fitz! It’s really a state of mind.

Ok, no fighting.

hurm

This is just beginning.

Yeah, Gold Bars, what Froomkin and Jane said.

Show us the damn letter.

Nothing about the reporter from truthout who said Rove was indicted? He was interviewed this afternoon but I have no access — what did he say? Is he going to burn his lying source?

Or is that not interesting to you for some reason?

Greg Sargent at Horses Mouth has a statement from Corallo - “There were no conditions attendant to the prosecutor’s actions. There never has been any discussion about cooperation or conditions or anything of the sort. This strictly reflects the prosecutor coming to the correct conclusion that Rove has told the truth from day one. He believed him.”
www.prospect.org/horsesmouth/

come on. obviously cheney is more important in the long term, but most of us have spent the past several months dreaming of a rove indictment. this is a huge disappointment.

I was EPU’d below. It isn’t clear to me whether this link on Rove-won’t-be-indicted has been posted.

Spot on.

Sorry, here is the link.

to let rover slide to get dead eye dick… i guess it’s a good trade. i would [refer that both got “justice”

Has Larry Johnson been heard from today?

I don’t know whether WordPress or my computer ate my last comment, but I don’t see it posted. I apologize if this is redundant. I don’t know whether the following Rove-won’t-be-indicted link has been posted here:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITI.....index.html

Another big endorsement for our favorite NED!!!

AFT Connecticut, the state’s second largest AFL-CIO union representing more than 26,000 professionals, including healthcare, higher education, and public employees, has endorsed Ned Lamont for U.S. Senate in Connecticut.

I just want to say that this phrase:

> to limbo around the truth

is very funny. To limbo “under” the truth would be more logical, but less catchy as a turn of phrase…

I think this is probably right on the mark. I also think - on the speculative tip - that Rove wouldn’t have been willing to flip if Fitz hadn’t stuck a big fat hook in him. Namely a sealed indictment. Yes, yes - I know everyone has been down on poor Jason Leopold lately, but the arguement that Karl has suddenly renounced the dark side doesn’t make sense without some Mustafa level fire under his butt.

Vyan

neurophius — please refer to Christy’s post “Some things to contemplate….” earlier today. As many of us sometimes are, you’re a little late to this party, but that’s okay….

o #7 — “He believed him.” Okay that seals it, now we know Rove’s spokespeople are full of shit, now the only question is how much. While it may be possible Fitzgerald just didn’t think he had enough to indict Rove (and I doubt that, but I’m not in his shoes) he did not bring him back five times for shits & giggles. There is no way “he believed him.” That’s just a crock.

Jane @ 19 — you beat me to it. I was going say, “Mark, ol’ buddy, you had me going until that last line.”

Luskin’s “No Deal” comment is probably true. That is why Rove testified for the fifth time, in April: to put Rove’s testimony on the record under oath. No need for a deal. Fitzpatrick has what he wants. Should Rove try to change that testimony at the Libby trial, Rove goes down for perjury. So, there is no need for a deal.

By the way, this post was very clearly written, Jane. This topic can get pretty murky but your explanation reads well and is easy to follow.

There is still the issue of the alleged “sealed vs. sealed. The undeniable liberal is no legal scholar (or any kind of scholar) but if such a case exists, wouldn’t that be the hammer over Karl’s head to continue cooperating? Just sayin……

Joshowitz 6 — Or is that not interesting to you for some reason?

I wrote:

I believed him when he said Rove had not been indicted, and I believe him now (and those who spread that particular bit of bad reporting owe us an accounting now, and should — as Jeralyn notes — fulfill their promise to out their sources or be forever banished from any charge of credibility).

This wasn’t an oblique reference to my Aunt Becky.

larry 15 — that is GREAT news. Link?

It’s become ever more apparent as time goes on and Fitzgerald releases bits of information in his filings that this was a Dick Cheney operation. Rove may have gotten involved because smearing people is his idea of a good time, but the Cheney scrawlings on Joe Wilson’s op-ed are the “blue dress” of this case.
———————————————————-
This is, I think, the big reason why Rove was NOT indicted. I think the story goes like this: Cheney and Libby knew Plame was a covert CIA agent. Either Cheney told Libby to betray her, or Libby did it on his own. Either way, Libby’s guilty of violating the spirit of the IIPA. Fitz couldn’t nail him on that charge, but he had him dead to rights on covering the whole thing up, so now Libby is looking at a very ugly trial.

