Karl Rove WON'T BE Charged

maxwell's demon

Avenger
Joined
May 17, 2002
Messages
12,709
Reaction score
0
Points
31
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/13/america/web.0613rove.php

By David Johnston The New York Times

Published: June 13, 2006


WASHINGTON 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 Rove.

The decision by the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, announced in a letter to Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, lifted a pall that had hung over Rove who testified on five occasions to a federal grand jury about his involvement in the disclosure of an intelligence officer's identity.

In a statement, Luskin said, "On June 12, 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove."

Fitzgerald's spokesman, Randall Samborn, said he would not comment on Rove's status.

For months Fitzgerald's investigation appeared to threaten Rove's standing as Bush's closest political adviser as the prosecutor riveted his focus on whether Rove tried to intentionally conceal a conversation he had with a Time magazine reporter in the week before the name of intelligence officer, Valerie Plame Wilson, became public.

The decision not pursue any charges removes a potential political stumbling block for a White House that is heading into a long and difficult election season for Republicans in Congress.

Fitzgerald's decision should help the White House in what has been an unsuccessful effort to put the leak case behind it. Still ahead, however, is the trial of Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby Jr., on charges for perjury and obstruction of justice, and the prospect that Mr. Cheney could be called to testify in that case.

In his statement Luskin said he would not address other legal questions surrounding Fitzgerald's decision. He added, "In deference to the pending case, we will not make any further public statements about the subject matter of the investigation. We believe that the Special Counsel's decision should put an end to the baseless speculation about Rove's conduct."

But it was evident that Fitzgerald's decision followed an exhaustive inquiry into Rove's activities that had brought the political strategist dangerously close to possible charges. In October, when Libby was indicted, people close to Rove had suggested that his involvement in the case would soon be over; speculation about Rove's legal situation flared again in April when he made his fifth appearance before the grand jury.

A series of meetings between Luskin and Fitzgerald and his team proved pivotal in dissuading the prosecutor from bringing charges. On one occasion Luskin himself became a witness in the case, giving sworn testimony that was beneficial to Rove.

At the case stands now, Fitzgerald has brought only one indictment against Libby. The prosecutor accused Libby of telling the grand jury that he learned of Wilson from reporters, when in reality, the prosecutor said he was told about her by Cheney and others in the government. Libby has pleaded not guilty in the case, which is scheduled to begin trial early next year.

...
* ** * * * ** * * * * * *


I'm.
I just don't know anymore.
I'd like to just trust Fitzgerald.
i just don't know.
 
If there was a god, asswipes like this would get what's coming to them.
 
maxwell's demon said:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/13/america/web.0613rove.php

By David Johnston The New York Times

Published: June 13, 2006


WASHINGTON 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 Rove.

The decision by the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, announced in a letter to Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, lifted a pall that had hung over Rove who testified on five occasions to a federal grand jury about his involvement in the disclosure of an intelligence officer's identity.

In a statement, Luskin said, "On June 12, 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove."

Fitzgerald's spokesman, Randall Samborn, said he would not comment on Rove's status.

For months Fitzgerald's investigation appeared to threaten Rove's standing as Bush's closest political adviser as the prosecutor riveted his focus on whether Rove tried to intentionally conceal a conversation he had with a Time magazine reporter in the week before the name of intelligence officer, Valerie Plame Wilson, became public.

The decision not pursue any charges removes a potential political stumbling block for a White House that is heading into a long and difficult election season for Republicans in Congress.

Fitzgerald's decision should help the White House in what has been an unsuccessful effort to put the leak case behind it. Still ahead, however, is the trial of Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby Jr., on charges for perjury and obstruction of justice, and the prospect that Mr. Cheney could be called to testify in that case.

In his statement Luskin said he would not address other legal questions surrounding Fitzgerald's decision. He added, "In deference to the pending case, we will not make any further public statements about the subject matter of the investigation. We believe that the Special Counsel's decision should put an end to the baseless speculation about Rove's conduct."

