Rove Not to be Charged

[Se7en]

<strong>Leak Counsel Won't Charge Rove, Lawyer Announces <br /><br /></strong>By DAVID JOHNSTON<br /><br />June 13, 2006<br /><br />WASHINGTON, June 13 &mdash; The prosecutor in the C.I.A. leak case on Monday advised Karl Rove, the senior White House adviser, that he would not be charged with any wrongdoing, effectively ending the nearly three-year criminal investigation that had at times focused intensely on Mr. Rove.<br /><br />The decision by the prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, announced in a letter to Mr. Rove's lawyer, Robert D. Luskin, lifted a pall that had hung over Mr. Rove who testified on five occasions to a federal grand jury about his involvement in the disclosure of an intelligence officer's identity.<br /><br />In a statement, Mr. Luskin said, &quot;On June 12, 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove.&quot;<br /><br />Mr. Fitzgerald's spokesman, Randall Samborn, said he would not comment on Mr. Rove's status <p>&nbsp;</p><p>Credit: NYT online <a title="Story here." href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/13/washington/13cnd-leak.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/13/washington/13cnd-leak.html?_r=2&amp;oref=slogin&amp;oref=slogin</a></p><p>Well, what a surprise.&nbsp; I only said that Rove wouldn't be indicted months ago.</p><p>But he's still guilty, right?&nbsp; Even though after a couple years worth of investigation, there's nothing they can even remotely pin on him.&nbsp; But he HAS to be guilty, right?</p><p>What I'm&nbsp;enjoying is, no one will&nbsp;William Jefferson off a committee in spite of him being bribed on video and having $90k stashed in his freezer, but people think that&nbsp;Rove should be fired because...well, he must be guilty of something, damn the lack of evidence.<br /></p>

<span class=post_edited>This message was edited by Se7en on 6-13-06 @ 5:12 PM</span>

[spoon]

Are you nuts?&nbsp; They're both douche bags and deserve to burn.&nbsp; It's called the legal bullshit that has become our legal system of this era.&nbsp; Think what you want, but you have to be crazy to believe either are truly clean.&nbsp; Stop seeing things in terms of sides and realize there are scumbags on both.&nbsp; Question is, who's Rove's new boyfriend?&nbsp; I guess his prision fantasy won't be coming true just yet.

<span class=post_edited>This message was edited by spoon on 6-13-06 @ 6:11 PM</span>

[HBox]

<p>&nbsp;</p><strong>Se7en</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>Leak Counsel Won't Charge Rove, Lawyer Announces <br /><br /></strong>By DAVID JOHNSTON<br /><br />June 13, 2006<br /><br />WASHINGTON, June 13 &mdash; The prosecutor in the C.I.A. leak case on Monday advised Karl Rove, the senior White House adviser, that he would not be charged with any wrongdoing, effectively ending the nearly three-year criminal investigation that had at times focused intensely on Mr. Rove.<br /><br />The decision by the prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, announced in a letter to Mr. Rove's lawyer, Robert D. Luskin, lifted a pall that had hung over Mr. Rove who testified on five occasions to a federal grand jury about his involvement in the disclosure of an intelligence officer's identity.<br /><br />In a statement, Mr. Luskin said, &quot;On June 12, 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove.&quot;<br /><br />Mr. Fitzgerald's spokesman, Randall Samborn, said he would not comment on Mr. Rove's status <p> </p><p>Credit: NYT online <a target="_blank" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/13/washington/13cnd-leak.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin" title="Story here.">http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/13/washington/13cnd-leak.html?_r=2&amp;oref=slogin&amp;oref=slogin</a></p><p>Well, what a surprise. I only said that Rove wouldn't be indicted months ago.</p><p>But he's still guilty, right? Even though after a couple years worth of investigation, there's nothing they can even remotely pin on him. But he HAS to be guilty, right?</p><p>What I'm enjoying is, no one will William Jefferson off a committee in spite of him being bribed on video and having $90k stashed in his freezer, but people think that Rove should be fired because...well, he must be guilty of something, damn the lack of evidence.<br /></p>

<span class="post_edited">This message was edited by Se7en on 6-13-06 @ 5:12 PM</span><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><span class="postbody">Yeah, cause man, it's just utterly ridiculous to
think that Rove could do anything illegal.&nbsp; Why, that's just crazy.</span></p>

[DarkHippie]

<p>William Jefferson is a douche, but the reason congress jumped to his defense is a completely different issue.&nbsp; I hate when to defend the constitution, you have to defend an asshole.&nbsp; There's a thread on him somewhere.</p><p>Just because Rove hasn't been indicted doesn't mean that he didn't have a hand in things.&nbsp; Although he may be completely innocent, and someone else the the administration decided to out a&nbsp; CIA agent.&nbsp; i would think that something that huge would have to come from up high (But Not Jesus)</p>

[CaptClown]