Rove, on the other hand, is a different story. Dirty tricks are his specialty, so it makes sense that Libby would go to him for help smearing Wilson. But I’ve never been convinced that Rove had direct knowledge that Plame was covert. Fitz knows Rove is a weasel, but Fitz isn’t sure if Rove violated the spirit of the IIPA. In fact, Karl’s sleaziness works FOR him here, as it’s entirely plausible that Libby said, “Hey, we want to smear this guy,” and Karl went at it with his usual relish, oblivious to the fact that he was compromising national security.

The only big question left for Fitz is whether Libby acted alone or if he was following Cheney’s orders. (There are lots of smaller questions, of course. I’m still dying to know who talked to Woodward and Novak, and whether he/she is at all connected to Cheney.)

I think Jane is right, there is no indictment and probably won’t be (a disappointment to be sure), Luskin probably isn’t lying about that part. I’d be really surprised if Rove was completely in the clear on this case though, I can’t image he just got let off the hook for conspiracy and lying. Today was about Framing the issue in the minds of public (Rove? He’s off the hook!) and moving on! Period. Frame issue, mince words and move on. Anyone still talking about it is a wacko. We can’t let that happen this time! Show me the godamn letter!

One thing I know is this, I don’t know if these people will ever be beaten in a legal manner, but we sure as hell do not have to join them and let ourselves be browbeaten yet again. The left has got to learn to punch back without worrying how people are going to take it. Show me some godamn proof! I’m not falling this act again; show me some fucking proof Karl Rove has been exonerated Luskin!

TeddySanFran 18

OK, I guess I didn’t look far enough down the threads to realize that Rove news is no news. Sorry for getting excited.

Jane, you had me laughing aloud

i say it’s the economy — watch the falling stock market — watch the spiking rate of violent crime: worst increase since 1991

Does it not count if you are oblivious to compromising national security?

If Karl gave up Libby, it was with the understanding that Libby would be pardoned.

If Clinton had not pardoned Rich, this would be more interesting. As it is, Rove has won the political battle hands down.

Rove is definitely a boy genius. He has managed to take a brain-damaged clown for a surrogate and turn the country upside down. I tip my hat to him. I look forward to seeing how he will stage manage Iraq.

Aunt Becky is Novak’s source.

How’s Aunt Becky’s gout?

Rove was not indicted but he’s mainly a Bush caretaker. The lack of an indictment shows how little authority Bush has in his own White House. Bush is an empty suit, a puppet. His only chance to solo resulted in Harriet Miers.

There was a rumor flying a while back that there was a secret hearing before the judge that involved Fitz and it was rumored that Luskin was arguing against an indictment of Rove because of his crucial importance to the government or some such BS. Did anyone ever followup on that?

I’m wondering.

Is it possible that Fitz got an indictment, had it sealed, and then held it over Rove’s head until he got what he wanted? Or, is it that once an indictment is handed down the Prosecutor has no choice but to execute it? Jane, Reddhead? and help there?

hizzhoner…

Should we expect any comment from Fitz on this particular matter?

Jane at 23: time to trot out that “reading” requirement again?

Did anyone see the pool boy on tweety acting like a school-girl who just found out she is going to the prom.

Very good work today, Jane and Christy (and emptywheel).

Have faith, people, have faith. We have a pro on our side in Patrick Fitzgerald.

“Official A” is “always” indicted by this prosecutor - except in one of the most, if not the single most, high-profile investigations of our government ever conducted??

The friendly-to-Rove corporate media fell silent - suddenly ceasing all ongoing speculation about imminent developments in his case that they had been collectively predicting - the instant an unsubstantiated internet report was published about a very long negotiating session that purportedly took place involving Official A and Special Counsel Fitzgerald.

Four weeks later, a letter from the special counsel went out by fax late in the afternoon of June 12, after an important Libby case hearing was successfully concluded and the court’s chief judge (and overseer of the grand jury) was consulted by the special counsel. A follow-up call by the letter’s recipient (Attorney Luskin) after business hours (and after he had a chance to discuss the letter with his client when Rove arrived in New Hampshire) was placed to the letter writer (Fitzgerald - then on his way back to Chicago?), which was returned by the special counsel at 9 p.m. that night, when Fitzgerald had (presumably) reached his home base.

