Remember, too, MSNBC's David Shuster also thinks Rove will be indicted.

[quiet.american]

Just sayin'. :)

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/MSNBC_reporter_I_am_convinced_that_0508.html

Shuster: Well, Karl Rove's legal team has told me that they expect that a decision will come sometime in the next two weeks. And I am convinced that Karl Rove will, in fact, be indicted. And there are a couple of reasons why. First of all, you don't put somebody in front of a grand jury at the end of an investigation or for the fifth time, as Karl Rove testified a couple, a week and a half ago, unless you feel that's your only chance of avoiding indictment. So in other words, the burden starts with Karl Rove to stop the charges. Secondly, it's now been 13 days since Rove testified. After testifying for three and a half hours, prosecutors refused to give him any indication that he was clear. He has not gotten any indication since then. And the lawyers that I've spoken with outside of this case say that if Rove had gotten himself out of the jam, he would have heard something by now. And then the third issue is something we've talked about before. And that is, in the Scooter Libby indictment, Karl Rove was identified as 'Official A.' It's the term that prosecutors use when they try to get around restrictions on naming somebody in an indictment. We've looked through the records of Patrick Fitzgerald from when he was prosecuting cases in New York and from when he's been US attorney in Chicago. And in every single investigation, whenever Fitzgerald has identified somebody as Official A, that person eventually gets indicted themselves, in every single investigation. Will Karl Rove defy history in this particular case? I suppose anything is possible when you are dealing with a White House official. But the lawyers that I've been speaking with who know this stuff say, don't bet on Karl Rove getting out of this.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

1. Everyone In The Media Is Expecting Him To Be Indicted.

The issue right now is if it already has occurred.

[quiet.american]

2. Thanks, I do realize that. :) n/t

[OldLeftieLawyer]

3. Oh, good .........

Now a reporter is cited as the one to believe.

What ever happened to listening to what the actual players in the matter have to say? It's so hard up to have to cling to what some TV talking head believes.

That's like saying the weatherman thinks it's going to rain.

Who cares what David Schuster thinks?

No one knows anything.

Fitzgerald has run a perfect investigation, and people can second-guess him all they want - how hard up is this bunch to do that sort of "analysis"? - but no one knows anything.

And I say, "Well done, Mr. Fitzgerald."

[quiet.american]

4. You know what, that was not my point.

My point is, JL is not as out on a limb here as the increasingly panicked postings are indicating. He is not the only one who has put it out there that Rove is/or will be indicted.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

5. That wasn't my interest

The point is that people are acting stupidly and clinging to the words of a reporter.

Get a grip and wait to see what happens instead of wasting time and energy on nonsense that is illusory.

No wonder people laugh at liberals. Look at this idiocy.

Quoting a reporter's dumbass evaluation of Fitzgerald's labeling technique.

Jesus, how sad is that.

[quiet.american]

6. You also misinterpreted my post.

For the record, I've always enjoyed your postings, so am a little surprised at the hostility, but I'll admit, I did not construct my original post very clearly either.

I'm not "citing" Shuster as the one to believe over Jason Leopold, but my point is, Shuster's comments support JL's story, that Rove has been indicted. He is not a lone voice coming up with some wild speculation.

On edit:
And, wow, I see you went back and made your post even more nasty!

[rodeodance]

8. thanks, Schuster has been following this closely. I appreciate your

reminder.

[quiet.american]

14. Cheers, Rodeo. :) n/t

[OldLeftieLawyer]

9. Both second-hand, specious sources,

and it would be nice if you could skip the personal characterizations. You show your weaknesss when you do that.

Reporters and whoever Leopold is are not the actors. They're not the newsmakers, they're not the principles. They're hangers-on, waiting to see what the actual people involved do. Relying on them for information when there is obviously no information is a big, fat waste of time in my opinion.

It's all wild speculation, because the only thing on which anyone can honestly rely is that no one knows anything.

I think it's funny that people refuse to acknowledge - us DC lawyers have been saluting him for the duration - that Fitzgerald has run such a perfect investigation, he's made fools of all the "journalists," and that's all to his credit.

No one knows anything.

Your logic, by the way, is so flawed as to suggest something seriously awry.

