Been deflated since Rove skated

[Stevendsmith]

And LBN has been a snooze for months now.

Is there anything to be optimistic about?

[benburch]

1. He hasn't skated yet.

Something is still in the works.

But it may be a while before we hear about it.

[sellitman]

3. I hope you are right.

I'm still a Truthout believer.

[Stevendsmith]

4. Oh, please.

Fitzgerald is under no obligation to publically state that Rove is off the hook.

Personally, I've had enough of the speculation game.

It's taken on an X-files vibe.

[dogday]

6. Actually once he sent the document to Luskin

and Luskin chose to make "parts of it" public... A statement so parsed, you could drive a truck through it... I would certainly look to the Prosecutor's office to at least update the public on the status of the Investigation, unless of course, he is still searching something which is ongoing....

[benburch]

7. Oh Please.

Stop with the condescending shit, I find it extraordinarily offensive.

He is not off the hook because this is an obstruction of justice case. Fitzgerald has stated that there is a web of lies keeping him from proving exactly what happened. If facts arise in the Scooter case that allow an indictment to occur, Fitzgerald will absolutely indict. And they are likely to arise if Scooter is to have as good a defense as possible!

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[alcibiades_mystery]

12. What event would ever convince you that Rove will not be prosecuted?

Name an event that would cause you to throw in the towel?

[benburch]

15. When Scooter's case is done, and Fitzgerald is no longer on the job.

Then it becomes very unlikely that Rove will be prosecuted until a change of Administrations.

I find your condescending and mocking tone to be extremely offensive.

[alcibiades_mystery]

16. That's sad for you

Have a fun eighteen months waiting for the inevitable, though. Try not to get so offended all the time. It's, well, sweet, but ineffective.

[benburch]

18. That's sad for you.

That preserving your sense of self worth requires you to mock people who seek justice.

[alcibiades_mystery]

21. Is there a fucking echo in here?

:shrug:

Lighten up. I don't mock people who seek justice. I do, however, have an inkling of contempt for people who run into walls again and again, even after they've been told it's a wall. Nice framing though. Cheers.

[benburch]

22. Is there a fucking echo in here?

Because you say the same things over and over and over and over...

[Catherine Vincent]

27. So true.

He and his ilk are always telling others that Karl Rove is off the hook. I think they celebrated too quick.

[benburch]

32. As long as there is legal process afoot in the Plame Affair...

...there is a good chance that the evidence will come out that will hang KKKarl Rove.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Stevendsmith]

34. Amen, brother! (n/t)

[Marie26]

35. Preach it! nt

[benburch]

37. What I practice is a believe in the Justice System.

It is obvious to any thinking being that KKKarl Rove is as dirty as a week old diaper.

There is a prosecutor who has been looking into one of the many things that soil him.

One person close to him has been indicted and will be tried.

That person will have to present an affirmative defense to avoid conviction.

That affirmative defense must contain exculpatory evidence, and it is quite likely that this evidence would implicate KKKarl Rove. Alternatively, that person may decide to cooperate and cut a deal for reduced charges or a reduced sentence. Have you seriously never seen that happen in a criminal conspiracy before? When you are facing jail time, singing like a bird looks more and more attractive.

[alcibiades_mystery]

That's what's fun about the messianic stuff

90% of it seems true.

Is Karl Rove dirty as all get out? Yes.
Is there a prosecutor looking into specific events with which Mr. Rove was involved? Yes.
Has one person close to him been indicted? Yes.
Will that person present an affirmative defense? Yes.
Is it "quite likely" that the "exculpatory evidence" will implicate Mr. Rove? Unknowable at this point. The notion that it is "quite likely" is part of your religious fervor.
Do people cut deals with prosecutors? Yes, of course, all the time.
Is it clear that such a thing a) will happen in this case or b) if it does happen, lead to criminal charges being filed against Mr. Rove? No. It is not clear, and not even knowlable, but certainly also not "likely" at this point. Your belief that it is is part of your religious fervor.

Of course, you use the true to smear detractors of your religious beliefs. So I hope I'm clear now. Everything I've answered "yes" to, I actually believe to be true. But it is the other points that are at issue, and that's where your religious attitude steps in to provide the dubious warrants.

[Beetwasher]

46. 'It is not clear, and not even knowlable, but certainly also not "likely"'

The only people I see spouting religious faith-like arguments are the bloviators who matter of factly claim they know something that is, at this point, unknowable. That being the eventual outcome of this whole affair and the details of what exactly went down regarding Rove. (The sad part being, we may actually never know). This is not some matter that involves extraordinary claims of paranormal abilities or something like that. This is a highly complex case involving some of the most powerful criminals in human history, and the US Justice system is far from perfect and far from being immune from manipulation. To draw conclusions based on what little data we have is, at best, foolish.

