once said, “that dog won’t hunt.”
Fitzgerald has been sifting through this WH’s muck for what, two years now? Recall reading the documents signed by James Comey detailing Fitz’s jurisdiction in the matter when he was given the case and it was pretty explicit: he was granted the full authority of the U.S Attorney General to pursue this matter in any direction it led. Can’t remember the exact statement, but my interpretation was that he had an obligation to pursue not only the matter at hand but any related crime uncovered in the process. That could involve one helluva large can of worms re: Iraq, war crimes, Nuremburg, etc.
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/.....6_2004.pdf
That said, I find it impossible to believe that Patrick Fitzgerald hasn’t uncovered a huge rat’s nest of crime and corruption. Hell, we see a new bombshell regarding broken rules, laws and treaties in the flaccid M$M every day.
So, if Fitzgerald winds up handing down no further indictments, will he wind up a goat instead of a hero?
chisholm says April 26th, 2006 at 5:18 pm:
“Two things have given me pause in the last 24 hours–John Warner contemplating a hearing for the retired generals on rumsfeld, and Grassley investing the big oil’s tax returns.
My question: could it be possible that the GOP in congress will turn on the admin in order to save itself?”
My answer: And HOW… [even if it’s only window-dressing].
By my reckoning, the likelihood of such a scenario soars in the event that Rove is indicted and forced to resign (even if he then becomes ensconced over at the RNC). The irony is that Rove’s power-behind-the-throne status scares both Democrats and Republicans witless…
Yup - that could very well be the upshot of the delusional “safe” course of action that’s been chosen by the foxhole Democrats in Congress: The infamous Rubberstamp Republicans will suddenly decide to take the lead in “investigating” the Executive Branch, before the Democrats can bring themselves to destroy the credibility of any such majority undertaking that keeps the Democrats out of the loop (remember the Roberts SSCI intelligence report whitewash, etc., etc.). End result: the Democrats will be, yet again, left behind in the dust.
dana, according to Jason Leopold, and only Jason Leopold, Rove received a target letter. I think Leopold is wrong, at least today. Rove’s attorney, Luskin, directly contradicted the statement. It’s not something
gold barsLuskin would likely lie about. Rove is still a “subject,” as far as we know.I am sure that John
whinny ass titty babyHarris will tell all of us the unvarnished truth tomorrow online.washingtonpost.com’s Daily Politics Discussion
John F. Harris
Washington Post National Political Editor
Thursday, April 27, 2006; 11:00 EST
Link to post comments or questions for John Harris
It seems to me that questions about
the monumentally stupidFred Hiatt’s “A Good Leak,” are in the immortal words of Karl Rove, “fair game.”Blank Kludge- thanks, if you find something you like let me know, sorry about the digits.
Way off topic but I’d like some advice. I just got my membership renewal notice from Planned Parenthood, which I have always thought was a good organization. I know that people at FDL have been negative toward NARAL, with good reason. Can someone remind me what PP did (or did not do) during the Alito fight, and also tell me whether they support candidates, and if those candidates include Lieberman or other DINOS? Any comments would be appreciated.
Pardon me while I adjust the feather in my tin-foil fedora, but I feel that Rove has already agreed to a guilty plea on a lesser charge via Information and is now squealing like the pig he is and always was.
http://www.opednews.com/articl.....drives.htm
Jason Leopold is reporting Rove did in fact get a target letter.
http://tinyurl.com/a6erq
Damn. My comment repeated itself again. Does anybody know why that happens? This is almost as bad as HaloScan.
Jay #49, I’ve read here more than once that a prosecutor like Fitzgerald will focus on specific charges that are likely to be successfully tried. But I’ve also read PSTM that Fitzgerald is likely using the small shit to draw out the rat’s nest, as you so eloquently say. It’s a hell of show whatever the charges, and as I’ve said before, as a negative marketing program, it’s a campaign you couldn’t buy for any sum.
How odd. I could swear I saw my comment repeated. Am I losing it, or is it the software?
neurophius, I am sooo glad it wasn’t just me.
