Why can't they charge Rove with Outing a CIA Agent?

joeunderdog

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon May-08-06 11:37 AM
Original message

Why can't they charge Rove with Outing a CIA Agent?

I know they got Al Capone on Tax Evasion because it was easier to prove. I know they are going for Perjury and Obstruction on Libby because it is easier to prove. But why is it so unreasonable to think that they could pin the Mother of all charges on Rove if they have all these emails and witnesses? They appear to have a few key players singing now, too.

Has Fitzgerald ruled this out, or just DU? And why?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

BOSSHOG

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon May-08-06 11:39 AM
Response to Original message

1. I haven't ruled it out

I think Mr Fitzgerald is godawful thorough and is now dotting i's and crossing t's and entertaining bargains tossed to him by rove's lawyer. And his patience will result in even more damning evidence for as you say, the songbirds are tuning up. I think an early October indictment would be nice.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Fridays Child

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon May-08-06 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #1

7. I'm hoping we won't have to wait that long for a Rove indictment.

If that's what it takes, so be it, but why do you think it won't happen until October?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

BOSSHOG

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon May-08-06 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #7

8. I don't know when it will happen but I'd love for the gop

to have to contend with televised pictures of the PRESIDENT'S CHIEF POLITICAL ADVISER being led away in handcuffs after being indicted on treason and other charges right before the 2006 elections. Would the DNC have some fun with that in ads?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Fridays Child

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon May-08-06 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #8

9. You're right. Timing is everything.

Edited on Mon May-08-06 12:16 PM by Fridays Child

For that, I can wait. :)

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Avalux

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon May-08-06 11:41 AM
Response to Original message

2. Nothing is ruled out, IMHO.

The way Fitzgerald operates, it takes a long time to get to the meat of the crime. It's easy to make assumptions but truth is - we have no clue where he's going with the whole thing. I heard this morning on NPR he may end up charging Libby with the leak. It's entirely possible he could charge Rove instead or both as co-leakers.

It's difficult right now, but Fitz has to do his job and we have to be patient.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

TX-RAT

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon May-08-06 11:41 AM
Response to Original message

3. Not sure he's being charged with it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

MADem

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon May-08-06 11:41 AM
Response to Original message

4. Only Fitzgerald knows what Fitzgerald knows

I wouldn't doubt he has a road map, and knows where he's headed.

He's keeping it to himself, though, as he should.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

ClassWarrior

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon May-08-06 11:42 AM
Response to Original message

5. Who said they can't? Prosecutor has to make a case first.

NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Finder

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon May-08-06 11:43 AM
Response to Original message

6. One must knowingly reveal in order to be charged...

unless that person is the president or the vice president. It will never be charged, but perjury and other charges will be.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Norquist Nemesis

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon May-08-06 12:18 PM
Response to Original message

10. Fitzie might be bullseyeing Dead-eye Dick!

His usual method is bottom up. :D

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

spuddonna

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon May-08-06 12:19 PM
Response to Original message

11. And in the same vein, why can't they charge Gonzo with obstruction?

It looks like Fitz has proof that Gonzo is still holding onto docs that should have been turned over. (per the 250pg WH email dump) So why can't they nail him too? :shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Thu May 02nd 2024, 08:47 AM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.