“Hillary’s Gonna Be Indicted!”
As I have been reading various articles about “Plamegate” in the past few days, I have noted the conditional nature of the claims of lawyers “close to the case” about Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald’s intentions on indicting White House officials. In this morning’s Wall Street Journal, we learn that he “may be piecing together a case that White House officials conspired to leak various types of classified material” while the New York Times reports that he “may believe the evidence presented in a 22-month grand jury inquiry shows that the two White House aides sought to cover up their actions” and “Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby have been advised that they may be in serious legal jeopardy.” (Emphasis added in all three quotations.)
Reading these latest articles, only one thing seems clear: while some lawyers close to the case seem eager for Fitzgerald to indict, the special prosecutor himself has not yet made up his mind whether to bring indictments. From what we know, it seems increasingly likely that if Fitzgerald brings any charges, they will not be related to the alleged crime he was hired to investigate, but to how certain White House officials handled the investigation. According to the Times, “Among the charges that Mr. Fitzgerald is considering are perjury, obstruction of justice and false statement – counts that suggest the prosecutor may believe the evidence presented in a 22-month grand jury inquiry shows that the two White House aides sought to cover up their actions.”
And although Fitzgerald has not yet made up his mind, speculation is rampant (even among conservatives) that indictments are imminent. All this reminds me of a Republican colleague’s convictions back in the early days of President Clinton’s second term. This man strode into work one day, smiling and expressing confidently, “Hillary’s gonna be indicted.” “When?” we asked, eager to see the then-president’s very partisan wife behind bars. “Any day now,” came the reply. He had no doubt his information was accurate and that then-First Lady would soon be indicted. (My colleague repeated his refrain (about the imminence of her indictment) for several weeks.)
Despite our hopes (and her shady activities), Mrs. Clinton was never indicted and has continued to remain a prominent figure in Democratic politics. It seems a similar thing is going on today about Rove for, in many ways, Democrats think of Karl Rove in much the same way as Republicans think of Hillary. To his (or her) adversaries, each embodies corruption, hunger for power and an eagerness to use that power to advance his (or her) ideological ends. Just as we wanted Hillary to be indicted, today’s Democrats want Rove to be indicted. Wishful thinking on both sides.
But, as Tom Maguire, who has covered this scandal more thoroughly than any other blogger (at least that I have read), observed in a post last night:
Subject to the caveat that most of the leaks have come from attorneys sympathetic to various Administration officials, and keeping in mind that Fitzgerald may have a lot of evidence we have not seen, let me say this – Karl Rove’s problems with the Matt Cooper phone call are trivial, and Fitzgerald will only hit Rove with that if he is desperate to charge Rove with something and is prepared to lose at trial.
In short, based on what we know, Rove did nothing wrong. Still, his adversaries are certain he will be indicted. Not based on evidence, mind you, but based on their conviction that because he is a horrrible, no good, very bad man, he has to be guilty of something. Sounds similar to Republican attitudes toward Hillary nearly a decade ago.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
35 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Got to give it to you: that’s a good post. There IS a lot of salivating on this side about pending indictments (I’m practically dripping myself) and it’s good to be reminded that what we’re so sure of today may never come to pass. But…I’m CERTAIN Rove’s a goner! (Kidding) Good post.
Comment by Pussy Patriot — October 21, 2005 @ 6:17 pm - October 21, 2005
Thanks, Pussy, it’s always nice receiving praise from our adversaries.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — October 21, 2005 @ 6:26 pm - October 21, 2005
It’s been my experience that folks wanted the Capital Hillbillies indicted not just for the sorry excueses for humans that they are, but because of the crap that they pulled and kept getting away with.
The lesson learned from them:
If you’re ever on trial for anything, just claim that you can’t remember. Should have done that on my last traffic ticket.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 21, 2005 @ 7:47 pm - October 21, 2005
No. 1, Pussy dear, are you nuts??? Applauding gaypatriotwest for simply being in denial here? Dear, just leave these gay boys who love Republicans alone and let them stew in anticipation of next Wednesday.
Remember, Pussy, “it’s the mo-a-st wonderful time of the year”…
Plus, Puss, did you not notice that in his top two posts, all Mr. GPW had to talk about was the Clintons? God, don’t they EVER move on?
