Maybe Rove spilled the beans.

[garybeck]

I believe Rove is off the hook. I don't buy the Leopold story at all anymore. If the story was ever true, it's not anymore. There may have been meetings at the lawyers office, but it's clear Rove has not been indicted.

People are speculating that Fitz gave up because he didn't have enough evidence. Now THAT's a story I don't buy. We all heard Rove say Plame is "fair game." We all know Novak's source was Rove.

The stories on the more credible websites lately have been that the investigation is turning towards Cheney.

Is it possible that when Rove was on the edge of being indicted he spilled the beans on Cheney?

[LeftNYC]

1. I think that this leak is resting squarely on the Vice Prez office

Is Rove cooperating? Throwing Cheney under the bus?

[garybeck]

6. Can I drive that bus? I have a 35 foot solar powered bus ready to go.

[LeftNYC]

8. nice...good for the environment too! nt

[Jackpine Radical]

15. Running over Cheney would not be good for the environment.

For one thing, it would release enough toxins to turn the scene of the incident into a Superfund site.

[LeftNYC]

16. LOL! nt

[garybeck]

19. however,

the amount of environmental destruction that would be prevented could offset most, if not all, of the pollution caused by this "accident."

so the Solar Bus is ready for the job, anytime, anywhere. I'll keep the engine warm.


NOTE TO NSA SNOOPERS: This is in gest. I would never want to cause harm to anyone. God Bless the USA and the NSA.

[Sydnie]

2. Taking a "5K" like Cunningham .... I think it is possible

http://www.ussc.gov/2004guid/5k1_1.htm

Chapter 5 - PART K - DEPARTURES
1. SUBSTANTIAL ASSISTANCE TO AUTHORITIES
§5K1.1. Substantial Assistance to Authorities (Policy Statement)
Upon motion of the government stating that the defendant has provided substantial assistance in the investigation or prosecution of another person who has committed an offense, the court may depart from the guidelines.

(a) The appropriate reduction shall be determined by the court for reasons stated that may include, but are not limited to, consideration of the following:

(1) the court’s evaluation of the significance and usefulness of the defendant’s assistance, taking into consideration the government’s evaluation of the assistance rendered;

(2) the truthfulness, completeness, and reliability of any information or testimony provided by the defendant;

(3) the nature and extent of the defendant’s assistance;

(4) any injury suffered, or any danger or risk of injury to the defendant or his family resulting from his assistance;

(5) the timeliness of the defendant’s assistance.

Commentary

Application Notes:

1. Under circumstances set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) and 28 U.S.C. § 994(n), as amended, substantial assistance in the investigation or prosecution of another person who has committed an offense may justify a sentence below a statutorily required minimum sentence.

2. The sentencing reduction for assistance to authorities shall be considered independently of any reduction for acceptance of responsibility. Substantial assistance is directed to the investigation and prosecution of criminal activities by persons other than the defendant, while acceptance of responsibility is directed to the defendant’s affirmative recognition of responsibility for his own conduct.

3. Substantial weight should be given to the government’s evaluation of the extent of the defendant’s assistance, particularly where the extent and value of the assistance are difficult to ascertain.

Background: A defendant’s assistance to authorities in the investigation of criminal activities has been recognized in practice and by statute as a mitigating sentencing factor. The nature, extent, and significance of assistance can involve a broad spectrum of conduct that must be evaluated by the court on an individual basis. Latitude is, therefore, afforded the sentencing judge to reduce a sentence based upon variable relevant factors, including those listed above. The sentencing judge must, however, state the reasons for reducing a sentence under this section. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c). The court may elect to provide its reasons to the defendant in camera and in writing under seal for the safety of the defendant or to avoid disclosure of an ongoing investigation.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

3. I was thinking he might have dropped the ole dime. let's hope he did n/t

[mzteris]

4. well maybe the Leopold story

was't "trash" - maybe it was *true* - and it was that (the coming indictment, etc) that got Roviebaby to talk.

[havocmom]

13. Possible. Doesn't prosecutor have discretion on what to do

with an indictment? Not all defendants go to trial and all that? Tools to get somebody to give up more info?

Gee, past few days, we are discussing that the WH doesn't seem to be blocking attempts to make Cheney testify (WH = Rove, not bush and we all KNOW IT). Now, announcement there will be no indictments filed against Rove?

HELLO?!? Let's consider a game of connect the dots like you did, mzteris! ;) It does make a LOT of sense.

Leopold taking a lot of flack. Maybe he was 'Rathered' but not necessarily by the WH.
How hot did Rove's chair get during all the speculation about whether Leopold was right or wrong? Leopold could have been a tool in the squeeze play.