Jason Leopold has an addendum to his story from earlier today wrt the target letter:
http://forum.truthout.org/blog.....155410/765
You saw it too, Bustednuckles?
Yep!
Dadhusker– sure could use a feather for my tin foil chapeau– got one to spare? I hope you are right, btw!
Probably Jane tidying up after us.
neurophius says:
April 26th, 2006 at 6:23 pm
How odd. I could swear I saw my comment repeated. Am I losing it, or is it the software?
No, you are not losing it —- I suspect this is a problem that will get solved. I think I have read there is a safety built in the software — so when people post more than x-number of links in message, their post has to be approved — as a way to prevent or limit span. I suspect that some posts show up momentarily as “double” posts — one holding the place for something in que or something needing approval.
This site is so wonderful — my response is “who cares” — I can easily adjust or space over double posts, whatever. My suggestion — absolutely no criticism intended — but relax, and enjoy the ride. We’re trying to save the country or reclaim it. Let’s not sweat the small stuff.
Jane, quite simply, how the fuck do you do it? Do you have a giant recipe box full of color-coded file cards, or a Cray supercomputer, or a color-tabbed three-ring binder? Or a bunch of bankers boxes stuffed full of clippings?
Or is it just that this treason makes you so angry that you remember it all?
The public service that you and Christy have performed on this case — while conveniently also feeding us Fitz addicts — is absolutely extraordinary. This kind of summary, recap, and analysis is something we used to be able to rely on the WaPo and NYT for, but alas no longer.
Thanks for your stellar dedication to this story. Without FDL, I would be at a loss to understand the thread.
neurophius– saw that spooky stuff too– 2 posts one right after the other and then poof, one disappeared re PP.
I was awaiting moderation on two threads today and one stayed and the other disappeared. Maybe it is a good omen… magic in the air.
Great to hear Fitz is back at it!Also very nice to have Christy back.I’ve been contacting MD. state Reps. this evening,one of which voted to gut net neutrallity today.Could’nt be the almost $20,000 sent his way by the telecom industry-nah!Rep.Albert R Wynn(Dem?)for anyone interested.
http://www.wynn.house.gov/disp.....t%20Topics
I did send him a mail,and also my disrict Rep.I hope I did some good,but something seems missing….Oh, yeah,a small donation to Ned Lamont.Ahhhh,I’ll sleep good tonight.See ya’all
I inadvertantently double posted yesterday. I recieved an error message that said something to the effect that posting twice in fifteen seconds was not a good thing. lol, it said ” slow down cowbowy’.
OT: Scarboroough going on about fraudulent voting on American Idol.
Rediculous. We have voting machines that decide presidential elections that can be hacked!
Shills.
I love the preview, I love the preview. Ad infenitum.
There’s an interesting diary up at kos that speculates whether Karl may have actually forgotten his leak to Matt Cooper and subsequent e-mail to Hadley because Abu Gonzales or Andy Card or whoever, in the famous 12 hours, purged all e-mails containing the word “Niger” - a word that is contained in the Rove e-mail to Hadley.
The diarest considers that maybe because the e-mail was “disappeared,” Karl could have forgotten about it until it was found in the “250 lost e-mails,” (all probably containing the word “Niger”) indicating that Cheney’s office obstructed justice and will be caught because Rover forgot. I’m not explaining it very well, but I’ve included the link - Whaddya think?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/4/26/175135/254
It’s a huge NSA censorship conspiracy. Or I just deleted a duplicate post. Who knows?
Raw Story now has stories up supporting just about any conceivable position on Rover–even Ferret Astride..
They’re gettin a little confused over there.
Angie #61, I’ve used up all my Reynolds Wrap, now using “Fitz Wrap”
# 62.
marksb,
It has been one hell of a show, great for the pundits, the bloggers and those of us that are politically engaged. I can’t find enough hours in the day to keep up with work, my family and my political blog addiction….but this country could use something more right now. Some justice is due.
