a new 'angle' on the rove indictment story

[HuffleClaw]

assuming the story is TRUE, i'm thinking that the 'usual suspects' of radio pundits and rw blogs/forums will (after SCREAMING that it wasn't true) THEN decide that the fact that the story of his indictment has been LEAKED is PROOF that the investigation itself has been COMPROMISED.

[leveymg]

1. One seriously doubts the source is inside the Special Prosecutor's Office

Thus, it hasn't been compromised.

[HuffleClaw]

3. that will hardly matter to the freepers

it'll be a banner for 'em to rally around

[No Exit]

11. And a sad pathetic banner it will be!

No doubt with Fat Boy's bloated picture on it!

[No Exit]

7. You know what gives me hope about this possibly being true?

On Jeralyn Merritt's TalkLeft this morning, she reports that she called the real Larry Johnson and asked him if the person posting here under that name is really he. He told her he is indeed the poster on here who is called Larry Johnson.

Well, that DU poster said that he had spoken to Joe Wilson and that Joe Wilson was told more or less the same thing Leopold was reporting. I dimly recall that Johnson has claimed acquaintance with Wilson before, and I believe it, given that Johnson (former CIA, right?) has connections to CIA people and Joe's wife used to be a CIA person.

[havocmom]

8. Thanks for that little tidbit

Tasty indeed

And, yes, Larry Johnson was with the CIA. (As was Rumsfeld questioner extraordinaire, Ray McGovern) At one time, Johnson worked under fired CIA employee Mary McCarthy. He has interesting insight into her recent work and it is worth a look.

Here is Larry Johnson's blog link. It is usually a good way to spend a few minutes each day ;)

[hiley]

10. DU poster understandinglife always post

about Larry Johnson. search understandinglife author keywords LJ

and you will find many posts
here is one link.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=900666&mesg_id=900666

[robcon]

13. How would Johnson or Wilson know?

Do they get advance word on indictments?

Wait for Fitz.

[No Exit]

2. Good thinking!

I'm beginning to see some sort of angle, too. Mine's a little different, though.

Remember the hatchet job that was done on Dan Rather/CBS over the ESSENTIALLY TRUE story of how Junior skipped out on his Guard duty?

Remember how the "reporting based on forged documents" story overshadowed the ESSENTIALLY TRUE story of the presidential candidate's dereliction of duty?

I am convinced that Fat Boy WILL be indicted, one way or the other. It appears that news of this will be coming soon. So I'm thinking maybe Leopold was set up with an inaccurate (inaccurate in that it jumped the gun) tale and that the repukes will seek to make "a liberal's inaccurate reporting" THE big story, in an effort to overshadow what will be the REAL big story: Fatso's indictment/frog march.

[HuffleClaw]

5. yup

a nice way for 'em to spin the truth.

[JDPriestly]

6. Leopold has threatened to out the outers if they doublecrossed

him. That is a very good idea. If the story isn't true, we will be able to shed light on how the Bush distraction techniques are worked.

[leveymg]

12. Yes, and that would be a valuable case study.

Would go right into the first chapter of The Big Book of Rovian Dirty-Tricks.

But, really, I think he's going to be indicted in the next week or two.

[tulsakatz]

14. I do too!

Whether the story is true or not, I still believe he will be indicted. Anyone who has watched David Shuster knows why.

[leveymg]

9. The only thing that's going to matter is whether someone gets indicted.

If it's Rove, I'll jump for joy. If it's Cheney, I'll dance on the ceiling. If it's Bush . . . nah, there's no defying the laws of physics.

My biggest concern is what happens if Rove isn't indicted because he's been cooperating. I keep on asking, how would we know? Haven't heard a sensible response, yet.

[reichstag911]

15. If Bush*, etc., can defy...

...all the other laws, you go ahead and break the laws of physics if you want!

[tulsakatz]

16. last week David Shuster said.....

....if Rove was going to wiggle out of this, he would have received some kind of message from Fitzgerald by now. Shuster made it clear that he (Rove) has received no such message.

Shuster has been covering this story for a very long time and I do believe he knows what he's talking about. In fact, he also added that he believes that Rove will be indicted.........and this was even before the Leopold article.

[Tansy_Gold]

17. If Rove has been "cooperating," it's only because there

is some bigger fish for Fitz to fry. Or at least, that's my totally uninformed take on it.

But really, what are the three options?

1. Rove not indicted -- if so, why all the secrecy? I think the fact that there IS an ongoing mystery suggests it's more likely he's going to be indicted rather than less likely.

2. Rove indicted but being given time to craft a deal to snag bigger game -- if so, we may be waiting for a while. It all depends on how much patience Fitz and the GJ have. Given the demonstrations of patience so far, the wait could be a lot longer than some of us might like. Or maybe not. If Rove could save his skin (and the boooshies' collective skins) by sacrificing an underling, he'd have done it by now; if there's anyone he's protecting, it's gotta be somebody higher up the food chain. And frankly, I think there's only one person higher up than he: the conjoined twin called booosh/cheney. (No offense intended toward conjoined siblings, but if one of those two goes down, he will drag the other right along with him.)

3. Rove indicted, with no deal to rat on the others either offered or accepted. In that case, we'll hear official word soon enough.


Tansy Gold

[JDPriestly]

4. The leak was not from the investigation.

The leak reported Rove's having been served -- or told he will be served. The leak could be from someone in Luskin's office, from someone in the White House, from Rove's chauffeur or a taxi cab driver, secretary, cleaning personnel, anyone. Someone who simply stood outside Luskin's office and watched or who worked in the building and watched, or who overheard a conversation, someone close to someone who works in the White House. There are so many possible sources for the information, none of them related to the investigation that it would be difficult to maintain that the investigation has been compromised.

[onenote]

18. NO: "high level sources" with "direct knowledge of the meeting"

That's who the article describes as the source of information. I assume you missed that point, since you wouldn't be suggesting that a cleaning person, secretary, cab driver, chauffer is a "high level" source (and since its plural, there would seem to be more than one). Not even someone overhearing a conversation or someone high up in the WH would fit the description of someone who is a "high level" source with "direct knowledge" of the meeting. That description indicates that its someone who participated ... either a member of the prosecution team or the defense team.

onenote