But it was evident that Fitzgerald's decision followed an exhaustive inquiry into Rove's activities that had brought the political strategist dangerously close to possible charges. In October, when Libby was indicted, people close to Rove had suggested that his involvement in the case would soon be over; speculation about Rove's legal situation flared again in April when he made his fifth appearance before the grand jury.

A series of meetings between Luskin and Fitzgerald and his team proved pivotal in dissuading the prosecutor from bringing charges. On one occasion Luskin himself became a witness in the case, giving sworn testimony that was beneficial to Rove.

At the case stands now, Fitzgerald has brought only one indictment against Libby. The prosecutor accused Libby of telling the grand jury that he learned of Wilson from reporters, when in reality, the prosecutor said he was told about her by Cheney and others in the government. Libby has pleaded not guilty in the case, which is scheduled to begin trial early next year.

...
* ** * * * ** * * * * * *


I'm.
I just don't know anymore.
I'd like to just trust Fitzgerald.
i just don't know.


Thank God. I was really worried.
 
is anyone surprised with the outcome? These people always manage to get off the hook.:down
 
raybia said:
Thank God. I was really worried.


Me too! I'm going to start a thread asking people to support Scooter! That poor man!
 
Emrys said:
is anyone surprised with the outcome? These people always manage to get off the hook.:down

Does it surprise you that there wasn't anything worth charging in the first place?

Many DA's in the states will often hold charges over people in order to financially break them and get them to cop a plea, so the DA can rack up wins.
 
yes.

Happy Birthday, Jag!

And Jonty? you don't know what you're talking about.
 
maxwell's demon said:
yes.

Happy Birthday, Jag!

And Jonty? you don't know what you're talking about.

Of course he doesn't. If a republican gets off, it's a crime against humanity! After all, ALL republicans are guilty if someone says so, right??!! If a democrat gets off, however, justice was served! Because NO dems could be guilty of anything!!

:rolleyes:
 
lazur said:
Of course he doesn't. If a republican gets off, it's a crime against humanity! After all, ALL republicans are guilty if someone says so, right??!! If a democrat gets off, however, justice was served! Because NO dems could be guilty of anything!!

:rolleyes:

Not quite, I'd say all Politicians have dirty hands, quite frankly I haven't met one who isn't corrupt to the core in my lifetime yet.
 
last time I remember a democrat being charged with something was with cheating with his wife... what was this Rove guy charged with? if they let him off the hook then it must have been something minor, like a parking violation
 
Emrys said:
Not quite, I'd say all Politicians have dirty hands, quite frankly I haven't met one who isn't corrupt to the core in my lifetime yet.

I'm just pointing out the blatant partisanship involved with ANY criminal or other investigation into a politician. Democrats believe a republican 'did it' no matter what the facts are. The guy could be completely innocent of any wrong doing, but if he was accused, that's ALL that matters. And republicans are the same way toward democrats.

It's totally ridiculous. I hate our two party system. One is always a slave to the other.
 
maxwell's demon said:
yes.

Happy Birthday, Jag!

And Jonty? you don't know what you're talking about.

It's an old tactic.

Having lawyers to defend you is expensive and most people can't afford to have one on retainer for extended periods of time. Most people will often cop a plea because they can't afford to shell out a couple hundred grand to have a lawyer shuffle paperwork.
 
lazur said:
Of course he doesn't. If a republican gets off, it's a crime against humanity! After all, ALL republicans are guilty if someone says so, right??!! If a democrat gets off, however, justice was served! Because NO dems could be guilty of anything!!

:rolleyes:


come on Lazur. you know better. did i say ANYTHING like that? no. you did.

Oh, but nice to see you again. seriously. But come on, can't we get beyond that partisan stereotyping? or is that what you really still think of me?

