Did I Hear Correctly? Karl Rove's LAWYER HAS the DOJ FILES on USATTORNEY FIREINGS?

[KoKo]

You've GOTTA BE KIDDING ..that LUSKIN of "Plame/Gate FAME!" is actually the GateKeeper for "GONZO/GATE FAME?"

I've gotta be living in "Dorothy's KANSAS...to accept and wrap my brain around THIS ONE! :crazy:

So...DEMS NOW NEED TO SUBPOENA ROVE'S LAWYER in PLAME CASE to get the INFO for GONZO?

GACK!!!!!!!!!!!!

[karlrschneider]

1. Where did you hear this? Not that I can't easily believe it...

:eyes:

[aquart]

2. Link?

[pnwmom]

6. Here it is.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/16/rove.documents/

[rodeodance]

3. Comey inferred that.

[pnwmom]

4. You heard it right, and here's the CNN link.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/16/rove.documents/

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Justice Department on Wednesday told an angry Senate Judiciary Committee chairman it does not have documents described in a subpoena that demands all materials relating to Karl Rove's possible involvement in the U.S. attorney firings.

Instead, it said, Rove's lawyer must have them. Rove is the chief political adviser for President Bush.

The response from a top Justice Department official came just hours after the chairman, Vermont Democrat Sen. Patrick Leahy and the panel's top Republican, Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, chastised Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in a letter for ignoring the subpoena's Tuesday deadline.

"You ignored the subpoena, did not come forward today, did not produce the documents, and did not even offer an explanation for your noncompliance," the two senators wrote in the letter, sent Tuesday night.

"The committee intends to get to the truth."

SNIP

[bahrbearian]

20. Thanks for the Link

[ananda]

33. "The committee intends to get to the truth."

Right-e-o.

Just not anytime soon.

[malaise]

5. I heard this too n/t

[BuyingThyme]

7. They're taking obstruction of justice to new levels.

I guess if you give the subpoenaed materials to another criminal, you can truthfully claim that you have provided all of the relative materials in your possession.

[hootinholler]

18. They hit a new level with SIbel Edmonds

But I know what you're saying.

Just Us indeed.

-Hoot

[Loge23]

8. Insane. Simply insane.

The materials subpeoned from the Justice Dept are with a WH advisor's attorney.
OK. So that's enough for impeachment, no??
What will it freakin' take for this country to wake the F$%& up??!

[bobbolink]

16. Country's waking up. Our duly elected congress, however, is NOT.

:nuke:

[paparush]

27. The country needs to march on Washington and rattle some cages, pull down some walls

break some windows and pound on some f#cking doors!

[bobbolink]

45. Maybe. Or...... I've come to the conclusion, along with others, that the

Dems are also complicit, and no amount of rattling cages will change that.

I'm afraid we have to lose everything before there is enough rage.

:(

[tridim]

9. So I take it this means Luskin is breaking the law?

If so, why isn't he currently being arrested?

[FatDave]

10. And let me guess....

Because Rove's lawyer has them, they're subject to attorney/client privilege, right? That where they're taking this?

[KoKo]

11. Rove's Lawyer having these is BIG CASE FOR IMPEACHMENT, IMHO!

Rove had enough culpability to know to give Department of Justice FILES OVER FIRED US ATTORNEYS TO LUSKIN????

Give ME A BREAK HERE... They THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE FOOLS? :eyes:

[KoKo]

12. Thanks to all who provided the links...You deserve Hugs!

:grouphug:

[MH1]

24. Of course, they think the American people are fools.

Can you point me to the evidence that disproves their assumption?

Because I'd really like to start seeing some.

:banghead:

[lonestarnot]

36. They may have that part right! Nothing is being done that I can see, and I

don't see much outcry except here.

[Javaman]

40. Well, they believe that at least 28% of them are. LOL nt

[MiniMe]

13. Isn't that a violation of the Presidential Records Act?

There is no defense for this.

[windy252]

14. K & R

This should be on greatest. (1st vote)

[Duer 157099]

15. Wasn't it Fitz who gave them back???

Seems to me that Fitz urged Congress to move on this ASAP, when the Libby trial concluded, perhaps that Congress should have asked Fitz for those records.

But seems that they dragged their feet, and Fitz gave them back to Luskin.

Is that what happened, or am I hallucinating??

[loudsue]

30. That's what the article implied. If that's true, Fitz needs to be taken to the woodshed.

Besides, I STILL want to know why in the hell Fitz never persued the case he was hired to do....find out who leaked Valerie Plame's identity and her undercover company.