Did Rove "skate"? For the moment, yes. For good? I dunno, and neither do you, but you certainly do know how to bloviate. If posters were saying "Rove WAS indicted!", then your bloviations on faith might have merit, but since they're not saying that (at least not in this thread) but are instead taking the cautious approach and not drawing any conclusions, as this affair is not yet over, and we don't have all the details (unlike some others who speak on the matter categorically based on, well, based on nothing really, or faith perhaps?), it just means you are putting words in their mouth and spouting bullshit.

[dogday]

47. It is called the practice of acrimony

Spit and spew venom as often as possible is their motto.....

[alcibiades_mystery]

48. When you go down to the river to pray

Studyin' about that good old way...

:eyes:

[Techno Dog]

40. Can I put that post in my sig line?

[Catherine Vincent]

45. You don't know what I practice.

[alcibiades_mystery]

49. Actually, it's quite clear

You have your little saint icon in your posts, like a Catholic with the Blessed Virgin in statuette on the lawn.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[alcibiades_mystery]

57. Shall we take more bets?

I gave a couple of other suckers plenty of leeway, and they're all conceding my correctness in their signature lines as we speak. I'll be happy to take more bets, if you want to put your sig line where your mouth is?

[Catherine Vincent]

60. "conceding my correctness in their signature lines as we speak"

Am I supposed to give a hoot? But good for you if that makes you feel important. :-)

[alcibiades_mystery]

65. So you won't take the bet

That figures. Deep down, even the most devout messianics know they're wrong.

Cheers.

[Techno Dog]

53. hey

What was wrong with your post that it got deleted?

It CLEARLY didn't break any rules. Are there rules for some and not others? The deleted post was the most cogent analysis of this believer phenomenon yet.

Brutal that it was deleted.

[Catherine Vincent]

54. Those are questions for the admin. n/t

[Techno Dog]

56. um no

the question was for the person I addressed it to, thanks.

[Catherine Vincent]

59. you didn't address your message to the OP before you revised it

nice try

[Techno Dog]

63. Yea?

The message said "I CLEARLY". I edited it to say "It CLEARLY".

[alcibiades_mystery]

58. It's easy

A certain someone gets to call me a bloviator, a direct personal attack, but my post, which attacked nobody, goes bye-bye. See how that works? The Messiah will make all better, in any case, when that indictment comes down on Judgment Day. :rofl:

[Catherine Vincent]

61. LOL! You're just full of laughs today.

:-)

[alcibiades_mystery]

64. What's funny is this

No matter how ooften you laugh, you're still gonna end up wrong, and I'm still gonna end up right. So it is, indeed, amusing. Of course, in your world, Karl Rove was already indicted 6 weeks ago, right? Now THAT'S funny. :rofl:

[Techno Dog]

24. Well ain't that a laugh

Do you think Leopold and TruthOut's behavior is offensive? Do you think those that believe TO is still right also think threatening people and leaving personal information of critics on their web site is ok?

Didn't you say Bev Harris threatened people on DU, and posted personal information of critics on her site? Didn't you call her scum?

That offensive. Not people telling others to stop believing things that can't possibly be true.

[benburch]

30. My assertion has nothing whatsoever to do with TO or Leopold.

Why do you assume it does?

And what I am saying is absolutely true! Ask any real lawyer. (Do not ask the pretend lawyers that sometimes haunt this board.)

[Techno Dog]

36. Well "real" lawyers

are looking to sue TO and Leopold and that's a fact. Leopold shouldn't threaten lawyers. TO shouldn't have allowed lawyers private information to be plastered all over their website.

As for what you saying being absolutely true, that is laughable. Real lawyers have no better idea that something is going on behind the scenes than TO.

Hey, I heard you had been indicted, but you are able to post still because there are backroom deals being made. Ask a "real" lawyer and they will tell you I'm absolutely correct.

[benburch]

52. Don't twist words to attempt to connect my argument with TO/Leopold.

I'll not stand for that. My assertion, and this is based on conversations with a lawyer who has been Prosecutor, is that it is quite likely that during Scooter's prosecution that evidence will arise and be established as fact that implicates and will cause the indictment of KKKarl Rove.

Or do you have some reason for not wanting KKKarl Rove to come to the bar of justice?

[Techno Dog]

62. You'll not stand for it?

Your sources are as bad as TOs non existent ones.

At this stage you have little to no credibility. You have called me and others trolls for daring to hold TO and Leopold accountable for their despicable behavior, while you have condemned others for engaging in the very same behavior.

