[eDebate] the rove indictment
Wed May 24 18:43:44 CDT 2006
bean counter not following the story in the blogs where fitz leaked the
indictment to make rove look like idiot in denial. purposeful painful
limbo period w knowledge that no mainstream media reporters have cultivated
sources inside the fitz camp to confirm or deny death nail. slow leak into
mainstream media appropriate for assholes running the gov't. backdoor
angle is that fitz has rove cooperating and rove is starting to turn on
cheney to avoid jail time...but that's if you are following the story...and
dumbass remember the story was leaked to blogs by wilson 2.5 years ago
before the mainstream media could confirm or deny that a special prosecutor
was going to be appointed and that rove was a key player...
MSNBC's David Shuster declared Monday evening that Karl Rove's legal team
expects Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald to announce a decision "at any
time" in the ongoing CIA leak investigation and that new documents put
Cheney's former chief of staff in the hot seat.
Meanwhile, Rove spokesman Mark Corallo told TalkLeft, a progressive legal
blog, the timing is still unknown.
"We have no expectation on timing anymore," Corallo said.
Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, added that "there has never been any
discussion of any plea under any circumstances whatsoever.
fact is you and your mainstream piece of shit media are way behind the curve
and i'm sending you some handcuffs to make fun of your support for rove in
this time of crisis for the republican cheater party...ha ha ha dumbfuck 13
days to TURN STATE EVIDENCE...where r u, lost in right field? all skippy
on planet nazi? gonna take more than bureaucratic bean counting to beat
this story dickweed?
Information Sharing on the Rove Indictment Story
By Marc Ash,
Wed May 24th, 2006 at 03:18:49 PM EDT :: Fitzgerald Investigation
I'd like to break this posting into two categories: What we know, and what
we believe. They will be clearly marked.
We know that we have now three independent sources confirming that attorneys
for Karl Rove were handed an indictment either late in the night of May 12
or early in the morning of May 13. We know that each source was in a
position to know what they were talking about. We know that the office of
Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald will not confirm, will not deny, will not
comment on its investigation or on our report. We know that both Rove's
attorney Robert Luskin and Rove's spokesman Mark Corallo have categorically
denied all key facts we have set forth. We know we have information that
directly contradicts Luskin and Corallo's denials. We know that there were
two network news crews outside of the building in Washington, DC that houses
the offices of Patton Boggs, the law firm that represents Karl Rove. We know
that the 4th floor of that building (where the Patton Boggs offices are
located) was locked down all day Friday and into Saturday night. We know
that we have not received a request for a retraction from anyone. And we
know that White House spokesman Tony Snow now refuses to discuss Karl Rove -
Further, we know - and we want our readers to know - that we are dependent
on confidential sources. We know that a report based solely on information
obtained from confidential sources bears some inherent risks. We know that
this is - by far - the biggest story we have ever covered, and that we are
learning some things as we go along. Finally, we know that we have the
support of those who have always supported us, and that must now earn the
support of those who have joined us as of late.
We now move on to what we believe. (If you are looking for any guarantees,
please turn back now.)
We believe that we hit a nerve with our report. When I get calls on my cell
phone from Karl Rove's attorney and spokesman, I have to wonder what's up.
"I" believe - but cannot confirm - that Mark Corallo, Karl Rove's spokesman
gave Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post my phone number. I believe Howard
Kurtz contacted me with the intention of writing a piece critical of our
organization. I know that Anne Marie Squeo of the Wall Street Journal
attacked us and independent journalism as a whole in her piece titled,
"Rove's Camp Takes Center of Web Storm / Bloggers Underscore How Net's
Reporting, Dynamics Provide Grist for the Rumor Mill." We believe that
rolling out that much conservative journalistic muscle to rebut this story
is telling. And we believe that Rove's camp is making a concerted effort to
discredit our story and our organization.
Further - and again this is "What We Believe" - Rove may be turning state's
evidence. We suspect that the scope of Fitzgerald's investigation may have
broadened - clearly to Cheney - and according to one "off the record source"
to individuals and events not directly related to the outing of CIA
operative Valerie Plame. We believe that the indictment which does exist
against Karl Rove is sealed. Finally, we believe that there is currently a
great deal of activity in the Plame investigation.
We know that this story is of vital interest to the community, and that
providing as much information as we can is very important to our readers. We
want you to know that this is challenging territory and that we are
proceeding with as much speed as the terrain will allow.
Marc Ash, Executive Director - t r u t h o u t
director at truthout.org
>From: "Martin Harris" <mharris02 at drury.edu>
>To: <infracaninophile at hotmail.com>
>CC: <edebate at ndtceda.com>
>Subject: Re: [eDebate] the rove indictment
>Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 10:04:56 -0500
> So on May 13th a proclamation that indictment was imminent was given
>to Rove with a public announcement to be made later that week? When did
>we start putting 11+ days in a week?
>Computer and Graphics Support Specialist
>Hammons School of Architecture, Drury University
>Office Phone: (417) 873-7497
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
More information about the Mailman