What is the consensus? Will * be named as an Unindicted Co-Conspriator?

[hang a left]

I am wondering what the DUers, that have followed this case, think will happen to **? I am of the opinion that the indictments of the criminals in this case will be incomplete with out the inclusion of *.

[nvliberal]

1. There won't be any indictments of consequence, let alone of Bush.

It's pretty clear this case is going to go nowhere. Too many people have their hopes riding on this.

There are far more scandals involving Republicans with far more credibility than this one.

[BuyingThyme]

3. Name one.

I bet you can't.

[punpirate]

4. This is incredible?

I would say that it's fairly clear that a request from the CIA for Justice to investigate and that Justice did so is one indication that the case has substance.

The roots of the case go back to false information used to deceive Congress for the purposes of gaining a war resolution. That is of substance.

Perjury, obstruction of justice and conspiracy are all substantive charges, and they may apply here. Remember, Watergate was a "third-rate burglary." What distinguished the depth and breadth of the case in the White House was the cover-up involved.

I suspect this will be no different.

Cheers.

[hang a left]

6. It was pretty clear in my OP

that I was attempting to engage in discussion with DUers "that have followed this case". I do not care to discuss the issue with people that have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

[longship]

9. Glass half-empty, eh?

nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. So treason is not serious enough for ya? WOW

[flyarm]

19. i believe you are dead wrong...

reason...

1. 2 years of investigation

2. rove went 4 times to gj..foolish unless scared shitless!

3. putting a reporter in jail for 85 days...

read what one of the judges stated after seeing what fitzgerald has on these criminals!
snip:

from Judge Tatel who signed the court order sending judy judy judy to jail!!

Were the leak at issue in this case less harmful to national security or more vital to public debate, or had the special counsel failed to demonstrate the grand jury’s need for the reporters’ evidence, I might have supported the motion to quash. Because identifying appellants’ sources instead appears essential
to remedying a serious breach of public trust, I join in affirming the district court’s orders compelling their testimony.

http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200...


4. larry franklin already indicted ..bet he is squeeling!!

5. Fitzgerald has reportedly asked for a copy of the Italian government’s investigation into the break-in of the Niger embassy in Rome and the source of the forged documents. The blatantly fake papers, which purported to show that Saddam Hussein had cut a deal to get yellowcake uranium from Niger, turned up after a December 2001 meeting in Rome involving neo-con Michael Ledeen, Larry Franklin, Harold Rhodes, and Niccolo Pollari, the head of Italy’s intelligence agency SISMI, and Antonio Martino, the Italian defense minister.

snip

The other American attendees at Ledeen’s Roman Holiday are also worthy of scrutiny. Larry Franklin was recently arrested for leaking classified US government information to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Ledeen sprang quickly to his defense but Franklin faces prosecution next year and is most probably cooperating with prosecutor Fitzgerald.


www.huffingtonpost.com

6. http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/10/21/news/fitzgerald....

7. http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2005/10/21/miller_times/index_np.html
Fitzgerald is no Ken Starr

as joe conason says.......snip;

To anyone familiar with the most basic facts about Fitzgerald's prosecution, the quarreling with him and his methods simply sounds stupid.

snip:

To anyone familiar with the most basic facts about Fitzgerald's prosecution, the quarreling with him and his methods simply sounds stupid. Do the Republican partisans who claim that he is running a "political" investigation realize that John Ashcroft's deputy appointed him? Do those same Republicans remember that the president endorsed his appointment and the purposes of the investigation? Do they know that the original demand for an investigation came from former CIA director George Tenet?


8....a hmmmmmmmmm moment!!!!!!

FOCUS | Libby Targeted Joe Wilson
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/102105Y.shtml
Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff was so angry about the public statements of former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, a Bush administration critic married to an undercover CIA officer, that he monitored all of Wilson's television appearances and urged the White House to mount an aggressive public campaign against him, former aides say.

thats just for starters!!!!!!!!!!!!!

fly

[punpirate]

2. It depends, entirely...

... on what Bush said to Fitzgerald. And none of us know the details of that conversation. If Fitzgerald has any testimony that contradicts what Bush told him, on germane matters, and it suggests that Bush was obstructing, he could be.

We'll just have to wait and see.

[hang a left]

5. What about the people that have turned or have cooperated with

the investigation. Do you think it is possible that he could be implicated in the over all conspiracy?

[shraby]

8. I'd like to see * as indicted conspirator.

The house would have to impeach then he could be tried as an indicted conspirator..and I don't think he could be pardoned

[hang a left]

10. btw

Great catch today on Fitz's website. :hi:

[longship]

16. That's more important than what Chimp said.

Chimp did not testify. He talked to them, but not under oath.

I guess it's now okay for a President to lie.