Instead of accepting that your hypocrisy enables the worst among us you continue the faith based garbage you insist it is a quality to be proud of.

I don't care what you think about the future of Rove's involvement because your acceptance of the behavior practiced by TO shows a bias and suspension of disbelief that renders your opinions worthless.

Come on Ben just come out and condemn TO and Leopold the way you do Bev Harris and BBV. Who knows maybe one day all of your clients will be subjected to vicious attacks and smears, and who will stand up for you? Not the people here that ignore behavior like that because they want the stories being told be the abusers to be true.

[benburch]

66. You were not even here for that.

And don't pretend that you were.

And yes, I'll not stand for you twisting my words.

As for my credibility, I'm quite happy with mine. I've been a respected member of this community since it was very new. Where does yours come from?

[dogday]

2. No News Is Good News

I have not heard an official statement from the Prosecutor's Office....

[Stevendsmith]

14. No News? We got the news. Rove skated.

Fitzgerald doesn't have to report that Rove is cleared.

[dogday]

20. A Parsed statement from his Attorney

they did not tell me much... Why wouldn't Fitzgerald give an update on the investigation.. Is there a rule that says he won't.....

[Techno Dog]

25. You are auguring like you haven't had

all of this explained to you already. Why is that?

[dogday]

26. Hey Dog

Something tells me you would show up... All I ask is what rule say Fitzgerald won't make a statement when he is finished with his investigation? Nobody explains that to me, they all just say it is so....

[Techno Dog]

28. Yes they have several times

Not only have you been told that announcing someone is not being charged is rare if not unheard of, but links to Fitzgerald's own words at the Libby presser stating as much have been posted numerous times.

[dogday]

31. I said ending the investigation

read my words... End of the investigation... I have not heard the investigation is over... I have heard the parsed words of Luskin who will not disclose the document.. I am waiting for Fitz to announce he had dismissed the Grand Jury on this investigation... I have not heard that? Have you?


So you want to tell me and please give reference as to how you know this, not your opinion...

[Techno Dog]

38. Who here is saying the Plame investigation is over?

You have heard rove isn't going to be indicted. That's all that has been claimed.

To say the Plame investigation is over before the Libby trial has concluded is silly.

[dogday]

39. Then pay attention to the posts

The investigation is ongoing is it not?

[Techno Dog]

41. yes but ROVE is clear.

Pity yes, but unless you have any evidence to suggest otherwise you are practicing faith based reasoning.

[dogday]

42. The Prosecutor "does not anticipate" seeking charges against him

you can drive a truck through that sentance...

[Techno Dog]

43. Well considering

you started a thread because Kurtz used the word "reached" and tried to 'parse' that into meaning Lauria was a liar, I'd say you must be driving a hot wheels toy truck.

[dogday]

44. A Big Dump truck Actually

there seems to be a lot of dumping going on and I am picking up the trash.

[Warpy]

5. You don't know he skated

Just like without confirmation, we didn't know he'd been indicted last month.

The only thing we know for certain is that we don't know a damned thing.

[Roon]

9. Me too

I am totally kicking myself for falling for the blogger crap. I used to think blogs were a nice alternative to the MSM, but not anymore.

[Stevendsmith]

13. There are plenty of great, informative blogs out there.

Please don't paint all blogs with the Leopold brush

[Stevendsmith]

10. Wow. Many still in denial about Rove.

Game. Over.

Get a grip on reality, people.

[WI_DEM]

17. not really

there is so much more than Plame and that chapter isn't even closed yet.

[CatWoman]

19. Steven,

Patience, Grasshopper :D

:hi:

[Stevendsmith]

23. I'm trying, Catwoman!

Take care.

:hi:

[Marie26]

29. Nov. 2006?

:shrug: :bounce:

[jrandom421]

50. don't think he's skated at all.

FIVE appearances before the grand jury? Looks like Karl's at least attempted to cut a deal. I thnk the main reason he hasn't been indicted, is that he can't be Patrick's star witness if he is under indictment. Wouldn't it be grand to see Karl's fat face sweating under the lights as Patrick gets him to tell the whole conspiricy? I can see Patrick dropping the anvil on him if his testimony in open court deviates in the slightest from what he told the grand jury. Finally, after spilling his guts on the stand, I think the Bush Administration is going to be less than charitable in dealing with a "turncoat".

[ourbluenation]

55. He knows, that we know, that he's a piece of shit. Screw him

and the horse he rode in on. Don't waste another second being deflated over kkkarl ever again. Ya hear me?

[Swamp Rat]

67. Though some on this thread want me to feel otherwise, I am very optimistic

:)

[Moderator]

68. locking

This has become inflammatory with many person attacks.