The subject of the phone conversation which followed the earlier letter? ‘Can Rove and I go public about your letter,’ special counsel, without blowing our deal/cooperation/pledge of silence? And if so, with how much information? Answer was given in the affirmative — and word subsequently went out after 9 p.m. Monday night to friendly contacts in the media, who had the news ready to go first thing Tuesday morning.

Time to turn all eyes toward the movements, and demeanor, of Vice President Richard B. Cheney (as Wilson has already done) — the first brief sighting of said subject today on CNN does not seem to weaken the above ‘faith-based’ interpretation of recent developments.

The other shoes have yet to drop.

I think it’s cruller but crueller works as poetic license.

I’d much rather Rove had to worry about going to jail. Might buy us a few tenths of a percent in a Senate race we need. Though polls (see mydd.com , too lazy to link sorry) happily now put Dewine behind in OH, and Ford even in TN.

Is it okay to hope that Fitz is able to nail Rove for something? (Yeah, I want Cheney’s head on a pike (figuratively, for the spooks who are reading this thread). But I also want a real faster-than-light spacedrive. Or a good matter transmitter.)

Show me some godamn proof! I’m not falling this act again; show me some fucking proof Karl Rove has been exonerated Luskin!
Till he does, it’s an alleged exoneration.

I still wonder about statutes of limitation. I know very little about fed law, but if I’m representing Rove, I tell him to take the 5th within any civil suit until such time as there is no longer any possiblity of a criminal action. As a general proposition, I think it’s safe to say that civil actions have shorter limitation periods, so how does this play out? File the civil suit, and have it stayed indefinitely until Rove can no longer claim 5th protection, or does a civil case get dismissed for lack of prosecution within that time?

A plea or a verdict on the merits would have opened up a civil case for discovery purposes, but this sort of non-binding letter doesn’t. This could end up hurting Wilson-Plame’s civil case, I would think. Maybe more than just ‘hurt’.

It’s gonna be a long few days listening to Repub’s crow about the “victory” and bitch about Fitzgerald. I think I’ll rent some movies.

I want Cheney in an orange jumpsuit, chains, and flip-flops.

Jane, Swopa - I’ve got a better one. Here’s what Corallo told Byron York:

There are no conditions to this action by the special prosecutor. There has never been any talk of conditions, of cooperation, of anything that could even be construed as conditions. This just simply reflects the fact that the special prosecutor found Mr. Rove to be a truthful and credible witness from the beginning.

That seals it, Rove has been cooperating all along, and bs-ing us about telling the truth to Fitzgerald! Just kidding. That’s actually an artfully ambiguous statement from Corallo, making it sound like Fitzgerald from the getgo found Rove truthful and credible, which is laughable, whereas strictly speaking it can be taken to say that Fitzgerald just isn’t prosecuting Rove for anything he said from the beginning of the inquiry. On the other hand, it’s the closest Team Rove has come to claiming that Fitzgerald has declared Rove innocent, which might not be the wisest thing to do, given what else they’ve said (though I don’t think there will be any actual consequences).

But here’s my free, albeit unrequested, advice: in turning attention to Cheney, focus not on the legal case, but on what actually happened in the real world back in summer 2003. Fitzgerald’s going to do what Fitzgerald is going to do, and nothing anyone says is going to make one bit of difference in shaping that. But what Cheney did in summer 2003 is a distinct and different matter, and it’s not only important in itself, it’s nested inside the entire question of prewar intel and the public justification for the war in a way that the legal case, as Fitzgerald has rightly argued, is not. The WaPo has actually been trying to focus attention on Cheney’s conduct repeatedly, from Gellman’s piece immediately after Libby’s indictment to the recent piece by Smith and Vandehei which got, I believe, exactly no attention from anyone.

I myself am skeptical that Cheney is going to get indicted, but regardless, Fitzgerald gives out revealing information that swings free of the sole question of whether Cheney is going to be indicted or not.

BobbyG anything but flip-flops…can you imagine what those feet look like? YUCK!

the patriot 8 — come on. obviously cheney is more important in the long term, but most of us have spent the past several months dreaming of a rove indictment. this is a huge disappointment.

Don’t count me among “most of us” then. I dream of justice being served. If you look back at Watergate, it took a very long time for that to unfold but eventually the system worked. If there are people who are incapable of perceiving anything but a straight vertical ascent as progress they need to familiarize themselves with history.