[quiet.american]

11. Wow, I would not have expected this kind of conversation from you.

In fact, I agreed with your original posting on the way Fitzgerald has run the investigation 100%. I'm in total agreement that his success is due to the discipline he and his team have shown.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

21. Expectations

They'll fuck you up every time.

[quiet.american]

22. Apparently. Now, I know. :) n/t

[OldLeftieLawyer]

23. Welcome

to Buddhist thought.

[quiet.american]

24. Thanks for the welcome, but I've been in "not two" for a while. n/t

[OldLeftieLawyer]

26. Oh, good

Then you do see the humor in what you posted.

Good.

[quiet.american]

27. Not sure how you came to that conclusion.

But if it does it for you, good.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

29. You don't?

Well, it wasn't a conclusion, which might be why you're confused.

Carry on. There's lots yet to be done.

[quiet.american]

30. Yet more conclusions. lol. Oh my goodness. n/t

[OldLeftieLawyer]

31. Goodness

had nothing to do with it.

[quiet.american]

33. Cue: Rim shot. :) "But seriously folks..." n/t

[OldLeftieLawyer]

34. Hmmmm

All that n/t signifies nothing.

Pity.

Mae would never have approved.

[quiet.american]

35. Mae, I hardly knew ye. n/t

[Catherine Vincent]

32. You may have to change your screen name from quiet.american

lol!

[quiet.american]

36. Hello! :) n/t

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

7. Major, Major, Major difference between Shuster and Leopold. MAJOR.

Shuster: "I am convinced that Karl Rove will, in fact, be indicted"

Leopold: "Karl Rove Indicted on Charges of Perjury, Lying to Investigators"

Shuster positioned his words as opinion. Leopold positioned them as fact.

I'm not defending one and attacking the other. Leopold's sources will be good or they will not. If they're not, everyone here will have their own way of reacting to it.

Yes, Shuster and Leopold both...as you say..."put it out there." You either see a difference in the delivery or you don't, and I respect your opinion either way.

:patriot:

[quiet.american]

10. Howdy, B.E.B.,

Thanks for your comments. I see I've stirred up a hornet's nest with this. My only point was that JL is not a lone voice putting this out there. DS's comments seem to back up JL's story.

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

12. Nah, no hornet's nest here.

And my intention was to present my comments respectfully, so hopefully that intention came through.

I'm just saying that Leopold's headline will come back to bite him if it's not true. The article talks about sources, and sometimes sources have false or misleading information, or they just lie because they like to see their words in print. Leopold's a journalist, just like Shuster.

It's Leopold's headline. That's what concerns me. I have no plans to join the "attack pack" if his reporting falls through.

:patriot:

[quiet.american]

13. Cheers. :) n/t

[Catherine Vincent]

15. Oh, we won't forget what Shuster said.

He's definitely in the know! Thanks! :hi:

[quiet.american]

16. And a "Hi" right back to you, CatGirl! :) n/t

:hi:

[Catherine Vincent]

17. Well I figured you needed a friendly wave

since a certain poster dumped all on you. :-)

[quiet.american]

18. 'Preciate it! :) Thank you! n/t

[in_cog_ni_to]

19. Melanie Sloane, Al Franken show, basically said the same thing

the other day. Why the media is ignoring this now, is beyond me. One would think they would be THRILLED to get that noose from around their neck. Maybe they're just waiting for the announcement and THEN they will help take down this cabal? KKKRove is always the one to contact the media talking heads when they do something he doesn't like. He calls and does the threatening. Maybe they're just making sure he isn't coming back to haunt them? Maybe they've been given orders to wait until the psycho tells the country we are now under military control, er, uh, I mean...he's sending troops to "guard" the borders?

The MSM KNOWS the indictment is true, but FEAR HIM. With KKKRove out of the picture, things are going to be different.

[quiet.american]

20. Hmn, very interesting take. n/t

[Spazito]

25. I was thinking the same re Schuster

There certainly was/is an air of expectation of Rove's indictment from more than Jason's exclusive in Truthout. The timing of when and what it might be may be different but even the MSM is on 'Rove/Fitzgerald' watch.

I am happy to sit back, munch on some cookies and wait for the universe to unfold as it should which, in my universe, includes a Rove indictment or a plea agreement in exchange for Rove giving up a higher authority, aka Cheney.

[Freddie Stubbs]

28. That certainly is different than saying

that he definitely will be indicted in 24 'business hours.'