Cousin Queer.
Comment by Queer Patriot — October 21, 2005 @ 8:24 pm - October 21, 2005
Plus, Puss, did you not notice that in his top two posts, all Mr. GPW had to talk about was the Clintons? God, don’t they EVER move on?
When people discuss “moving on” from past political figures, they usually mean “stop talking about your sour grapes issues, the guy isn’t running again, let’s talk about something relevent.”
Dan is talking about relevent and current political issues. He is merely choosing to use political figures from the past to create clearly understandable analogies.
Comment by DinaFelice — October 21, 2005 @ 8:53 pm - October 21, 2005
Yes, but why — for you Republicans — is it ALWAYS about the Clintons? You all seemed so mired in that period and marked forever by the fact that you did not “get” them for something.
Comment by Queer Patriot — October 21, 2005 @ 9:04 pm - October 21, 2005
Actually, by your standards, QP, the Clintons were “gotten”; after all, Clinton WAS impeached, which is the rough equivalent of an indictment and arrest warrant.
And as for next Wednesday, perhaps you ought to take a lesson from the most rabid of the Clinton haters and learn that insisting things were “fixed” will get you only disdain.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 21, 2005 @ 9:30 pm - October 21, 2005
#6: This is my favorite question and here’s my answer. Many republicans can’t live with the fact that we had fairly good prosperity for 8 years with Clinton, who even managed to pass a few conservative initiatives (not that I agree with that, but he did). He was under attack by his opponents from the moment he entered the white house, yet the most they could get on him was lying about an extramarital affair. A litmus test, by the way, I doubt many of our elected officials in DC could pass.
He still remains a popular president, his wife was elected in her own right to the senate and may possibly have a further political future (please, no flame posts about Hillary being president by the way…we’ve seen them all). Yeah, let’s be real, the guy couldn’t keep it in his pants, but as far as running the country, he seemed to have done a pretty good job.
What I love in reading other bulletin boards over the last few years is that anything bad that happened to the country since Bush took office was Clinton’s fault. This despite the fact even though he’s been gone from the presidency for nearly 5 years. Any chance that Mr. Bush will ever take responsibility for anything he’s done wrong? Oh, right, he issued an “apology” for the response to Katrina that was about on par with a 12 year-old trying lying about egging a teacher’s car, with enough squirming body language to write volumes.
Gotta dash – it’s just after 11pm and Bill Maher is on!
Comment by Kevin — October 21, 2005 @ 11:09 pm - October 21, 2005
#8
Any chance that Mr. Bush will ever take responsibility for anything he’s done wrong?
Dude! WTF? WTF do liberals know about repsonsibility? Seriously. I really want to know. That pimp you had in the WH sure as hell didn’t.
As far as Bush apologizing,
1. There was nothing for him to apologize and accept responsibility for.
2. There has not been a DAMN thing your sweet lord BJ ever accepted responsibility for and the above makes Bush a far bigger man than BJ.
3. It’s a damn shame when Bush doesn’t give the liberal media the talking points they demand to smear him with, ain’t it?
Who was clamped on BJ’s dick, Monica or you?
What I love reading on other bulletin boards is cum dumpsters like you covering for lord BJ and blaming every single disaster that has ever befallen mankind on Bush while NEVER accepting responsibility for their miserable failures. It’s gotta be Bush’s fault and the fault of the stupid majority that liberalism fails at the ballot box.
When are you scheduled for extermination?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 22, 2005 @ 12:19 am - October 22, 2005
And Queer in #4, did you even notice that in my previous post, I actually praised Bill Clinton for his political skills?
My political opponents may be scum, but at least, I can acknowledge their talents.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — October 22, 2005 @ 3:08 am - October 22, 2005
Indictments!