War Lord said:
It's an old tactic.
I know- and all i meant is that it doesn't apply here. Fitzgerald is well known as a tough prosecutor who is NOT biased, and who has a good track record of cleaning up corruption in North Illinois. He's not going to do things "just to beef up his record".

so yes, its an old tactic- maybe used by SOME -but i dont' see how its appropriate to bring it up with regards to Fitzgerald.
 
lazur said:
I'm just pointing out the blatant partisanship involved with ANY criminal or other investigation into a politician. Democrats believe a republican 'did it' no matter what the facts are. The guy could be completely innocent of any wrong doing, but if he was accused, that's ALL that matters. And republicans are the same way toward democrats.

It's totally ridiculous. I hate our two party system. One is always a slave to the other.

Agreed, the two party system should be going the way of the dodo.

Actually I think it starting to become kinda scary how hatefull the two parties have become of each other. I mean what's next, will they start to beat each other up when the senate is in session. Just look at sites like "Freerepublic" or "Democratic Underground", the sheer bile that is spilled by the members there about the opposition is incredible.

really, I ask, when did the moderates loose control of the parties? both of them seem to be made up of extremist loonies nowadays.
 
lazur said:
I'm just pointing out the blatant partisanship involved with ANY criminal or other investigation into a politician. Democrats believe a republican 'did it' no matter what the facts are. The guy could be completely innocent of any wrong doing, but if he was accused, that's ALL that matters. And republicans are the same way toward democrats.

It's totally ridiculous. I hate our two party system. One is always a slave to the other.
although, every time a politician is accused of something, the chances of him being guilty are much, much higher, regardless of the party

it's a corruption prone porfession, just like stunt driving is an injury prone profession
 
War Lord said:
It's an old tactic.

Having lawyers to defend you is expensive and most people can't afford to have one on retainer for extended periods of time. Most people will often cop a plea because they can't afford to shell out a couple hundred grand to have a lawyer shuffle paperwork.

Ahhh something else we guys in europe don't have to worry about, we got something called law security insurance that takes the whole cost of off our back. :p
 
Emrys said:
Ahhh something else we guys in europe don't have to worry about, we got something called law security insurance that takes the whole cost of off our back. :p

That will never happen here.
 
maxwell's demon said:
I know- and all i meant is that it doesn't apply here. Fitzgerald is well known as a tough prosecutor who is NOT biased, and who has a good track record of cleaning up corruption in North Illinois. He's not going to do things "just to beef up his record".

so yes, its an old tactic- maybe used by SOME -but i dont' see how its appropriate to bring it up with regards to Fitzgerald.

He may be a tough prosecutor, but that doesn't mean he didn't use that tactic for that reason. If he had evidence that Rove actually did something criminal, he wouldn't have just dangled Rove. There would have been actual charges.
 
Emrys said:
Agreed, the two party system should be going the way of the dodo.

Actually I think it starting to become kinda scary how hatefull the two parties have become of each other. I mean what's next, will they start to beat each other up when the senate is in session. Just look at sites like "Freerepublic" or "Democratic Underground", the sheer bile that is spilled by the members there about the opposition is incredible.

really, I ask, when did the moderates loose control of the parties? both of them seem to be made up of extremist loonies nowadays.


Again Emrys I agree with you 100%.

It's sheer lunacy between the two parties. Somethings got to give or something bad is gonna happen.

Any way. HEY MAX! Nice seeing you again. ;)
 
tomahawk53 said:
Again Emrys I agree with you 100%.

It's sheer lunacy between the two parties. Somethings got to give or something bad is gonna happen.

Any way. HEY MAX! Nice seeing you again. ;)

True true, but it's not just the parties, The Us seems to drift apart into to equally powerful camps, One is liberal progressive the other conservative religious I mean last election was sure a sign that ther is no significant majority for both sides. The nation is split down the middle.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
201,146
Messages
21,906,804
Members
45,703
Latest member
Weird
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"