<p>&nbsp;</p><p><font size="2"><img height="181" src="http://www.edbedrickautographs.com/images/hackman1.jpg" width="236" border="0" /></font></p><p><font size="2">They will never catch the &quot;Greatest Criminal Mastermind the World has ever known!&quot;</font></p><p><font size="2" /></p><p><font size="2">If Congess were a bunch of intelligent and well read individuals they would let this slide, &nbsp;since they will probably lose in court. The FBI&nbsp;had a <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/07/AR2006060702252.html" target="_self">warrant</a>, which meant they had probable cause and convinced a judge of such.</font></p>

[Bulldogcakes]

<p>H-Box, try to be fair for one minute. If they found something and indicted him, you'd be celebrating right now. They didn't find anything illegal, and yet you still believe he's guilty. Either you believe in the legal system or you dont. But you cant have it both ways, just because you hate the guy. <br /></p><p>And Se7, you of course would have accepted his (potential) guilt if he was indicted, right? Or would you be attacking the prosecutor and calling it a politically motivated witch hunt? <br /> </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Everybody loves the legal system when they get what they want, regardless of the facts. <br /></p>

[HBox]

<p>&nbsp;</p><strong>Bulldogcakes</strong> wrote:<br /><p>H-Box, try to be fair for one minute. If they found something and indicted him, you'd be celebrating right now. They didn't find anything illegal, and yet you still believe he's guilty. Either you believe in the legal system or you dont. But you cant have it both ways, just because you hate the guy. <br /></p><p>And Se7, you of course would have accepted his (potential) guilt if he was indicted, right? Or would you be attacking the prosecutor and calling it a politically motivated witch hunt? <br /> </p><p> </p><p>Everybody loves the legal system when they get what they want, regardless of the facts. <br /></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I wasn't serious, take a look at the Iran World Cup thread, just making a point.<br /></p>

[FMJeff]

<strong>Bulldogcakes</strong> wrote:<br /><p>H-Box, try to be fair for one minute. If they found something and indicted him, you'd be celebrating right now. They didn't find anything illegal, and yet you still believe he's guilty. Either you believe in the legal system or you dont. But you cant have it both ways, just because you hate the guy. <br /></p><p>And Se7, you of course would have accepted his (potential) guilt if he was indicted, right? Or would you be attacking the prosecutor and calling it a politically motivated witch hunt? <br /></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Everybody loves the legal system when they get what they want, regardless of the facts. <br /></p><p>In thier defense, it is extremely difficult to indict&nbsp;a well connected man like Rove. It takes a lot of balls and a lot of prosecutors don't want to put thier career on the line. You don't just indict a friend of the president unless your case is absolutely rock solid. </p><p>If he was any other man they would've at least tried the case or give the case an opportunity to be thrown out for lack of evidence. Don't think this decision didn't come without any political pressure, that's just naieve. </p>

[Furtherman]

This guy is still walking around giving the finger to everybody.

Rove ignores subpoena, refuses to testify

Former White House adviser Karl Rove defied a congressional subpoena and refused to testify Thursday about allegations of political pressure at the Justice Department, including whether he influenced the prosecution of a former Democratic governor of Alabama.

Rep. Linda Sanchez, chairman of a House subcommittee, ruled with backing from fellow Democrats on the panel that Rove was breaking the law by refusing to cooperate - perhaps the first step toward holding him in contempt of Congress.

Lawmakers subpoenaed Rove in May in an effort to force him to talk about whether he played a role in prosecutors' decisions to pursue cases against Democrats, such as former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, or in firing federal prosecutors considered disloyal to the Bush administration.

Rove had been scheduled to appear at the House Judiciary subcommittee hearing Thursday morning. A placard with his name sat in front of an empty chair at the witness table, with a handful of protesters behind it calling for Rove to be arrested.

[Zorro]

<p>In thier defense, it is extremely difficult to indict&nbsp;a well connected man like Rove. It takes a lot of balls and a lot of prosecutors don't want to put thier career on the line. You don't just indict a friend of the president unless your case is absolutely rock solid. </p><p>If he was any other man they would've at least tried the case or give the case an opportunity to be thrown out for lack of evidence. Don't think this decision didn't come without any political pressure, that's just naieve. </p>

During some primary night I saw him using Russert's White Board gimmick. The man has no shame.

[Recyclerz]

During some primary night I saw him using Russert's White Board gimmick. The man has no shame.

Quoted for truth.

The Atlantic Monthly opened up its on-line archives so here are two must read articles on Karl Rove.

2004 Article - Highlight: He starts a whisper campaign that the opponent of one of his clients is a homosexual kid-toucher.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200411/green

2007 Article - Summary: Rove is a smart guy whose delusions of grandeur wound up breaking the country and severely fucking up the Republican Party.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200709/karl-rove

I really hope The House straps on a spine and has this guy arrested and tossed into that jail in the basement of Congress the newspeople keep talking about.