Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

PBS Newshour: Mark Shields expects Rove to be indicted - (VIDEO)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
dzika Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-09-05 07:55 AM
Original message
PBS Newshour: Mark Shields expects Rove to be indicted - (VIDEO)
July 8, 2005

Video - PBS Newshour: Mark Shields expects Rove to be indicted




Streaming Video in Windows Media format (4 minutes)

download

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-09-05 08:03 AM
Response to Original message
1. Very interesting. Thanks for posting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
senseandsensibility Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-09-05 11:13 AM
Response to Original message
2. Yes that's interesting
especially since Shields is not exactly a flaming liberal or the type to make wild eyed predictions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RebelOne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-09-05 11:29 AM
Response to Original message
3. I don't think it will happen.
And I won't hold my breath waiting for his indictment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GalleryGod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-09-05 11:33 AM
Response to Original message
4. Hey, Mark ! Ask Woodward! Woody sez: "Nothin' here, Move Along"
Woodward basically sums it up by saying, "Much ado about nothing"
Misunderstanding about Novak's column:puke: Judge & Prosecutor?
"Out of control. Disgraceful." Thanks, Woody:argh:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-09-05 11:39 AM
Response to Original message
5. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-09-05 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #5
13. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
redstateblues Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-09-05 12:05 PM
Response to Original message
6. I didn't hear him say "Karl Rove will be indicted"
he danced all around it and believes that a crime was committed
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bear425 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-09-05 02:39 PM
Response to Original message
7. Thanks for posting. David Brooks was sure spinning a yarn there
at the end, huh?

Hopefully, this week we'll see!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClayZ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-09-05 02:47 PM
Response to Original message
8. I Still Believe!
Edited on Sat Jul-09-05 02:48 PM by ClayZ
That The BAD GUYS LOSE!



:popcorn:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skip fox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-09-05 02:49 PM
Response to Original message
9. Many indictments comings. Two or more strong charges against Rove.
It's not that hard to figure out. The number of calls to reporters from sources, the ability of reporters to easily confirm information (good secondary sources), and the fact that there were at least two sources all point to Rove as the conspirator and to multiple indictments of administrative officials.

Reasoning:

There were at least 6 initial calls and 2 different callers, which means Rove likely coordinated it, conspired within it, etc., and was perhaps a primary source himself. It also means there will be more than one indictment of the administration's top officials. Read on.

Rational for the numbers of source-calls &c:

The situation strongly implies that there were at least 2 different primary sources (since Matt Cooper's specifically released him, but Judith Miller's apparently did not do the same for her) and reason maintains there were at least 6 initial calls (the 6 reporters contacted: Robert Novak, Cooper, Miller, and 3 others), and 3 follow-up calls (Novak, Miller, Cooper). This is the minimum.

How did it happen?

In order to make sure the story leaked properly, discrediting Wilson's Niger yellow-cake findings by implying he and his wife, Valerie Plame, had an agenda against the president from the beginning, a single person would most likely have coordinated the calling. (Of course he could have made calls as well.) He would make sure that neither of the 2 or more sources should call the other's initial contact (that would seem too eager, perhaps a dirty trick). In addition, 4-5 others, secondary sources, would have to know the story was true in order to confirm it, and they had to be encouraged to do so.

Who better to coordinate this activity than the master of such odious activities, Karl Rove? Perhaps Cheney (who would have felt responsibility in such a matter since it was the behest of his office that the CIA sent Wilson to Niger) used his clearance to discover this information and brought it to Rove at a meeting of the White House Iraq Group (see snippy's beautiful post in DU, link at bottom of this post). Then Rove would go into high gear, doing what he does best (I mean worst). He coordinated the callings, made sure there were the requisite secondary sources ready and willing to confirm (perhaps each having different details or a different slant).

Therefore, Rove may well be both a conspirator (a little RICO, anybody?), and the leaker of illegal information, AND we may have at least one other indictment handed down. Think of the possibilities! Rice, Cheney, Libby, Hughes (why the hell did she retire before?), Matalin, etc. Maybe even W. (But the more I think about it, I wonder how many real reporters wouldn't be suspicious of a call from Rove? He might be the primary source for the likes of Novak, but few others.)

But think about the above and then read snippy's lovely item backed up by a Washington Post article:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=142863&mesg_id=142952
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mbee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-09-05 03:36 PM
Response to Original message
10. Brooks did say something to the effect that if Rove is
responsible he would have to resign. I thought I would fall off my chair when I heard that!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jack Rabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-09-05 04:58 PM
Response to Original message
11. Wilson and The Nation
Edited on Sat Jul-09-05 05:06 PM by Jack Rabbit
Joseph Wilson wrote an article for The Nation in March 2003, a few weeks after returning from his assignment in Niger and before he wrote his now-famous article for The New York Times. From the best I can tell, this is the only article Wilson has written for The Nation.

Is this what Brooks means by "This guy Wilson works for The Nation magazine"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wallwriter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-09-05 06:09 PM
Response to Original message
12. Indict! Indict! Indict!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hiley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-09-05 10:46 PM
Response to Original message
14. dzika
thank you ! I just love hearing people say those words.
hiley

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Singular73 Donating Member (999 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-09-05 11:35 PM
Response to Original message
15. Look folks....this is different.
Edited on Sat Jul-09-05 11:36 PM by Singular73
This is not one of those stuffed animals and unicorns "I want to believe" DU events.

There is a special prosecutor at work on this. The man is dead serious. Serious as a heart attack.

Someone is going down on this, and it will be big.

Lets see how the cards fall.

And this is coming from someone that knew that the DSM would lead to nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Griffy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-10-05 04:06 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. your wrong about DSM... it has started something..
it has lead to alot already.. and its just gettingstarted.. this case is years old and may just now get footing, the DSM also has a foothold and its support is growing. 7/23 are townhalls all across the country and another wave of Conyers hearings!

BE the MEDIA.. be bold, find a way to get the truth out!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 27th 2024, 07:56 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC