Reply #6: Rove doesn't have to "turn" on anyone [View All]

[jbonkowski]

All he has to do is state something in his testimony that conflicts two other's testimony. For example, stating the outing of Plame was discussed at a certain meeting, but loyally saying Bush wasn't there and didn't know about it.

Except that, under questioning, Bush did say he was at that meeting, but gives a different story for the topic of the meeting. Then a third person testifies that Bush was there, but Plame wasn't discussed at all. Enough inconsistancies like that, and an argument starts to form that a conspiracy to cover soemthing up happens. At the very least he gets people for lying to investigators.

Remember, Bush talked to investigators for an hour about this stuff. You can dig a pretty deep hole in an hour. The cover-up is always worse.

I smell an "unindicted co-conspirator" somewhere.