Comment by charley — October 22, 2005 @ 4:41 am - October 22, 2005
Schedule for Saturday 22 October 2005
0800 Take a shower.
0830 Eat breakfast of Corn Flakes with banana.
0845 Glance through the Lakeland Ledger for anything interesting.
0900 Smoke a cigarette
0930 EXTERMINATE KEVIN WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE!!!!
1500 Smoke a cigarette.
1505 Take a nap.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 22, 2005 @ 7:41 am - October 22, 2005
Queer dear, yes I know I applauded the boy for a good post. Mainly because I think we could all use a dampening of expectations for next week. Too many on our side are anticipating as many as five or six indictments, with a dash of unindicted co-conspirator thrown in for Big Time. Not me. I’m thinking we should be very happy seeing just one, maybe two, such pretty papers posted at the prosecutor’s DOJ website. The frog march that follows for just one or two (assuming they’re the “right” one or two) would be enough for me. That, plus the inevitable dismissal of Ms. Judy Miller from the NYT. And you know, even if we don’t get all that (and zero remains a possibility this morning), then we’re still going to see the story of the CIA agent outing and its link to the faking of reasons for war blow wide open in the press, as all those folks who’ve been leaking on each other are going to go at it full-time — once the danger of prosecution is out of the way.
Love Pussy.
Comment by Pussy Patriot — October 22, 2005 @ 8:14 am - October 22, 2005
Did he actually say “frog march”? Sheesh.
BTW, can someone please tell him that those rosette-shaped handsoap bars in the plastic seashell in his bathroom are SOOOO 1985?
Comment by Frank IBC — October 22, 2005 @ 10:35 am - October 22, 2005
Pussy, in #13, while I wouldn’t be surprised if the Special Counsel hands down an indictment (or two) against Mr. Libby (largely for his improper response to the investigation), it seems clear that this indictment would link to any “faking of reasons for war.”
That has already been investigated — and investigated. And you guys on the Left want them to keep investigating until they reach the conclusion that you and others on the left have reached without looking at all the pertinent facts. As I wrote in a past post, “The Robb-Silberman Commission (Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction) found that neither the president nor members of his administration doctored the intelligence reports on Iraq.” That was, mind you, a bipartisan panel.
A British report also reached a similar conclusion.
Scooter Libby may have not acted properly when Fitzgerald’s office was investigating his role in the alleged “outing,” but there is no story here doctored intelligence or faking the reasons for war.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — October 22, 2005 @ 12:55 pm - October 22, 2005
#13
Just because the libtards scream “Bush lied” over and over doesn’t make it true. Turns out, the liberals are the ones lying.
Oh BTW, you do know that instead of indictments next week, the grand jury investigation can be extended.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 22, 2005 @ 3:39 pm - October 22, 2005
#9 & 12: If you think there is any president in the history of this country who hasn’t made a mistake (or lied for that matter), then you’re severely mistaken. Probably the only one who didn’t make any mistakes ever was George Washington.
Bush (and several other people) lied to us about why we went to war in Iraq: immediate threat to the US by Weapons of Mass Destruction. A complete lie, and not one shred of evidence found for such justification. Whether you agree with it or not, we went to in there to get Saddam out (please, again, no flaming – I’m just making a statement, not saying one way or another whether I agree with it). Didn’t Bush say, on camera several times by the way, things like “this guy tried to get my dad” As I recall it was during the Clinton presidency that we bombed out Saddams facilities that were focused on mounting more attacks outside his borders in retaliation for the plot against Bush Sr.
Give me a break: This guy makes statements and decisions on a whim. I’ve noticed a real difference between how he talks and what he says depending on whether he’s been scripted or if he’s talking extemperaneously.
Nice to know you advocate killing other people who don’t agree with your point of view, by the way. I suspect your increasingly hostile comments are based on the fact that I won’t stoop to your level of name calling and hatred. I hope you enjoyed your corn flakes today.
Comment by Kevin — October 23, 2005 @ 12:07 am - October 23, 2005
#3: In the world of politics, both sides can claim something against the other, be careful about what you accuse the other side of doing. As I recall, watching former President Reagan testifying about the Iran-Contra affair, he seemed to use the term “I can’t recall” in many of his responses.
Comment by Kevin — October 23, 2005 @ 12:10 am - October 23, 2005
Didn’t Bush say, on camera several times by the way, things like “this guy tried to get my dad”
Can you provide an example?
I suspect your increasingly hostile comments are based on the fact that I won’t stoop to your level of name calling and hatred.
Increasingly hostile?
Nope. I doubt that you could “stoop” to any level lower than you are now.
Hatred? That’s coming from a leftard who’s surrounded by vile hatred. Nope. You blew it. Again.