Good job, Bustednuckles.
Jane–did you see my No. 52? Any advice?
Jane, you are a brainiac extraordinaire. LOL!
soon to be gone I’m afraid, as soon as net equality is rescinded, we are history
I have a question. If Fitz gets an indictment of the sitting president, assuming he can, does this prevent Bush from issuing pardons to everyone in his administration?
Oh! Karl I Didn’t Take the Bait Rove goin’ down.
emptywheel - My presumption was that the “memo” that the WaPo turned over the Libby to comply (fully?) with his subpoena to them was just the unredacted version of the interview notes from July 27, 2003. And I assume the Post was fine turning it over to Libby without a fight because Libby was, after all, the subject of the interview. I find it hard to believe, however, that that’s all Team Libby wanted from the Post.
Jane - I believe the date of Rove’s grand jury appearance last October was October 14, 2005, not the 17th.
I don’t think he can, or if he does the president will say all of his defense is too sensitive to admitt in a court of law, the graymail defense and the case is thrown out, also the supreme court is in his pocket and they will hear the case inside of an hour and it will get thrown out even if he is out of office when he gets indicted
rwcole, if you’re still here - don’t forget I said Cinco de Mayo. And oh yeah, I don’t want a pony anymore. I’ll take a new President.
the Presidential pardoning power comes from the Constitution and is inviolate. only impeachments cant be pardoned.
me to me,
Well, it’ll be one small step for my physical and mental health, one giant leap for fascism. :(
Dadhusker # 73– market that! Imagine all the peeps buying Fitz Wrap this holiday season. Wonderful recycled newspaper headlines of indictments in which to wrap the most wonderful goodies for loved ones and for the mourning wingnut acquaintances we all surely have. What fun!
“I didn’t talk to Cooper…
No, wait a minute, I did talk to Cooper.”
Karl Rove is a flip-flopper.
What teddy #64 said.
Thanks
Oldandintheway 80:
I do not believe the sitting president can be indicted, although the Paula Jones case established that he can be sued civilly. Clinton’s impeachment also established that the House can impeach for any damn reason they please. I am not certain that a former president can be indicted criminally for crimes committed during office, but I believe he can, otherwise Ford would have had no reason to pardon Nixon.
Jason Leopold updates today’s article on Truthout.
http://forum.truthout.org/blog.....155410/765
Got this from talkleft, who is good too.
*ilson46201 — if only impeachments can be pardoned, how did Father Bush pardon all those Iran Contra people?
And I agree with *ilson about pardons. Maybe there should be a constitutional amendment prohibiting presidents from pardoning high-ranking officials in their own administration for crimes committed in the course of their work for the government. Or something like that. Bush I’s pardon of the Iran-Contra crooks was an outrage. I’m sure Junior is not above doing that to save his own ass.
sorry, Wilson — my eyes failed me. Re-read and understand.
The Unitary Executive can pardon, and probably pre-emptively pardon, anyone he damn well pleases. Just ask his personal attorney, Abu G.
We’re at war. And the Boy King is the C-in-C!
Hell, W’ll probably presumptively pardon the damn twins before he leaves the Oval. Just in case Jenna and not-Jenna ever do anything wrong in the future….
Oldandintheway 80
What a sad nickname you have; I hardly ever make any personal remarks to strangers since I became a grown- up, but maybe you could change it because nobody who is old is in the way, imho. We can only learn from our elders… just felt badly and had to say it. sorry if I offended, only meant to say that being old is terribly undervalued in our society. ;)
John Casper (I didn’t think you were serious, but assuming you is…)
I’m a LowEndMac kinda guy, so rather than tout MS Access (which IS probably up to the task) I think maybe most ‘calender’ type functions can be retrofitted.
Mac has an outliner that is inexpensive and gets good reviews — ‘Circus Ponies’ (everybody loves a pony, don’t they?)
