Here is evidence of why Bush will be indicted for conspiracy

[Ugnmoose]

This is old information but well worth visiting again as we speculate on whether indictments will be returned and who will be indicted. Take note of the article pointing to the term "witnesses". The plural form indicates more than one witness testified to Bush's knowledge of the crime and the coverup. Therefore this is corroborated testimony and carries more weight. Note that the reference to Karl Rove is right on the money. This report was released June of last year. If I am a betting man, I say that Fitz has The Chimpster on conspiracy, perjury and obstruction of justice.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=32&num=4629&printer=1

Bush Leagues
Bush Knew About Leak of CIA Operative's Name
By Staff and Wire Reports
Jun 3, 2004, 05:28



Witnesses told a federal grand jury President George W. Bush knew about, and took no action to stop, the release of a covert CIA operative's name to a journalist in an attempt to discredit her husband, a critic of administration policy in Iraq.

Their damning testimony has prompted Bush to contact an outside lawyer for legal advice because evidence increasingly points to his involvement in the leak of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame's name to syndicated columnist Robert Novak.

The move suggests the president anticipates being questioned by prosecutors. Sources say grand jury witnesses have implicated the President and his top advisor, Karl Rove.

snip

Sources within the investigation say evidence points to Rove approving release of the leak. They add that their investigation suggests the President knew about Rove's actions but took no action to stop release of Plame's name.

[GetTheRightVote]

1. I believe * will get justice served to him and I hope it is soon.

:kick:

[kliljedahl]

2. Handuffs, orange suit & burlap hood

Nothing less.


Keith’s Barbeque Central

[jim3775]

3. I have to be that party pooper and point out that...

CHB is a totally unreliable "news" source.

[Ugnmoose]

4. Maybe so but answer one question

Why did Bush hire a criminal lawyer if he had nothing to hide? And the information about Rove was dead on the money. These leaks came early on, well before the feeding frenzy that started in the last two months.

[jim3775]

7. Because he's a criminal.

I never said the story wasn't wholly or partly true.

[hang a left]

17. Because he was contacted by the Special Prosecutor's Office

for questioning. Criminals don't talk to investigators without counsel present.

I don't want to discount your post either. I just don't think there are those types of leaks out there. Noone with any credibility has suggested that there are leaks that anyone has testified against the pResident. I am of the belief that the "targets" of the investigation know who they are. I believe they are people in the Senate and in DC who know who the targets are. But noone is talking.

[Fescue4u]

23. Nothing wrong with hiring a lawyer

I really cant fault anyone, including Bush for hiring a lawyer when dealing with the legal system.

Heck Clinton hired a lawyer to deal with starr and CLinton IS a lawyer and is married to one.

[nashville_brook]

6. how come? they aren't larouche are they?

[jim3775]

8. They have a lot of highly suspect stories

They had a story about how bush flies into crazy fits of rage and is secretly taking medication. It sounds plausible but there is no reason to believe them.

Edit: Atrios says arent trustworthy but doesn't elaborate

[nashville_brook]

27. isn't that common knowledge -- Bush on the Couch by Justin Frank

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060736704/qid=1122735423/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_ur_2_1/102-7626060-4830537

[Trajan]

24. Ok ... I'll bite ...

Is it 'totally' unreliable ? ...

Which would mean it is ABSOLUTELY, UTTERLY and COMPLETELY unreliable ....

Not ONE THING could they ever state, aver or print with a lick of truth, to be 'totally' unreliable ....

I would venture a guess that they are sometimes unreliable, and sometimes dead on ..... like every other source .....

[nashville_brook]

5. he's bush's brain, but he still has to ask permission on big deals

these guys are all about hierarchy. the only question in my mind is if it would blowback to W or to the dickster.

[scarletwoman]

9. Sorry. It's always nice to hear what you want to hear, but CHB is NOT

a credible source.

I want bushco to go down as much as anyone, but I have never yet seen corraborating backup to Capital Hill Blue's flights of fancy. They take a few bare bones facts and run wild with speculations.

At best they are naive and over-zealous, at worst they are disinfo. No matter what, they are not particularly useful because there's never any way to confirm what they post.

sw

[jim3775]

10. I think of CHB like I think of debka

It seems like they know their sutff and the stories have a ring of plausibility, each say they have their own shadowy sources and exclusive scoops. But in the end its all just a little too "Weekly World News".

edit: Clarification, I didn't mean to say that CHB and debka actually have good sources.

[scarletwoman]

11. That's it, the "ring of plausibility". But there's no real substance.

I indulge in speculation with abandon, but I never try to pass it off as something other than speculation -- which is what I think Capitol Hill Blue DOES do.

Maybe they have their "sources", but there's simply no way to tell. And I tend to view unverifiable information that speaks to my own prejudices with a great deal of suspicion. It's my personal commitment to integrity.

As for Debka, I have always viewed them as straight out disinfo/psyops. I don't think CHB is that sophisticated.

sw

[Ugnmoose]

12. Time will tell

as to their credibility. I place great weight on the fact that Bush hired a criminal lawyer and was interviewed under oath by Fitz for 70 minutes - an exceedinly long period of time. Personally, I believe Fitz had his case made a long time ago. It has now been well reported that Fitz has expanded the scope of his investigation - probably because the testimony and evidence presented to him and the Grand Jury indicated much greater crimes than the outing of a CIA AGent.

[scarletwoman]

14. Bush was NOT interviewed "under oath"!

Every article published -- even by non-bush sympathizers -- has made this fact clear.

Bush has NOT spoken under oath at any point during this investigation.

It's simply not useful to depart from the facts here. The ONLY way this can possibly work in our favor is to be absolutely scrupulous about the FACTS.

sw

[Ugnmoose]

19. Right you are

My apology - however I still think you are being way too critical. You are majoring in the minors here. The fact is he was interviewed for 70 minutes, which is a very long time. And he had a criminal lawyer present. Why? The story by CHB quotes sources claiming Bush knew. Perhaps this is b.s. but I tend to doubt it. It is totally illogical that this whole thing went down and Bush was totally in the dark. That's my opinion - you have yours.

[scarletwoman]

22. I'm not arguing with your opinion. I merely pointed out that CHB is

not a credible source.

I'm not saying that bush DIDN'T know, I'm just saying that CHB has no way of knowing for sure.

For a more educated and credible analysis of the meaning of bush getting a lawyer, I would cite John Dean's article in Findlaw's Writ:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20040604.html

I hope you'll read it.

sw

[Ugnmoose]

28. My question is who was granted immunity from prosecution

I believe that some witnesses were granted immunity from prosecution to tell what they know - some of which could well be that Bush knew and did nothing. Who are these witnesses? Any good prosecutor, which Fitz certainly is, works from the bottom up. All he needs to do is gather enough damning information on lower level witnesses and get them to turn. Once one turns then the facade crumbles and the house caves in. BTW, the reason I think Judy Miller is important is because she is involved in the much bigger issue of forged documents re Niger Yellowcake and not the outing of Plame.

[Scout1071]

21. Does he have to testify under oath to prove a conspiracy?

If every one else has testified that he conspired, why does it matter whether he testifies?

[Octafish]

13. Only the pretzeldunce, Sneer, Powell and Rice had proper clearance.

The NOC list is priceless. The WaPo reported the story about the memo being passed around Air Force One. One person even said they saw Ari the Fleshy Liar reading it. Who could authorize the release of such a state secret?

[scarletwoman]

15. Bolton. (n/t)

[Octafish]

20. Who's knowledge shows there's something rotten in the Monkey House.

There's no love lost between Bolton and Powell, with all those NSA intercepts being used to screw anyone who got in the madministration's march to war, let alone Powell's peeps. Historically, when BFEE turds turn on one another, it's the little folk who get the shaft. The only reason We the People got a chance is there are still good men and women left in power. If there are enough of them to stop Chimpageddon is open to question.

[The2ndWheel]

16. He will not be indicted

Ever. We will get nothing and like it.

[kestrel91316]

18. Can't indict the Prez, can only impeach, and they won't

[FreedomAngel82]

25. I hope this is true

I've always had the sense that Fitzgerald was going after something much bigger then Karl Rove. He's just the key.

[Trajan]

26. A snapshot of today's Capitol Hill Blue webpage ....

To Wit:

The Angry American
You hear a lot of words used to describe the mood of America today: Wary, apprehensive, nervous, pessimistic, cautious, etc. Another word says it best: Angry.
The Rant Jul 29, 2005, 07:39

The Real Crime
The outing of a CIA officer isn't the only potential crime that occurred in the long, tortuous attempt to prove that Saddam Hussein was buying uranium from Africa. There also is the little matter of forgery.
FUBAR Jul 29, 2005, 06:54

The Battle for Property Rights
Susette Kelo didn't plan to lend her name to a grass-roots revolution when she and six neighbors took on New London, Conn., over plans to raze their modest homes and redevelop the waterfront property as a hotel, office park and "urban-style" townhouses.
Ain't This America. . . Jul 29, 2005, 06:48

Praise the Lord...Or Else!
James Dobson isn't afraid to dish out tough love. Listen closely. Don't sass back. Or else. "When a youngster tries this kind of stiff-necked rebellion, you had better take it out of him," he once wrote, "and pain is a marvelous purifier."
Politics Jul 29, 2005, 05:50

Enough Already
Pretty soon, Supreme Court nominees will be asked to supply the Senate with their high-school papers in an effort to determine their future votes on key issues like abortion and the Ten Commandments. That is, of course, if the special-interest groups have their way.
Opinion Jul 29, 2005, 04:58

Is Hillary Marching to a Conservative Drummer?
If Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's rightward march continues, her media cheerleaders will relaunch her as "Hillary Rodham Goldwater." Sympathetic commentators have ballyhooed the New York Democrat's shift toward the center. Each of her less-than-socialist utterings confirms her mounting moderation. Don't believe the hype.
Opinion Jul 29, 2005, 04:55

Sending a Latino to do America's Job
Once again, it's G.I. Jose to the rescue. It should be no surprise that Latinos are being called -- albeit, very quietly -- to do what most U.S. residents don't want their children to consider: enlist in the U.S. military.
Opinion Jul 29, 2005, 04:00

Negative Media Coverage
Mark Yost, editorial-page associate editor of the St. Paul Pioneer Press, a Knight Ridder newspaper, committed a major boo-boo. He penned a provocative column on media coverage of the Iraq war, observing that from what his contacts there told him -- with apologies to Johnny Mercer -- the mainstream media are accentuating the negative and ignoring the positive.
Opinion Jul 29, 2005, 03:57

(Newsfeeds Courtesy of Yahoo)

-snip-

Nearly EVERY story is supported elsewhere by major media, or is opinion ......

Go figure ...