This isn’t about revenge, or schadenfreude, it’s about restoring faith in the system, about restoring the system itself. If some needed Karl Rove to be frogmarched in order to keep on the path I would say their faith is very weak and so is their will in this situation. A nice symbol perhaps, but what we are about here is something much larger. Always has been, and I hope always will be.

Hayduke at #26:

You’re one hundred percent correct. Democrats and liberal independents need to stand tall.

Show us the letter! Show us the letter! That’s the mantra.

Thank you Jane for a clear and precise post. I wrote before that this could happen and that the strutting will begin. We need to push back. There is so much at stake here, but I feat that the White House has won this round in the minds of regular folks.

I read an entry from Sheldon Drobny at Huffpost. What do you guys think about this? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....22922.html

I was always supicious of Fitz’ politics, and feel there is a ring of truth. He did say that he couldn’t get all the facts b/c of the obstruction. Was this a cop out? a show for the media and the lefties that really lead to nowhere and/or for neo-cons to use to say this just frivilous no “underlying crime” has been committed. Is this just another of Bush’s cronies taking the sword for fearless leader. Like Mr. Drobney’s asserts, was this just the administration serving up Libby and then saying it stops there?

Oh Jane you silly thing, Luskin’s cat ate the letter of course!
Other thoughts, has anyone heard from Rove’s spokesperson, Mark whatshisname? He was such a talkative thing before all this good news came out.

I love how Corallo says this game is over, but it was Comstock, and not him, who got assigned to flack Jerry Lewis out of jail. Sounds like they still think they might need Corallo’s services.

And I really do think we need to brainstorm an appropriate title for this role. FDL readers are the best at this kind of brainstorming. What do you call someone whose job it is to disinform the public about a crucial Republican leader’s dire legal jeopady?

Goebbels?

Jane at 46
perfect. thats why you write the blog and i just read it.

Frank @ 25 -

Next week’s Frontline (Tuesday) is apparently going to imply that Cheney/Rummy were taking the CIA out of the game with the OSP. Should be an interesting show.

Emptywheel’s theory fits what we know about the players’ characters (and I use that term loosely). Since finessing the Veep search in 2000, BigTime has been exerting what Rove can only think of as undue influence on the BoyKing. Influencing the BoyKing when he was BoyGovernor was solely Rove’s province, and the appearance of this eminence-gris with connections to DaddyKing had to rankle.

The opportunity to save the BoyKing’s regency (and himself, not incidentally) by throwing BigTime under the bus must greatly tempt Rove. If such an outcome also fit the facts of the case, Fitz becomes Rove’s co-conspirator in The Twilight of the Most Powerful Vice-Presidency Ever.

I’ll take “Resigning for Health Reasons on November 8, 2006,” for $2000, Alex.

Thanks Katie O’Beirne’s Teeth, that’s what I’ve been saying all day.

emptywheel,
Liar

Professor Foland @ 2:55 pm (#39) - According to Webster’s, you’re right about how to spell “cruller”, and I’d say you’re right about “crueller” being appropriate in some ways.

Posted by Jeralyn Merrit at TalkLeft

EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove

Sometimes people just don’t know when to cry “uncle.” I do. I asked Robert Luskin this morning if Karl Rove has made a deal with Fitzgerald. His response:

“There has never, ever been any discussion of a deal in any way, shape or form.”

Which is exactly what Luskin told me weeks ago. It’s over, folks. Karl Rove will not be charged with a crime. He’s cooperated with Fitzgerald by testifying to the grand jury five times and providing whatever information he had without a safety net. Without a 5k. Without assurances he would not be indicted. That’s a hell of a risk, but Luskin pulled it off. My hat’s off to Luskin.

BTW I’d rather see a Cheney indictment than a Rove indictment. Indicting Rove would hurt the republicans in the elections, sure, but indicting Cheney would help us get our troops out of Iraq.

Ya.

And it’s not like Mistah Nixon did so badly when Spiro was sent packing so that Gerald Ford could replace him.

So, if this is, indeed, the case, who might be the favoured anti-nabob of negativism to replace Mr. Cheney?

.

a gooper-scooper, emptywheel

texexspeedy #48:

If so, then mission not accomplished. Valerie Plame was outed to discredit her husband’s contention that the case for war against Iraq had been fabricated. And what do the majority of Americans believe now?

txexspeedy — Sheldon Drobney is a full-on, four-flushing idiot. The worst part about stuff like this is the defeatism that starts to pervade everything like a second-grade birthday party that just got rained on. The second worst part are the uninformed loons like Drobney who crawl out of the woodwork. He did something like this following the Libby indictment, I don’t remember what it was but it was just about the stupidest, most ill-informed piece ever written about the entire affair. I think he just topped it.

