PELOSI TRYING TO BLOCK ROVE CONTEMPT CHARGE

[Ilsa]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6470058

PELOSI TRYING TO BLOCK ROVE CONTEMPT CHARGE
From Pam Miles:

I have firm confirmation that Nancy Pelosi is urging the Judiciary committee NOT to go forward with contempt against Rove. Congressman John Conyers and the Judiciary staff are battling for it but this has become an infight among dems. Time to burn up the phone lines.
800-828-0498, 800-459-1887 or 800-614-2803 toll free to congressional switchboard

http://markcrispinmiller.blogspot.com/2008/07/pelosi-tr...

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/34610

I copied Echo In Light's post from GD-P.

[L. Coyote]

1. Smart move perhaps?? What is Rove's big crime?

Go after Rove's big crimes, and don't make him the centerpiece of the Siegelman case if he is a peripheral player in the actions of that corruption!

If they make Rove the center of Siegelman's case, they are just playing into his manipulations. This is what Rove wants them to do!!!

[Clovis Sangrail]

6. his crime is contempt /nt

[L. Coyote]

7. Indeed. The smart move should have come sooner.

Now, they have played into the hands of the Rs on this one!!

Some Reflections on "Rove in State of Panic." Are things what they seem?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3183926

[MrCoffee]

2. So what? Contempt of Congress literally means nothing these days

Josh Bolton and Harriet Meiers were found in contempt of Congress...whoopie doo.

[onenote]

3. and from whom does Ms Miles have "firm confirmation"?

Before I leap, I tend to look.

[skooooo]

4. Is this on CSPAN?

I can't find any video coverage.

[onehandle]

5. Do we have any confirmation on this yet? All I see out there are claims from blogs.

I want confirmation.

[polmaven]

8. Me too.

I see absolutely nothing to show us exactly what the "firm confirmation" referenced by Ms. Miles is.

When I see something a little more firm that a blog entry at two different web sites, then I will consider it.

[TreasonousBastard]

9. This should be a question, not...

a statement until not only is there some confirmation other than a blogger but, if true, some explanation for her actions.

(In Washington, things are rarely as they seem on the surface.)