ncteechur
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-14-05 08:57 AM
Original message |
What happens if Fitzgerald doesn't return an indictment of Rove or anyone |
LiberalEsto
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-14-05 08:58 AM
Response to Original message |
1. They become Unindicted Co-conspirators! n/t |
bowens43
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-14-05 09:00 AM
Response to Original message |
|
And that''s what I predict will happen.
|
emulatorloo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-14-05 09:19 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
6. He would not have jailed Miller if he had nothing and judges would not |
|
have permitted it either.
|
KansDem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-14-05 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #6 |
12. You know, that's the thing that's giving me hope that this is not bogus... |
|
Edited on Thu Jul-14-05 10:09 AM by KansDem
The fact that Fitzgerald has been so thorough with interviews, grand jury appearances, and the jailing of Miller that I think he is on to something and no amount of bribery or coercion on the part of the Bushistas will sway him.
If this was just a ruse, then I don't think he would have taken all these steps or gone to all this trouble. I think we would have seen something akin to the anthrax investigation of John Ashcroft, who somehow couldn't find the culprit even though the trail led to a small number of suspects at one location.
|
comsymp
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-14-05 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #6 |
14. I'm not so sure about that - |
|
Lord knows, Fitz is a far cry from Hardon Starr, but remember Susan McDougall did time for "contempt", too, although the investigation ultimately came up with bubkes.
|
Walt Starr
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-14-05 10:23 AM
Original message |
Comparing anything Fitzgerald does to what Starr did is like |
|
Edited on Thu Jul-14-05 10:24 AM by Walt Starr
comparing anything that Franklin Delano Roosevelt did to what Charlie Chaplin did.
Also remember, there were indictments in teh Whitewater affair. McDougal's ex husband and Huckabee both were indicted.
|
comsymp
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-14-05 10:44 AM
Response to Original message |
16. Ahh, but these were essentially tangential indictments, FWIW. |
|
Edited on Thu Jul-14-05 11:09 AM by comsymp
(meaning not directly related to the Clintons' involvement, which was supposed to be the subject of the original investigation)
And the comparison isn't necessarily between Fitz and Starr, but addresses the basic similarity of the process - specifically, if a judge has ordered a witness to talk, s/he doesn't like to hear "no." Judges take contempt very seriously, regardless of the particulars of the case in which it occurs.
Edited to correct grammar.
|
bowens43
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-14-05 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #6 |
17. It's all smoke and mirrors. |
|
They want to appear to be to be doing something but in the end, there will be no indictments. No one will lose their job. It will be spun into partisan attacks by the Democrats.
I hope very much that I'm wrong.
|
Norquist Nemesis
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-14-05 09:06 AM
Response to Original message |
3. I just have a hard time believing Fitz won't have 'something' |
|
for 'someone' That may be the big surprise, though. It may very well be someone else...someone much higher than Rove. Maybe, maybe not.
The length of time this has been going on, to me, only serves to bolster the argument that he does indeed have something. And from what I've heard reported about the judges who read his reasons/evidence for compelling reporters to testify, it is "serious".
Fitzgerald does not allow leaks. I have no doubt that he gave a quick call to the WH and told them to zip it long ago. And if they keep running this behind the scenes campaign as they have been doing, it might even peak his curiosity that there is more to this whole thing than what he has now...that it's all connected.
So, it may or may not be Rove. In the end, it doesn't matter to me...just so those who committed the crime(s) are held accountable and punished.
|
Walt Starr
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-14-05 09:18 AM
Response to Original message |
4. I very much doubt there will be no indictments |
|
Edited on Thu Jul-14-05 09:59 AM by Walt Starr
I suspect we'll see indictments of Rove, Libby, and Bolton at the very least, potentially more. There will be several counts including perjury and obstruction besides the espionage counts
We could very well see Judith Miller also indicted for criminal contempt, obstruction, and conspiracy. Novak might also do a perp walk for perjury.
|
wicket
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-14-05 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #4 |
|
Bolton is involved in all of this??? Sheesh- I must've been under a rock.
|
Walt Starr
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-14-05 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #8 |
|
The nomination for UN ambassador is a cover.
|
Norquist Nemesis
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-14-05 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #9 |
11. That's a thought I've had, too, Walt. |
|
It pretty much got poo-pood when I posted it as a question, but I still think it's a plausible scenario. Bolton certainly has a track record for such things, had the access/clearance, was involved in the same arena (WMD) as Valerie Plame Wilson, has been around long enough to know the careers of intelligence assets, AND Alberto has probably taken a look-see at diplomatic immunity for UN Ambassadors just to put a pretty red bow on the whole package!
|
wicket
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-14-05 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #9 |
|
Sorry- I'm totally clueless on this.
|
bowens43
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-14-05 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #4 |
Cocoa
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-14-05 09:18 AM
Response to Original message |
5. the dems are not hanging their hopes on an indictment |
|
they are very clearly separating the question of criminality from their charges that the leak and the coverup are a grave threat to our national security.
|
kansasblue
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-14-05 09:57 AM
Response to Original message |
|
he looks a fool for jailing and reporter.
|
Walt Starr
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-14-05 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #7 |
10. That's why I suspect there are already indictments in the works |
|
The fact that he stuck Miller in the pokey tells me there is enough to indict. All he is doing now is building the number and variety of counts. Possibly also the number of people indicted.
|
jmcon007
(782 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-14-05 10:11 AM
Response to Original message |
13. That actually may be worst scenario for Bush. |
|
There are still a lot of questions that remain unanswered and the Whitehouse press corps has smelled a little blood apparently.
|
fishnfla
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-14-05 10:23 AM
Response to Original message |
15. Sources close to the investigation said there would be at least one |
|
I cant remember where I read that, it was in one of the million published reports I've read since yesterday. It was linked here from DU, maybe in the editorials
I was surprised, because I was like Walt Starr singing the praises of an investigation that does not leak things out
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sat May 11th 2024, 02:46 AM
Response to Original message |