#12 was making fun of you. Sorry you missed the point, but then I’m not surprised.
Cheers!
Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 23, 2005 @ 2:37 am - October 23, 2005
Kevin–in #17, it seems you don’t bother to read reports which read conclusions at odds with your theories. The president did not lie about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. Before the war, numerous people, including Bill Clinton, claimed Iraq had WMD. The Robb-Silberman Commission, the Senate Intelligence Commission and Lord Butler’s group (in Great Britain) all found that he did not lie.
You say there’s not “one shred of evidence found” for his decision to go to war. Actually, there hasn’t been a single shred of evidence found to make the claim that the president lied. And yet you repeat it incessantly.
As to Iraq trying to kill the president’s dad, as you call him. Please bear in mind that he was a former president of the United States at the time of the assassination attempt. It was not enough for Clinton just to bomb Saddam’s facilities. What Saddam did was an act of war.
You keep blathering on that, “He lied, he lied, he lied,” yet that charge has been investigated, investigated, investigated. And every time, those who study all the evidence reach the same conclusion–he didn’t. So, take some advice from the name of a group whose web-site you may well enjoy and move on.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — October 23, 2005 @ 3:59 am - October 23, 2005
I’m STILL waiting for evidence of gays being exterminated.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 23, 2005 @ 4:45 am - October 23, 2005
Bill Clinton lied, Sudanese pharmaceutical plant workers died.
Comment by Frank IBC — October 23, 2005 @ 12:03 pm - October 23, 2005
In #20, GayPatriotWest says that the claim that “Bush lied” us into Iraq has been “investigated, investigated, investigated” and he cites the American Robb-Silberman report, the American Senate Committee on Intelligence report, and the British Butler report (links to each below).
What GayPatriotWest apparently doesn’t know is that NONE of these three groups were even tasked with determining whether the WH/10 Downing made proper use/mis-use of what all three call faulty intelligence, and none of them addressed whether policy makers ignored the qualifications placed on that faulty intelligence by the intelligence community (though a couple of Democrats in additional comments to the Senate report managed to get in a pretty good litany of WH mis-use). The U.S. Senate Committee was planning to visit the use/mis-use issue in a second report – but, lo and behold, with a Republican majority, they just haven’t gotten around to that, have they?
Here are the links to each report. Please read them for yourselves, as it is clear you cannot take GayPatriotWest’s word for what they say about WH mis-use of intelligence, or “lying” as some of us prefer to call that spade. We will someday get the investigation that GayPatriotWest claims we’ve had three of, but until then, we’ll just have to watch as more evidence seeps out on this issue via Secy. Powell, his chief Lawrence Wilkerson, and perhaps even the CIA Leak investigation that continues this week.
Here’s the Robb-Silbermann Commission Report…
http://www.wmd.gov/report/wmd_report.pdf
Here’s the report of the Senate Intelligence Committee…
http://intelligence.senate.gov/iraqreport2.pdf
And here’s the Butler Report…
http://www.butlerreview.org.uk/report/report.pdf
Happy reading,
Love Pussy.
Comment by Pussy Patriot — October 23, 2005 @ 2:31 pm - October 23, 2005
#21: Thanks a lot. That really adds to the thoughtful, intelligent, political discourse of our country that keeps America great.
Comment by Kevin — October 23, 2005 @ 6:42 pm - October 23, 2005
#24
And your liberal lies are helping political discourse how????
Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 23, 2005 @ 7:12 pm - October 23, 2005
#20: I would like to see the final evidence of these investigations. The only information I have is from news and media over the years which amounts to a bunch of finger pointing by the parties involved. Additionally, reports now come (and I admit, anonymously) from current and former White House staff who indicate that Bush wanted to find a way to go to war against Saddam since the moment he entered the White House in 2001. It was supposedly this and similar events that led to people like Colin Powell and Christie Todd Whitman eventually leaving their positions.
When I saw Bush on TV and he talked about going after Saddam because of Bush Sr, what he said was clearly from a point of personal retribution for a family member, not a president of the US.
