<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: White House Expecting At Least One Indictment, Says WaPo</title>
	<atom:link href="http://informedspeculation.com/2005/10/25/white-house-expecting-at-least-one-indictment-says-wapo/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://informedspeculation.com/2005/10/25/white-house-expecting-at-least-one-indictment-says-wapo/</link>
	<description>Refunds Cheerfully Given To All Who Disagree</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Feb 2010 03:29:20 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Mark</title>
		<link>http://informedspeculation.com/2005/10/25/white-house-expecting-at-least-one-indictment-says-wapo/comment-page-1/#comment-7232</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Oct 2005 18:28:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://decision08.net/2005/10/25/white-house-expecting-at-least-one-indictment-says-wapo/#comment-7232</guid>
		<description>utron, your points are exactly the reason I suggested quite some time ago that perhaps it was time for Karl Rove to step aside (the distraction factor) - see&lt;a href=&quot;http://decision08.net/2005/07/02/did-rove-out-plame-maybebut-we-dont-know-yet/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt; here&lt;/a&gt;.  This is what I said on July 2nd:
...Rove: I love the guy, and I appreciate what he’s done for the party and the administration, but he’s starting to suck a lot of oxygen out of the room, and if he becomes a distraction, and if he’s the super political genius he is rumored to be, he should be the first to realize he needs to get out of the way. Am I suggesting he resign? No, not yet…but if the smoke of the Plame case turns into fire, and he’s playing the role of the gasoline, I’m not going to be in a very forgiving mood…</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>utron, your points are exactly the reason I suggested quite some time ago that perhaps it was time for Karl Rove to step aside (the distraction factor) &#8211; see<a href="http://decision08.net/2005/07/02/did-rove-out-plame-maybebut-we-dont-know-yet/" rel="nofollow"> here</a>.  This is what I said on July 2nd:<br />
&#8230;Rove: I love the guy, and I appreciate what he’s done for the party and the administration, but he’s starting to suck a lot of oxygen out of the room, and if he becomes a distraction, and if he’s the super political genius he is rumored to be, he should be the first to realize he needs to get out of the way. Am I suggesting he resign? No, not yet…but if the smoke of the Plame case turns into fire, and he’s playing the role of the gasoline, I’m not going to be in a very forgiving mood…</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: cb</title>
		<link>http://informedspeculation.com/2005/10/25/white-house-expecting-at-least-one-indictment-says-wapo/comment-page-1/#comment-7231</link>
		<dc:creator>cb</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Oct 2005 17:56:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://decision08.net/2005/10/25/white-house-expecting-at-least-one-indictment-says-wapo/#comment-7231</guid>
		<description>That point has been played out already. The matter of Plame being &quot;undercover&quot; has been a non-issue for forever and a day. She was not undercover for sufficiently long for the Espionage Act not to apply. Further, thus far we have NO evidence that Cheney (or anyone in the administration, for that matter) saying Plame was &quot;undercover&quot;, only discussion of her working for the CIA.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That point has been played out already. The matter of Plame being &#8220;undercover&#8221; has been a non-issue for forever and a day. She was not undercover for sufficiently long for the Espionage Act not to apply. Further, thus far we have NO evidence that Cheney (or anyone in the administration, for that matter) saying Plame was &#8220;undercover&#8221;, only discussion of her working for the CIA.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: utron</title>
		<link>http://informedspeculation.com/2005/10/25/white-house-expecting-at-least-one-indictment-says-wapo/comment-page-1/#comment-7229</link>
		<dc:creator>utron</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Oct 2005 16:26:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://decision08.net/2005/10/25/white-house-expecting-at-least-one-indictment-says-wapo/#comment-7229</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m braced for Libby to get indicted,and I&#039;d probably give you fifty-fifty odds on Rove. The &quot;tough sell&quot; on the prosecutor&#039;s side will be to demonstrate that inconsistencies in the testimony of Libby and/or Rove were the product of malicious intent, not just lapses of memory.

Fitzgerald seems like a straight arrow, just like Starr before him, but it&#039;s arguable that in both cases the nature of the special prosecutor&#039;s job led them to focus on process to the exclusion, or even the detriment, of the final outcome. Certainly I&#039;m not going to be happy if one of the President&#039;s key advisors goes down as a result of perjury committed in defending himself against a charge that had no merit in the first place.  Already, I&#039;m not happy about the amount of time and energy the administration has spent defending itself, at the expense of more important matters.  But then, I&#039;m just not a very cheerful guy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m braced for Libby to get indicted,and I&#8217;d probably give you fifty-fifty odds on Rove. The &#8220;tough sell&#8221; on the prosecutor&#8217;s side will be to demonstrate that inconsistencies in the testimony of Libby and/or Rove were the product of malicious intent, not just lapses of memory.</p>
<p>Fitzgerald seems like a straight arrow, just like Starr before him, but it&#8217;s arguable that in both cases the nature of the special prosecutor&#8217;s job led them to focus on process to the exclusion, or even the detriment, of the final outcome. Certainly I&#8217;m not going to be happy if one of the President&#8217;s key advisors goes down as a result of perjury committed in defending himself against a charge that had no merit in the first place.  Already, I&#8217;m not happy about the amount of time and energy the administration has spent defending itself, at the expense of more important matters.  But then, I&#8217;m just not a very cheerful guy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