But — I had to stop. It hit me. Get any ‘old’ Mac that will run System 7ish thru System 9 (maybe…) Seriously. For maybe less than $100 (which is ballpark for some modern dbase app) Then download HyperCard. You can create ‘Cards’ and link them like weblinks. Voila. Truth.
There are others, like SuperCard…
Not sure if Windows side has any such product. Some webpage design, maybe.
But, along w/TeddySanFran, I’d be curious what advice out lovely and talented and organized hostesses might offer.
Oh, and Chris at MyDD has a fascinating recap of the blogger-ad survey. If you took it — or even if you didn’t — you might be interested in the results.
http://mydd.com/story/2006/4/26/11425/2563
Thanks, Jeff. Corrected.
Angie, Old and in the way is a great album w/ Jerry Garcia. It has no bad connotation for us old ‘heads.
Also, Jane, as Teddy SF and others have said, thanks for the commentary and reference on this. Truly amazing what you guys pull off day after day.
hehe
get this from waas blog;
Exclusive Fitzgerald Interview!… er, unfortunately not with me. And, morevoer, well, not with the New York Times or Washington Post either.
The exclusive was scored by one Joseph Santo, a senior at Regis High School, a Jesuit college-prep high school on the Upper East Side in Manhattan. Via Dan Froomkin, Santo scored the exclusive interview in part because Fitzgerald is an alumni of the school. High school kid beats the national press! Timely story, too, with Rove before the grand jury today and all…
http://whateveralready.blogspo.....-post.html
waas blog
angie 95
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_and_in_the_Way
OT: I just have to say wrt internet neutrality: shouldn’t we have Bill Gates and other computer hardware and software manufacturer’s coming out against this? (in addition to any business or organization with an internet presence at all) Part of the continuing demand for newer and faster computers is the internet. People need cutting edge hardware and software to do all the new fangled things on the internet. See Windows Media PC designed to be your whole home entertainment system.
I am shocked that this is flying so far below the radar!
To all the lawyers out there: if Rove did make a deal and pled to lesser charges (perjury, false statements), will we know about it? That is, would Fitz even have to notify the public that indictments have been handed down, if for example, one of Rove’s conditions for ratting out higher ups was that the public not find out that he pled out? If Fitz does decide to hold a press conference telling the public that Rove is being indicted on perjury and false statements, would he also tell us that obstruction of justice charges (and perhaps violation of IIPA) were not filed b/c Rove was cooperating with the investigation?
urban pirate
high lonesome sound. sweet.
neuro 52 & 77, as I recall, we are pissed at PP for kudoing Joementum et al for voting against Scalito, meaninglessly after having voted FOR cloture (which was the crucial vote). Some of us are tortured about it because of the really excellent work that PP does especially in states like (whichever) Dakota where women have little other access to reproductive services.
Wait a minute. They talked for three hours about Viveca Novak? If that’s true, then I’d guess that Luskin was probably right: Rove wasn’t the target of today’s chat. Luskin was.
urban pirate– I am an old ‘head too and oh so relieved to know that is what is referenced. LOL with joy.
I have seen way too many elders say this in the hospital, crying and wishing an end to life…and the burden they believe they place on their children.
little dancing bears running thru my head…
this post is like old school FDL.
Troll who also goes by the name of “Kathy”
MissAnnaNOLA
AFAIK, Microsoft is doing as you suggest. Not sure what, but they are not ‘with’ the deal. I’m sure Apple’s against this also.
If igure it’s the telecomms vs. everybody else. Who else would want that?
Is Rove a subject or a target?
According to TalkLeft, Rove could be a target of the investigation but not a target of the Grand Jury, meaning indictment is not on the table…yet. This is why both Leopold and Luskin can be correct in claiming what appears to be a contradiction. According to TalkLeft, Rove could be a target of the investigaton by virtue of his providing information that could still lead to charges that may not rise to the level of a full indictment. A slap on the wrist?
Truth to tell, he had a self-satisfied smirk on his face coming out of the GJ meeting. Either he is feeling good about something or he is a master at disguising his emotions.
Go read for yourself: http://talkleft.com