:kick:

[fooj]

17. I hate these rat bastards with the intensity of 1000 suns!

:grr:

[lildreamer316]

19. My brain hurts.

Where's the vodka??

Sheesh.

Kick.

[muffin1]

42. Make mine a gin/tonic

Any chance of a class action lawsuit against these fuckers once they're out?????
I've never drank so much in my life!:beer:

[HowHasItComeToThis]

21. I hope they are locked up for DECADES

WE WANT OUR GOVERNMENT BACK.

[Gregorian]

22. It's the Bush administration Shell Game.

Pass that buck. Give the dog your homework to eat. Forget and cheat.


I think it's pretty simple. They just subpoena Luskin's papers. I guess........



What do I know?

[tyedyeto]

23. Arrest their asses! NOW!

Contempt of Congress for not responding to a subpoena.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

25. Again, and as always, this is just the same big...

...hardy FUCK YOU they always give to ANY investigative or judicial body. Any rulings they don't like they simply ignore. Any laws they don't like they simply break.

How much more of these people can this country take?

[seafan]

26. So, let me get this straight....

Senator Pat Leahy has asked three times for Rove's e-mails with DOJ, beginning on the April 19 hearing as Gonzales testified about the attorney dismissals, then again in an April 25 letter to Gonzales, and subsequently in a subpoena for the e-mails on May 2, giving the deadline of May 15 to release them to the Senate Judiciary Committee.


May 15 has now come and gone with no response by Gonzales.


We have previously been told that:

Rove's attorney said publicly that the e-mails -- many of which were reported to be "lost" -- had been turned over to U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, according to Leahy.

So today,

The Justice Department on Wednesday (May 17) told an angry Senate Judiciary Committee chairman it does not have documents described in a subpoena that demands all materials relating to Karl Rove's possible involvement in the U.S. attorney firings.

Instead, it said, Rove's lawyer must have them. Rove is the chief political adviser for President Bush.

Two things are crystal clear:

1. These Rove e-mails are the radioactive evidence that will lead to indictment, conviction and incarceration.

2. It's time to make some arrests.

[robinlynne]

28. damn straight it is.

[loudsue]

31. It's like they're playing "keep-away" with those e-mails, doesn't it?

Gonzo needs to be arrested. So does Rove, if he has them, and doesn't turn them over.

:kick:

[file83]

38. OooOo!! Ouch!! HOT-POTATO!!!

[lonestarnot]

37. I'm watching for the deputy.

[Patsy Stone]

29. Luskin would have received them in discovery

Fitzgerald would have had to provide them to Luskin, unless Luskin had some to provide to Fitz. Regardless, both sides would have had a copy. The real question is where did Fitz's copy go?

"In the subpoena, Leahy had demanded all documents in the possession of U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, who investigated Rove in connection with the disclosure of the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame.

But Assistant Attorney General Richard Hertling, Gonzales' top link to Congress, told Leahy a search was conducted and turned up nothing."

If I read the CNN story correctly, the DoJ says they don't have Fitz's files. So, did Congress get it from Fitz? Or did the DoJ hide the files and tell Congress they can't find it, but Rove's side should have a copy of whatever turned up?

[glitch]

39. That's what it sounds like - Luskin has the only remaining copy because the DOJ "lost" Fitz'

DOJ's copy probably innocently shredded by some inexperienced staffer :sarcasm:

[Patsy Stone]

43. Maybe Monica Goodling

is the new Fawn Hall? :)

[glitch]

44. Probably her childhood role model! nt

[The Backlash Cometh]

32. How about disbarring the sob and save some time?

[peacetalksforall]

34. Do you all get the gist of the vagueness of the answer as reported

on the link - quote -

"The Justice Department on Wednesday told an angry Senate Judiciary Committee chairman it does not have documents described in a subpoena that demands all materials relating to Karl Rove's possible involvement in the U.S. attorney firings."

Vagueness born from arrogance.

Did this happen in the closed door session?

[dogday]

35. Luskin will parse his statements like before

They are an evil bunch of crooks....

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

41. Leahy should make his position clear...

to whomever he sees as the obstructionist as follows: "You will either produce the emails in question, or you're with the terrorists, in which case you leave me no choice but to invoke by my authority the Patriot Act, and detain you indefinitely, without access to counsel, or ANY outside contact."