[mzteris]

17. when I posted this

I had just logged on and not read anything about the "rove situation" - I still think there's something fishy going on. Everyone knows Rove's fingers are all over this - so if he's not doing the perp walk there's a reason why. And I don't think Fitz just "lets people go".

I was also very happy to see that Wilson's seem to be considering a civil suit!


PS - Great game last night, huh?!?


:evilgrin:




edit typo

[havocmom]

21. I don't watch hockey on TV. Camera never shows all that's goin on.

Avatar is for my daughter, Oiler fan for 25 years or so.

[mzteris]

22. I know what you mean -

I do like those close up instant replays, though.



Game 5 tomorrow night - the boys are SOooooooooooooooo excited. (OK - so am I! :) )

[havocmom]

5. Questions for the day: Where's Dick?

Where's Dick's attorney?

[spinbaby]

7. Could be

Remember back when Rove testified for the last time and there was speculation about indictment all over the place? Right about then, two stories very unflattering to Cheney surfaced. The first was Cheney's notes on the Wilson article in the NYT, the second was (memory is a bit vague on details here) that Cheney wanted to do spying that was so invasive that even the NSA wouldn't do it. Those two stories surfaced in the MSM and then very quickly sank again. I've long wondered if they weren't Rove's "I've got stuff on you and I can use it." message to Cheney.

[garybeck]

10. if there is infighting and backstabbing going on in the administration...

then grab a cold one and sit back. the show is going to get interesting.

[acmavm]

9. I'll opine anew, I wonder who was indicted in the sealed

indictment.

Any ideas?

[lonestarnot]

11. He would do ANYTHING to save his own fat neck. Oink oink oink

More grease please.

[KittyWampus]

12. since you call Leopold's story trash, I give your theory

the same consideration.

Because Rove probably wouldn't cooperate unless he was staring down the face of ACTUAL INDICTMENTS (as reported by Leopold).

[garybeck]

14. OK, you got me...

you are correct, under the scenario that Rove spilled the beans because he had just been indicted, or was about to be, the Leopold story could be mostly true. What I meant to say is that "Rove being indicted" is trash. I will edit.

for the record, I originally said "Leopold's story is trash."

chaning to:

"if Leopold's story was ever true, it's not anymore. There may have been meetings at the lawyers office, but it's clear Rove has not been indicted."

[truebrit71]

18. He went up to the GJ 5 times and doesn't get pinched?

He squealed like the porcine wimp he is....

[garybeck]

20. well that would certainly be a decent consolation prize

[Democrat 4 Ever]

23. I choose to believe that the basic premise of Jason's story is

true but when push came to shove ol KKKarl squealed like a stuck pig on Dead Eye (note - I don't call him that because of his shooting ability but because he is literally dead in the eyes - he is stuff of horror films).

I've said since before the 2004 election that Dead Eye will not last the entire second administration if they were re-selected. The repugs will find some reason to dump the Dick overboard and prop someone else in the job.

Dead Eye has done his job - got us into a needless war - check, managed to trash all environmental law - check, ensured that the rich elite stay the rich elite - check, made sure that the country's energy policy favors oil companies - check, has risen war profiteering to ungodly and unconscionable heights - check, padded the Supreme Court with neocon flunkies - check, made sure that his corporate buddies has an unlimited supply of cheap labor, shipped jobs overseas to bolster the bottom line, gutted social programs like health care, student loans, made sure that "regular" Americans have no bankruptcy protection and destroyed the middle class - check, check, check, check, check, check. His work is done. He can go to his little mansion on Chesapeake Bay and count his money. Now is the time to out him because he has done his job. Anyone they put in his spot will guarantee better poll numbers than Cheney. A win - win for repugs.

They need a new face in the administration that can run as an "incumbent" in 2008 to continue the repug trashing of America. The repugs don't NEED Dead Eye anymore but they desperately NEED to keep KKKarl doing his dirty work if they don't want the Dems back in power.

The sliming has already become with Mehlman demanding an apology and KKKarl giving that speech last night. There is nothing done in the administration without thinking about five steps ahead. Cheney will bite the bullet and take one for the team, Chucklenuts will pardon him and live goes on for the repugs as before.

Meanwhile, back at the Dems headquarters we are in a circle firing away at each other.

[Coexist]

24. that is my fondest hope

Maybe the WH staff figured Cheney was frail enough that a GWB pardon would seem "humane", whilst a Rove pardon would seem "cronyist".

Your thoughts?