How ’bout “official organ of the glorious cultural revoloution”-whoops,thats taken,sorry JC

Josh Marshall has some thoughts:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.c.....008732.php

emptywheel says “What do you call someone whose job it is to disinform the public about a crucial Republican leader’s dire legal jeopady?”
June 13th, 2006 at 3:01 pm

Perhaps there’s a better euphemism than this: expert damage control specialist - or perhaps a consummate dissembler.

Some more amusing Karl reflections:

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/co.....s_close_up

Cancer @51. that is exactly what i was thinking = Goebbels?

Not so sure that is one we want to go with but that is definatly it!

The have framed the issue today, that’s what this was about. We have got to be quicker to respond. We need a Karl Rove… only not an evil one. If this issues isn’t resolved today then “KarlRove is off the hook you whacko” is all we can expect from here on out. No different that Sadamn being behind 9/11 in the minds of the masses. Dictate half truths, frame, move on. Slag anyone still talking about it.

How do we respond to this stuff?!

Jane #46,
Yes, this is true-I was in high school in DC during Watergate but there were no ‘Internets’ then and we had to only the Print/TV MSM, NYT and WaPo were also against Tricky Dick- plus there was bi-partisan support against Nixon et. al. in Congress - this is a different animal IMO.

“What do you call someone whose job it is to disinform the public about a crucial Republican leader’s dire legal jeopady?”

Bamboozlinator in Chief

Emptywheel #50:

Uh, The Rendon Group?

http://tinyurl.com/qtjg7

Jane #63 - Whew, trexspeedy freaked me out for a second. Thanks for straightening me out on that one…

I am already seeing what I want to see and that is a professional prosecutor doing his job. It would be nice to see the Karma Police take Rove into custody, but that’s not Fitz’s job. We need to look no further than Starr and his politically-motivated leaks to recognize what a travesty of justice looks like. If Rove walks without a scratch, that’s the way the cookies crumble. At least the system’s integrity has been preserved this time.

However, I agree that this is far from over, either with the Libby drama that will unfold, or with any impending civil case brought by the Wilsons. If had been in Vegas, I would have asked Joe specifically about that.

Lastly, Leopold is the last person I would want to be today.

sorry if this
salon.com tidbit has already been covered in this thread:

Update: This post initially referred to the “letter” Luskin reportedly received from Fitzgerald. However, Luskin’s statement doesn’t identify the form in which Fitzgerald’s communication came. The New York Times says it was a letter. AP refers to a phone call. Pending more information, we’ve deleted references to a “letter.”

#30 - If Karl gave up Libby, an alternative explanation that resonates with me is here:
[Emptywheel’s] Take on the Rove Announcement

Good link Pach,Karl’s rep is firmly intact,even solidified.No loss there.

My faith in the system is on life-support. OJ Simpson got away with murder. Why can’t Karl Rove get away with treason?

Justice and fairness are antiquated concepts created by people long since deceased. The laws of nature, e.g., survival of the fittest, are prevailing. And today, the fittest are the ones with the power.

Karl Rove is free to manipulate the 2006 election, and the sheep will follow whatever wedge issue he tosses up, and the media will dutifully follow the script.

Since leaving Yearly Kos, I resolved to make myself have more political conversations with the ordinary people I come in contact with day to day. Well, so far I’ve had three of them: (1) “what about those Mexicans?” (2) Republicans and Democrats are just alike, and (3) I’ll think about it and get back to you.

Crickets on this end too.

Faith-restoring justice does not preclude Schadenfreude. If we achieve the former, we can allow ourselves the latter. Especially given the homicidal fascist rat bastards under consideration.

What do you call someone whose job it is to disinform the public about a crucial Republican leader’s dire legal jeopady?

Senior White House Official?

I’m out ya all
to quote markfromireland,
“poof”

OT– What does it say about a sovereign Iraqi government when the famously celebrated democratically elected government and duly designated PM doesn’t know the preznit is in their country until he’s landed and 5 minutes before the photo op. btw– I really thought the preznit was going to collapse in a tearful epiphany while talking the the troops. Just after he looked the PM in the eyes.

sheesh.