I just think people should take a cold, hard look at this guy with more objective views. Bizarre plans (guest worker program for immigrants at a time when we’re supposed to be clamping down on immigrants) introduction of laws and ammendments to take away the rights of citizens (the marriage ammendment), demonization of an entire 1/3 of our government (attacks on the judciary) lack of even empathy/sympathy for citizens (talking in a joking manner about his mis-spent youth trips to the French Quarter at the same moment a few miles away people were dying, waiting to be rescued, waiting for food, waiting for medical attention). My God, you want to subscribe to the doctrine of a man who continued to read “My Little Goat” for several minutes after he was informed the country was under attack? I’m glad to see that with more of these recent events (like nominating Harriet Meiers) even his biggest supportors are talking a closer look at what he’s doing.
Comment by Kevin — October 23, 2005 @ 7:22 pm - October 23, 2005
Kevin said -
I just think people should take a cold, hard look at this guy with more objective views.
After he said…
Additionally, reports now come (and I admit, anonymously) from current and former White House staff…It was supposedly this and similar events that led to…
So who’s the one having trouble taking a “cold, hard, objective look” at these issues?
Comment by Frank IBC — October 23, 2005 @ 10:19 pm - October 23, 2005
Bizarre plans (guest worker program for immigrants at a time when we’re supposed to be clamping down on immigrants)
Wow, I never thought I’d hear a liberal say “immigrant = terrorist”.
Introduction of laws and ammendments to take away the rights of citizens (the marriage ammendment)
A right which only exists in the commonwealth of Massachutsetts, and even there, for less than 2 years.
demonization of an entire 1/3 of our government (attacks on the judciary)
And I could say that Kevin is demonizing an entire 1/3 of our government (the Executive Branch) and it would make about as much sense.
Comment by Frank IBC — October 23, 2005 @ 10:24 pm - October 23, 2005
My God, you want to subscribe to the doctrine of a man who continued to read “My Little Goat” for several minutes after he was informed the country was under attack?
Again, I have to ask if he should of jumped up and run out of the room like a screaming queen.
But Kerry hanging around for about 30 minutes watching TV shows more leadership, I suppose.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 23, 2005 @ 11:11 pm - October 23, 2005
Introduction of laws and ammendments to take away the rights of citizens (the marriage ammendment)
Plus, Frank, don’t forget that supporting amendments and laws to take away the rights of citizens is “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”, as explained to us by Democrats and all major gay-rights organizations.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 23, 2005 @ 11:26 pm - October 23, 2005
Pussy in #23, thanks for supplying the links. No matter how you dress up your rhetoric, each of those reports shows that the president (and Prime Minister) did not tinker with the intelligence to yield the results they wanted. As I blogged here. The Robb-Silberman Commission “found no evidence of political pressure” to alter intelligence findings. “Analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter their analytical judgments.”
Those who claim “Bush lied” have yet to provide one shred of evidence that he did. Indeed, Joe Wilson’s claims have been so thoroughly debunked that it’s hardly worth spending time addressing them–even though the media continues to report them as if they were gospel truth.
And even Mr. Wilkerson (whom you reference) while criticizing the president’s policy in Iraq, has acknowledge the consensus view (in 2003) that Iraq had WMD.
And, Kevin in #26, it’s clear you’re projecting onto the president by saying it “was clearly from a point of personal retribution for a family member, not a president of the US.” If you read his words, you would see that he made solid arguments. Your statement says much about your attitude towards the president of the United States — and very little about the man himself.
As to your last paragraph, where you pay homage to Michael Moore, you also offer a litany of attacks which seem to be borrowed from left-wing blogs rather than from serious evaluations of the president’s record.
You guys continue to repeat and repeat and repeat the left-wing mantra that “Bush Lied” without providing any evidence that he did so.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — October 24, 2005 @ 5:20 am - October 24, 2005
My Little Goat
Sheesh, he can’t even get his DNC/MoveOn/Michael Moore talking points correct.
Comment by Frank IBC — October 24, 2005 @ 7:31 am - October 24, 2005
Frank I.B.C.
Got your goat, Pet?
Comment by chandler in hollywood — October 24, 2005 @ 4:15 pm - October 24, 2005
#33
What a Chumpler!
Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 24, 2005 @ 11:13 pm - October 24, 2005
And what is ThatGayConserve?
Cherry Lube?
The Chumplemeister:)
Comment by chandler in hollywood — October 24, 2005 @ 11:49 pm - October 24, 2005