The fact that Fitz did not subpeona Chimp to testify may say a couple of things about where he's going. Chimp's testimony may be unnecessary, moot. The circumstance may incriminate him in spite of anything he might have said under oath. After all, he knew about this and promised to catch the leaker over two years ago. It was only WH stonewalling that compelled the CIA to request the special prosecutor in the first place.

Others may have incriminated him. We know that he's got two people cooperating. He may have more. We've heard of Hannah and that other guy (whose name I can never pronounce, let alone remember). I've always thought that somebody from WHIG may have turned. Not Libby or Rove. First, I was willing to put money on Fleischer, but now I am not too sure of that. However, I still think that Matalin may be likely. Her seemingly stable marriage to the ragin' cajun. Her relatively new family. This is a woman who does not want to spend time in jail. She is clearly deeply involved in this mess. If she has been a target, Fitz may have been able to turn her.

I think Fitz may have a substantial circumstantial case against Chimp. There's clearly been a cover-up here. If he can place that memo in Chimp's hand on AF-1 during the Africa trip, that may be all he needs.

[flyarm]

20. ahhhhhhhhhhh remember..martha went to prison for lying to the federal..fbi

and not under oath!!

you can not lie to a federal prosecutor under oath or not in an investigation..martha is proof of that!!

funny how the rethuglicans could get caught up on their own filthy tactics!!

fly

[punpirate]

18. Don't think so...

... we don't know that any have--although there have been rumors. My guess is that Fitzgerald would want something more definitive. And if Bush directly lied to him about something which was then later corroborated independently, then he'd implicate Bush.

I doubt it could be something as simple as Bush saying Rove had told him that he wasn't involved that would precipitate action by Fitzgerald--that could be a truthful statement. But, let's say that in testimony someone did mention that Bush was upset with Rove for getting involved, that would mean that Bush knew otherwise and had lied to him. That's obstruction of justice, and possible misprision of a felony, and if Bush's answers to Fitzgerald had been discussed with others prior to interview, probably conspiracy, as well.

We just don't know right now.

[longship]

7. 50% chance.

nt

[TahitiNut]

11. We're blind men not even encircling an elephant.

I doubt we have 20% of the 'facts' and much of what we go on is clearly disinformation. Even when the indictments come out, we won't have 50% of the information -- and will have to await trial and evidenciary proceedings to get anything like 75% of the information.

As a fella who lived through Watergate and Iran/Contra as an adult, the stench from this one is far, far greater.

Most. Corrupt. US. Administration. Ever.

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. Yep

I remember Iran Contra... and that Marine Colonel testifying, damn Ollie North still turns my tummy

Now the most corrupt admin in MODERN times... the McKlinley admin was also extreely corrupt and Tea Pot Dome was all but nice... it also reeked of ... ironically oil

[flyarm]

21. i concur!!..n/t

[flyarm]

13. SEALED INDICTMENT FOR *

I BELIEVE * will get a sealed indictment...possibly cheney as well but cheney i see more of a possible unindicted co-conspirator..or outright indictment...the rest ..rove libby and many others will get outright indictments..i just pray its with the espionage law.........

i want to see them all in orange suits with shackles on their ankles..i have awaited that since 9/11!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



fly

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. I don't know if the idiot prince will be named

but we have 22 files wiht possible indictments... I think Larry Johnson is the best source at this point

If he is... the shadows of watergate will be huge....

Rumors and these are only rumors, have it that he is looking at both Aaron Burr and Spiro Agnew.

Now if I'd go on a complete limb... and this is on a complete limb, indictment...

[sofa king]

17. I'll give it a long-shot "yes."

It would appear that the plan to burn Valerie Wilson was conceived aboard Air Force One, in the front of the plane.

The President was there, within a few dozen feet. The first question is did he participate in the discussion, or did the rest of them give him a shot of thorazine until the next time they needed to haul him out in front of the cameras?

The second question is whether or not any witnesses are willing to talk.

I'll point out that many Watergate conspirators later claimed that Nixon was well aware of all the goings on from the beginning. Oliver North famously said in his book, "Reagan knew everything" about Iran-Contra. Both were protected by their underlings' refusal to rat them out.

This President, however, may not be treated with the same respect. With the prospect of three more years of investigation for a multitude of other, perhaps greater, crimes, I'm wondering if one or more of them won't jump at an offer of blanket immunity, toss the President overboard, and close up shop while they can still get away with all their loot.

[hiabrill]

22. If * isn't....

...this whole investigation will face on it's face...

* must be indicted or at the very least Cheney. The link between Rove and Libby is proof of a conspiracy. Cheney vs CIA battles are also well known.


Someone will squeal in the end.

[hang a left]

23. kick

Not enough Plame threads on the front page. :evilgrin: