Comments on: The Case Against Rove http://informedspeculation.com/2005/11/03/the-case-against-rove/ Refunds Cheerfully Given To All Who Disagree Sat, 07 Apr 2012 09:00:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: mtl http://informedspeculation.com/2005/11/03/the-case-against-rove/comment-page-1/#comment-7623 mtl Fri, 04 Nov 2005 00:49:58 +0000 http://decision08.net/2005/11/03/the-case-against-rove/#comment-7623 Miller admitted there was another source. Cooper's manging editor wrote a letter to the judge saying that her identity was common knowledge. Russert's source was either Mitchell, on an undercover Ambassador, or someone else in the press. Before the gj ended, Tate(?) , Libby's lawyer released the fact that there were notes that directly conflicted. That was Libby trying to get back to the GJ, to knock down perjury. Fitz wouldn't let him back on, but at trial there will be a certifed letter to the Fitz from Libby saying 'that after reviewing my notes, I realize I mispoke.' The perjury charge won't hold up... The trial will have to prove he believed he was making false statements to the gj and the investigators. He can suggest that he did indeed hear from reporters. Or he can't remember. There are a lot of shadows for doubt, just get two to intersect. Miller admitted there was another source. Cooper’s manging editor wrote a letter to the judge saying that her identity was common knowledge. Russert’s source was either Mitchell, on an undercover Ambassador, or someone else in the press.

Before the gj ended, Tate(?) , Libby’s lawyer released the fact that there were notes that directly conflicted. That was Libby trying to get back to the GJ, to knock down perjury. Fitz wouldn’t let him back on, but at trial there will be a certifed letter to the Fitz from Libby saying ‘that after reviewing my notes, I realize I mispoke.’ The perjury charge won’t hold up…

The trial will have to prove he believed he was making false statements to the gj and the investigators. He can suggest that he did indeed hear from reporters. Or he can’t remember. There are a lot of shadows for doubt, just get two to intersect.

]]> By: louielouie http://informedspeculation.com/2005/11/03/the-case-against-rove/comment-page-1/#comment-7622 louielouie Thu, 03 Nov 2005 23:23:55 +0000 http://decision08.net/2005/11/03/the-case-against-rove/#comment-7622 after reading the indictment.......... banging head against counter top to get through it............ it sounds like the witnesses to be calles will in fact be miller/cooper/russert and sounds like a he said she said thing. after reading the indictment……….
banging head against counter top to get through it…………
it sounds like the witnesses to be calles will in fact be miller/cooper/russert and sounds like a he said she said thing.

]]> By: mtl http://informedspeculation.com/2005/11/03/the-case-against-rove/comment-page-1/#comment-7605 mtl Thu, 03 Nov 2005 15:48:47 +0000 http://decision08.net/2005/11/03/the-case-against-rove/#comment-7605 "But he may face a civil suit from the Wilsons, who could seek damages because of the damage done to Plame’s CIA career by the leak." Not likely...the two star witnesses for Rove hugh sidey and andrea mitchell. Read this: http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110007488 Look under section entitled: Joe Wilson's 'Secret' Wife Establishes Mitchell and Sidey knowing... Sidey is managing Washington Editor of Time. The same Time Co. that Cooper worked for. The same Cooper who is married to HRC spokesperson Mandy Grunwald. The same Cooper who tried to imply that he found out about Plame from Libby, after he tried it with rove. Now, funny as it sounds, Sidey, cooper and Mitchell are going to make strange witnesses at Libby's trial. Libby isn't stupid. He is going to say that after much recollection, and finding of other notes-he found out from Russert, much sooner than believed. Mitchell told Russert. Or mitchell could refuse to testify/or russert the same, becuase neither wants to implicate Mitchell as a source or a snitch and voila-they get thrown out as witnesses, with the jury assuming that it is possible that they told Libby, becuase they knew a long time ago. “But he may face a civil suit from the Wilsons, who could seek damages because of the damage done to Plame’s CIA career by the leak.”

Not likely…the two star witnesses for Rove hugh sidey and andrea mitchell.

Read this:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110007488

Look under section entitled:
Joe Wilson’s ‘Secret’ Wife

Establishes Mitchell and Sidey knowing…

Sidey is managing Washington Editor of Time. The same Time Co. that Cooper worked for. The same Cooper who is married to HRC spokesperson Mandy Grunwald. The same Cooper who tried to imply that he found out about Plame from Libby, after he tried it with rove.

Now, funny as it sounds, Sidey, cooper and Mitchell are going to make strange witnesses at Libby’s trial. Libby isn’t stupid. He is going to say that after much recollection, and finding of other notes-he found out from Russert, much sooner than believed. Mitchell told Russert.

Or mitchell could refuse to testify/or russert the same, becuase neither wants to implicate Mitchell as a source or a snitch and voila-they get thrown out as witnesses, with the jury assuming that it is possible that they told Libby, becuase they knew a long time ago.

]]> By: Mark http://informedspeculation.com/2005/11/03/the-case-against-rove/comment-page-1/#comment-7604 Mark Thu, 03 Nov 2005 15:01:40 +0000 http://decision08.net/2005/11/03/the-case-against-rove/#comment-7604 peter, I hear you, and I realized when writing this I would open myself to charges of hypocrisy...maybe your interpretation is right and mine is wrong, it's certainly possible...but when I see stunts like the one Harry Reid pulled Monday, I look at all moves by the Democratic leadership under a new light... peter, I hear you, and I realized when writing this I would open myself to charges of hypocrisy…maybe your interpretation is right and mine is wrong, it’s certainly possible…but when I see stunts like the one Harry Reid pulled Monday, I look at all moves by the Democratic leadership under a new light…

]]> By: peter http://informedspeculation.com/2005/11/03/the-case-against-rove/comment-page-1/#comment-7603 peter Thu, 03 Nov 2005 14:55:22 +0000 http://decision08.net/2005/11/03/the-case-against-rove/#comment-7603 If you call for Rove to resign, that's OK, but if Democrats do it, it is for "naked attempts at partisan gain?" When two people do the same things, does that necessarily mean they have different motives? There is also the irony that Rove made his career at excelling at naked attempts at partisan gain. Live by the sword... Actually, if the Democrats were interested only in their political gains, they would want Rove to stick around. Regardless of what he has or hasn't done, he is now an albatross around Bush's neck and will remain so. If you call for Rove to resign, that’s OK, but if Democrats do it, it is for “naked attempts at partisan gain?” When two people do the same things, does that necessarily mean they have different motives?

There is also the irony that Rove made his career at excelling at naked attempts at partisan gain. Live by the sword…

Actually, if the Democrats were interested only in their political gains, they would want Rove to stick around. Regardless of what he has or hasn’t done, he is now an albatross around Bush’s neck and will remain so.

]]>