Typical behaviour of bullies.

:hah:No Indictment of Rove in CIA-Leak Case

go catch some waves today tk. :ten:

Just wring out the liberal crying towels and wait for more dreams to be crushed.

geez fellas - this show has barely begun. we've still got Libby's trial to go thru, where we get to rehash the Nigerian yellowcake scam, along with all the other bullshit that they used to suck us into war - with no less than the VP as a key witness. :tu:

don't bail out on me now - try to look at the big picture :WW:

i can't ...took a header into a sand bar last week at dead low tide and fucked up my shoulder. first TS of the season is coming and i can barely lift my arm ;(

"It just proves...

Fitzgerald can't prove it, but Rove is still guilty

Rove was able to subvert justice with his God-like powers by convincing Fitzgerald not to indict for the good of the country

Fitzgerald knew the President would pardon Rove, and for the good of the country decided not to indict

Fizgerald (the statesman) realized that to indict Rove would bring about civil war, and for the good of the country decided not to indict him

Fitzgerald is going after Dick Cheney for attempted hunting

Fitzgerald is a traitor to The Cause, and should now be thrown under a bus

Fitzgerald 'does not plan to indict' -- notice he left wiggle room?

He is still guilty. Why else would the investigation have taken so long? Where there is smoke there is fire. And what about those sixteen words -- and there were probably more words in the speech that the President didn't use because he missed a line on the teleprompter. What about those, hmmm?"


I need to wash now...

WOW. Gotta lock this one in with a quote.


All those dashed expectations have shaken someone's marbles pretty badly.

Good to know your spirit will never be crushed knife. After all the liberal failures and still....good for you you special guy. :ceye:



Jeeze knife, there's a little girl in Hawaii without an arm at all. :dis:

LOL, not a word on MSN about the decision yet - Gee I wonder why??

Might not be a very good news source?
Doesn't mean it's not true.

I take it no indictment means not enough evidance to put it to trial?Or does it mean not Guilty?
Seems to me a lot of Georges friends sail very close to the wind.Then again what's life without risks?
And the stakes are very big.

In the U.S. , if a person is suspected of a crime and can not be proven to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty, by law the person is not guilty.

A term frequently replaced with "innocent" by the media and lawyers in their usual efforts to manipulate people instead of inform them. Plenty of people declared "not guilty" are certainly not "innocent".

[speculation] The last meeting between Rove and Fitzgearld produced the results desired by the prosecuter. [/speculation]

Those "leaves are turning" once again at the apsen institute?

So which one,in your opinion,is Rove?
Innocent or not guilty.

actually, that part is really not under dispute - Rove disclosed the identity of a CIA employee to Robert Novak for the purpose of discrediting her husband, the critic of phony war evidence, and then he lied about it. why Fitzgerald chose not to charge him with a crime is the current issue. a secondary question, of course, is why anyone would condone this kind of behaviour, whether it meets the standard of criminally indictable conduct or not, from one of the highest ranking members of the US government.

the news is not so good for Scooter..


June 12, 2006— A pretrial hearing today in the government's case against Scooter Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, could provide hints and clues in the ongoing investigation of former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove and reveal new details in the CIA leak investigation.

Much speculation has focused on Rove's role in the investigation of conversations he had with Libby and reporters at the center of the case.

Scooter Libby is due to appear before Judge Reggie Walton, along with special counsel Pat Fitzgerald and the Libby defense team, to discuss several issues in the case, which is set to go to trial in January 2007.

Libby was charged in the CIA leak case in October 2005 for lying to a federal grand jury and investigators about how he came to know the identity of Valerie Plame, a CIA employee married to former U.S. ambassador Joseph Wilson. Plame's name was published by political columnist Robert Novak in July 2003, and Fitzgerald was appointed as a special prosecutor to investigate the matter later that year.

The investigation centered on a plot to discredit Wilson, who disputed claims made by President Bush in his 2003 State of the Union Address that Iraq had tried to purchase uranium from Niger. Government investigators and Fitzgerald have looked closely at discussions among administration officials after Wilson wrote a July 6, 2003, New York Times op-ed that disputed the administration's intelligence claims about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

Monday's hearing will examine the status of materials requested by the Libby defense to help the defense prepare for the trial. The Libby defense suffered a setback earlier this month when Walton denied many of the wide-ranging documents Libby had requested from government agencies, saying the documents did not relate to the perjury or obstruction of justice charges against him.

In his June 2 ruling, Walton said "documents and information which may have bearing on the accuracy or inaccuracy of the president's statement on that topic —


http://abcnews.go.com/US/CIALeak/sto...2066572&page=2

WASHINGTON - Columnist Robert Novak said publicly for the first time Tuesday that White House political adviser Karl Rove was a source for his story outing the identity of
CIA officer
Valerie Plame.

In a column, Novak also says his recollection of his conversation with Rove differs from what the Rove camp has said.

"I have revealed Rove's name because his attorney has divulged the substance of our conversation, though in a form different from my recollection," Novak wrote. Novak did not elaborate.

A spokesman for Rove's legal team, Mark Corallo, said that Rove did not even know Plame's name at the time he spoke with Novak, that the columnist called Rove, not the other way around, and that Rove simply said he had heard the same information that Novak passed along to him regarding Plame.

"There was not much of a difference" between the recollections of Rove and Novak, said Corallo.

Novak said he is talking now because Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald told the columnist's lawyer that after 2 1/2 years his investigation of the CIA leak case concerning matters directly relating to Novak has been concluded.

Triggering the criminal investigation, Novak revealed Plame's CIA employment on July 14, 2003, eight days after her husband, White House critic and former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, accused the administration of manipulating prewar intelligence to exaggerate the Iraqi threat from weapons of mass destruction.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060712/...cia_leak_novak