fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Reprinted from NewsMax.com
Tuesday, June 13, 2006 10:54 a.m. EDT
'Fitzmas in July' Canceled, Dems Distraught
Democrats are distraught over reports that Leakgate Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has decided not to indict senior White House advisor Karl Rove.
A sampling of liberal Web sites shortly after the news was announced Tuesday morning featured reaction ranging from disbelief to denial to the desperate hope that Rove has turned states' evidence against Vice President Dick Cheney.
"How could this snake slither away from an indictment?" complained one visitor to the Huffington Post Web site - where bloggers had confidently predicted that Fitzgerald's probe would yield up to 23 White House indictments.
"This man lied to the D.C. Grand Jury and he gets off scot-free? Where's the justice?" the same poster complained.
Another disappointed HuffPo Democrat simply lamented: "There is no God."
Over at the Daily Kos, reaction was even more harsh:
"This is appalling, and any D.C. jury, and many Main Street USA juries, would find them guilty . . . It really, really is a bad precedent to allow a criminal to have free rein in the White House."
Another Daily Kos'er was in abject denial, insisting; "I personally will believe nothing about this until I hear it from Patrick Fitzgerald himself."
Still another Kos'er saw a silver lining in the Rove non-indictment cloud, explaining: "If Rove flipped, then Fitzgerald believes it will give him Cheney [whose daughter is a lesbian] . And he may damn well be right."
Chuck Schumer has demanded that Fitzgerald submit his report to him so he can investigate it.
[MSNBC's David Shuster: 'I Am Convinced That Karl Rove Will, In Fact, Be Indicted.'
Posted by Clay Waters on June 13, 2006 - 11:14.
Great moments in political prognostication, from the May 8 edition of MSNBC’s “Countdown with Keith Olbermann.”
David Shuster: "Well, Karl Rove's legal team has told me that they expect that a decision will come sometime in the next two weeks. And I am convinced that Karl Rove will, in fact, be indicted. And there are a couple of reasons why.
"First of all, you don't put somebody in front of a grand jury at the end of an investigation, or for the fifth time, as Karl Rove testified a couple -- a week and a half ago, unless you feel that`s your only chance of avoiding indictment. So, in other words, the burden starts with Karl Rove to stop the charges.
"Secondly, it's now been 13 days since Rove testified. After testifying for three and a half hours, prosecutors refused to give him any indication that he was clear. He has not gotten any indication since then, and the lawyers that I`ve spoken with outside of this case say that if Rove had gotten himself out of the jam, he would have heard something by now.
"And then the third issue is one we`ve talked about before, and that is, in the Scooter Libby indictment, Karl Rove was identified as Official A. It`s the term that prosecutors use when they try to get around restrictions on naming somebody in an indictment.
"We`ve looked through the records of Patrick Fitzgerald from when he was prosecuting cases in New York, and from when he`s been U.S. attorney in Chicago. And in every single investigation, whenever Fitzgerald has identified somebody as Official A, that person eventually gets indicted themselves, in every single investigation.
"Will Karl Rove defy history in this particular case? I suppose anything is possible when you`re dealing with a White House official. But the lawyers that I`ve been speaking with, who know this stuff, say, Don`t bet on Karl Rove getting out of this."
Oh, WHAT a great day!*owned*
Tuesday, June 13, 2006 10:54 a.m. EDT
'Fitzmas in July' Canceled, Dems Distraught
Democrats are distraught over reports that Leakgate Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has decided not to indict senior White House advisor Karl Rove.
A sampling of liberal Web sites shortly after the news was announced Tuesday morning featured reaction ranging from disbelief to denial to the desperate hope that Rove has turned states' evidence against Vice President Dick Cheney.
"How could this snake slither away from an indictment?" complained one visitor to the Huffington Post Web site - where bloggers had confidently predicted that Fitzgerald's probe would yield up to 23 White House indictments.
"This man lied to the D.C. Grand Jury and he gets off scot-free? Where's the justice?" the same poster complained.
Another disappointed HuffPo Democrat simply lamented: "There is no God."
Over at the Daily Kos, reaction was even more harsh:
"This is appalling, and any D.C. jury, and many Main Street USA juries, would find them guilty . . . It really, really is a bad precedent to allow a criminal to have free rein in the White House."
Another Daily Kos'er was in abject denial, insisting; "I personally will believe nothing about this until I hear it from Patrick Fitzgerald himself."
Still another Kos'er saw a silver lining in the Rove non-indictment cloud, explaining: "If Rove flipped, then Fitzgerald believes it will give him Cheney [whose daughter is a lesbian] . And he may damn well be right."
Chuck Schumer has demanded that Fitzgerald submit his report to him so he can investigate it.
[MSNBC's David Shuster: 'I Am Convinced That Karl Rove Will, In Fact, Be Indicted.'
Posted by Clay Waters on June 13, 2006 - 11:14.
Great moments in political prognostication, from the May 8 edition of MSNBC’s “Countdown with Keith Olbermann.”
David Shuster: "Well, Karl Rove's legal team has told me that they expect that a decision will come sometime in the next two weeks. And I am convinced that Karl Rove will, in fact, be indicted. And there are a couple of reasons why.
"First of all, you don't put somebody in front of a grand jury at the end of an investigation, or for the fifth time, as Karl Rove testified a couple -- a week and a half ago, unless you feel that`s your only chance of avoiding indictment. So, in other words, the burden starts with Karl Rove to stop the charges.
"Secondly, it's now been 13 days since Rove testified. After testifying for three and a half hours, prosecutors refused to give him any indication that he was clear. He has not gotten any indication since then, and the lawyers that I`ve spoken with outside of this case say that if Rove had gotten himself out of the jam, he would have heard something by now.
"And then the third issue is one we`ve talked about before, and that is, in the Scooter Libby indictment, Karl Rove was identified as Official A. It`s the term that prosecutors use when they try to get around restrictions on naming somebody in an indictment.
"We`ve looked through the records of Patrick Fitzgerald from when he was prosecuting cases in New York, and from when he`s been U.S. attorney in Chicago. And in every single investigation, whenever Fitzgerald has identified somebody as Official A, that person eventually gets indicted themselves, in every single investigation.
"Will Karl Rove defy history in this particular case? I suppose anything is possible when you`re dealing with a White House official. But the lawyers that I`ve been speaking with, who know this stuff, say, Don`t bet on Karl Rove getting out of this."
Oh, WHAT a great day!*owned*