Back OT– I have my faith firmly placed in justice, Patrick Fitzgerald, Joe and Valerie Wilson, and the truth. It will come out, one day that will dawn beautifully in the good, old USA that we all want to believe in again and restore. If we take back one or both houses of Congress in November, we can finally have the Congressional investigation that should have happened already. Fitz is doing what he can from a criminal investigative standpoint, it is up to we, the people to find out the other part of the story.

FS - those sound like pretty far fetched rumors. How were they sourced?

It is what it is on Rove and the rest of them. They hold most of the cards, the Prosecutor has done a pretty fair amount, if he pulls off anything else, that will be pretty interesting, but he may not have the ability to put on more of a case, or he may not be sold on more of a case.

I still wonder why nothing has ever crept out on the leaking of classified info by Ashcroft’s COS in the Abramoff matter, and the emails about Ashcroft being pretty much in pocket, and the Black matter and the fact that Zeidenberg works on both Abramoff and Libby. You wonder about overlaps.

It’s still all pretty small stuff next to the NSA suits, the rendition suits, etc. Those were the dismantling of America - Rove is just the dirty politics. Lots of dirty politicians in America’s history. We survive them. The willingness to destroy the country’s constituional underpinnings - - that walks back to way more doors than Rove’s.

OT - Huffpo blog about the Rendon Group.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....22912.html
????
You just keep wondering how it was that we had almost half of America polling a belief in the 9/11 hijackers being Iraqi and over half believing that Hussein was “behind” 9/11. A story about it coming down to a really good PR firm, with the power of the govt to punish those who go off message, makes for an interesting read at least. Plus, it’s another Judy Miller story. ;-) In part.

Bravo, Jane! So well done!

And speaking of Rove, did anyone see Biden on Tweety? If not, catch the replay in an hour or so. Surprisingly (maybe), Tweety still seems pissed about Bush declaring that any leakers in the administration would be dealt with, making the point that even though Rove was not indicted, he is still a PROVEN leaker, along with Libby - and Rove still has his job (though security clearance was never brought up, of course).

So, anyway, he asked hairpiece what he thought about Rove still being in the WH and Biden said something like, “As long as he was not indicted it’s fine with me.” WTF? He seriously said it (though not word for word) - unless my ears are still popping.

He’s just another “joe” that NOBODY’s gonna vote for - gack!

I think it will be interesting to see, as time goes on, what kind of influence Dan Abrams has on the philosophy adopted by MSNBC.

ccmask at 29:
Does it not count if you are oblivious to compromising national security?

IIPA requires knowingly disclosing a covert identity. However, being careless with classified information (that is, failing to affirmatively protect it) would get someone’s clearance revoked immediately in any administration that actually cared about national security over clinging to political power.

More Digby on Rove:

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com.....8660136081

ArthurKC 21: (I can’t figure out how to do blockquote, damn.)

‘Luskin’s “No Deal” comment is probably true. That is why Rove testified for the fifth time, in April: to put Rove’s testimony on the record under oath. No need for a deal. Fitzpatrick has what he wants. Should Rove try to change that testimony at the Libby trial, Rove goes down for perjury. So, there is no need for a deal.’

If Fitz got what he wanted back in April, why didn’t Luskin get his precious letter till now? I think it’s possible you’re right, but I can’t explain the delay.

Here’s your Ned Lamont endorsement.

Mary 83 — bad link, dang it

cross posted on TL; the sealed indictment seems the only thing to me that Mr. F has to hold Rove to his bargains. knowing a pardon could doom him, why screw with rover until after elections when he has the support of the administration, instead of the stonewall he sees now.

no, there are many surprises waiting

DB #75:

Being relatively new to this game, I’d had no idea who Jason Leopold was until a month or so ago.

I’ve listened to him twice on Ed Schultz’s radio show, and each time I was left with the impression that the dude’s a blatant self-promoter and a made-to-order mark for an operator like Rove.

If only Fat Ed knew how to conduct an interview, Leopold and truthout.org would’ve been sleeping with the journalistic fishes before he hung up the phone. Now, his best hope is that Fitz will stay clammed forever so he can claim to be “not wrong”.

I really want to know who his sources were, as I’d bet that the dots would form some nice, straight lines back into the WH. But that might be another never-know deal.

Jane said, (around 46) “This isn’t about revenge, or schadenfreude, it’s about restoring faith in the system, about restoring the system itself.”

Yeah, that’s what I was telling myself this morning. It’s a shame when the hook I hang my faith on is a Special Prosecuter… It just ain’t right.

On any case, stuff is still happening… … … the story unfolds one page at a time.

> We have a pro on our side in Patrick
> Fitzgerald.

IF Fitzgerald is truly doing his job as most here hope, then his isn’t on anyone’s “side” except for Ms. Justice.

On the other hand, I am starting to suspect that either Fitzgerald was put in as the after-parade clean-up for the Republican Party, and he is doing THAT job. One indictment, one 2006 Congressional campaign completed, one full pre-emptive pardon issued, problem gone.

OR someone is putting some serious thumbscrews to Fitzgerald to back off. Presumably the same thumbscrews which are applied to Spector and his co-Senators to get _them_ to back off.

Not Really

Pssst - If Rove is looking for his reputation, I think Tom Delay left it for him in hatcheck at some fancy french restaurant.

A Republican operative’s version of this magical pair of blue jeans that fits everyone and can be passed around on an “as needed” basis. NOt that I’m comparing Delay and Rove to an all girls high school clique. *g*

“What do you call someone whose job it is to disinform the public about a crucial Republican leader’s dire legal jeopardy?”

A consummate cosmetologist: putting lipstick on that pig !

Crueller de Vile

punaise says
June 13th, 2006 at 3:27 pm

Respectfully request that you be defenestrated for that one. Oowww!

OT again, sorry– Al Gore on L. Diddy King tonite.

Says Angie at 3:15:
What does it say about a sovereign Iraqi government when the famously celebrated democratically elected government and duly designated PM doesn’t know the preznit is in their country until he’s landed and 5 minutes before the photo op.

Wouldn’t this be a serious breach of protocol if the foreign country were a real sovereign? I imagine that back in the day it would have been taken as an act of war for the foreign head of state to set foot across the border inadequately heralded and accepted.

NR #94:

Sounds just like the “stabbed in the back by the Jews” narrative that the German general staff spun after WWI to get themselves off the hook and get their country ready for WWII.

We Vietnam vets have a similar slogan: “We were winning when I left.”

Neither narrative was true, but darned if the scapegoating didn’t feel good at the time.

I’ve been accused of being short-tempered for the past couple of days, but I would argue that there have been a bonanza of things to be short-tempered about. Put at the top of that list accusations that somehow Patrick Fitzgerald is a bag man for the GOP. I’m announcing now that I have just a little less tolerance for this site devolving into that than Kos does turning his over to the 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

Yer forewarned. Just so nobody is surprised when it happens.

Jane #47:

You are so full of bullshit, it’s coming out your ears. Not about schadenfreude? Then explain your May 5th Late Night FDL Headliner “Countdown to Ecstasy” with a picture of Rove pasted onto a frog. Gimme a break with your holier-than-thou “restoring faith in the system” baloney. I’m pissed, you’re pissed, we’re all pissed — lets just all admit it and move on.

Try this - it looks like al-Scooter at 73 beat me to the punch anyway. *g*
http://tinyurl.com/qtjg7

What if Sealed v Sealed is CIA v Cheney?

EW (3:01 pm) — damn, I’m stumped for a formal title. I’d go with “Political Organ of Propaganda”, but I just can’t get a decent price from any of the companies that embroider baseball jackets and hats for that much stitching.

Maybe if we turned it into an acronym: POOP.

Yeah, maybe I can get a better price on that, including stationary.

Re: Prostatedragon @100

I’m sure al-Maliki knew in advance. But if I were a regular Joe Iraqi, it would smell real funky. It would look like the prez of the U.S. can just make stops whennever he wants because, well, he owns it. Just another province in the American Empire.

We’ve lost CA-50 and now Rove, not a good month nor a good harbinger of the future.

Uh-oh, I think I hear the trexinator being warmed up.

Heh.

I know I am old, but this is beginning to remind me of Nixon. Nixon had a VP (Agnew). He resigned. Nixon then appointed another — not voted upon by Americans, except a VERY few in his congressional district — and even THEY voted for a Rep, NOT for him as prez. Then Nixon quits, putting Ford in the White House. He then pardons Nixon.

Deja vu, all over again? I know it is not exactly the same, but oh, how it is freaky.

If we’re still playing:
“What do you call someone whose job it is to disinform the public about a crucial Republican leader’s dire legal jeopardy?”

Has anyone taken:

“Barbara - but her friend’s call her babs”?