I have it on good source that Rove is about to be indicted. Unfortunately, I can't divulge anything more. But mark my words.

C'mon don't do this to us. Spill the beans. No one will know.

I have it on good source that Rove is about to be indicted. Unfortunately, I can't divulge anything more. But mark my words.

This and $2.50 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks (or is it more, I don't know, don't drink coffee). I personally couldn't be any happier if this did happen, but your "sources" are lacking for now. If this does come to fruition, I will bow before you as a great prognosticator of such things, but for now, I just don't see it happening, much to my chagrin. If Delay and Rove both step out in the same week, that would be sweet.

I have it on good source that Rove is about to be indicted. Unfortunately, I can't divulge anything more. But mark my words.

We once heard a story about a certain ski racer misbehaving in an airport that came from a good source.

Tick Tock, Tick Tock....

The mouse ran up the clock.

The mouse ran up the clock.

spill it Spydie! Should I be checking CNN breaking news?

spill it Spydie! Should I be checking CNN breaking news?

Again, I can't divulge my source. One thing you should note is that Mr. Rove's status has been changed to a "subject." :D

"... not yet a Target?" Wow! Talk about trying to minimize the damage... 3 1/2 hrs testifying today!!!

Tick tock!!!

I thought that it was a bit rash of you to post this last week, I thought that you were purely speculating and posting as fact. Turns out that I'm wrong. I wonder if Snake will post an apology too. As I recall, I think that he thought that you were a bit daft too.

BT

You're a moreon. But go ahead and make a fool of yourself. It's fun to watch.

From the AP (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060427/ap_on_go_ot/cia_leak_investigation)
Rove "testified voluntarily and unconditionally at the request of Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald to explore a matter raised since Mr. Rove's last appearance," Luskin said in a statement. "Mr. Fitzgerald has affirmed that he has made no decision concerning charges." According to Luskin, Fitzgerald has advised that Rove is not a target of the investigation.

So, according to his lawyer, he did nothing wrong.

Case closed!

No according to his lawyer, Fitzgerald informed them, Rove was not a target of the investigation. Just as the AP article says. I know you can understand that.

No according to his lawyer, Fitzgerald informed them, Rove was not a target of the investigation. Just as the AP article says. I know you can understand that.

Yes, I saw that line right after the line that said Fitz has made no decisions about charges.

Lawyers don't always tell the truth, especially not to the press. I know YOU can understand THAT.

The part about lawyers not always telling the truth? Now that she's retired, my Mom would agree :D

I thought that it was a bit rash of you to post this last week, I thought that you were purely speculating and posting as fact. Turns out that I'm wrong. I wonder if Snake will post an apology too. As I recall, I think that he thought that you were a bit daft too.

BT

Now that's what I call class!

I expected three weeks ago my original post would draw a little heat. It just shows how slow Fitzgerald goes.

My source is as quiet as ever. One thing I can say is that Fitzy has 'always' indicted people he has listed as a "subject" of an investigation.

Tick Tock, Tick Tock!!!

You're a moreon. But go ahead and make a fool of yourself. It's fun to watch.

From the AP (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060427/ap_on_go_ot/cia_leak_investigation)

What will be fun to watch is the perp walk!

You could take a lesson from eyebob. You know I always substanciate my posts. It surprises me that this one time I can't disclose my source you have me hangin out on a limb with AJS.

As I said before, mark my words.

So you are getting illcit info on a federal investigation? Hmmm? What to do?

What will be fun to watch is the perp walk!

You could take a lesson from eyebob. You know I always substanciate my posts. It surprises me that this one time I can't disclose my source you have me hangin out on a limb with AJS.

As I said before, mark my words.

HAHAHAHAHAHA! You "substantiate" your posts by cutting and pasting from websites run by folks just like you who write just what you want to hear, even if it isn't quite the truth.

Can't disclose your source? Is that because your source is your own imagination? "About to be indicted" indeed. I'd say the time frame for "about" passed more than a few days ago.

quoted deleted post DELETED - hoo

parenthetical comment by kendlefox calling me out deleted as well.

Not only will I delete your post, but I will tell you that you had better be around a bit longer before you call me out. I suggest you report bad posts if you see them, I don't pay close attention to every post in every thread, every minuite of the day (like 15 minutes ago when the insult happened). If you don't report bad posts, or PM me, you are not helping.

If you want to escalate thing by calling me out in a snide comment in a thread, I suggest you search this forum for what it means to be edited with extreme prejudice. -- dr hoo

Who is to say...I mean you are making it very difficult for them to decide if your most recent post crossed the line.

:rolleyes:

/didn't paste the above post, since it didn't seem fair for Hoo to have to go into 2 posts to delete the offensive vitriol.

Who is to say...I mean you are making it very difficult for them to decide if your most recent post crossed the line.

:rolleyes:

/didn't paste the above post, since it didn't seem fair for Hoo to have to go into 2 posts to delete the offensive vitriol.

Please note my edit...

Who is to say...I mean you are making it very difficult for them to decide if your most recent post crossed the line.

:rolleyes:

/didn't paste the above post, since it didn't seem fair for Hoo to have to go into 2 posts to delete the offensive vitriol.

As you can tell, my post intentionally crossed the line. It's a statement. They choose not to address things in private, I chose to address them in public.

Please note my edit...

Your edit is noted, re the title. Please notice MY edit.

Your edit is noted, re the title. Please notice MY edit.

I have been educated today... :eek:

Please note: I cant tell if you were posting to me or not, but I was not attempting to call you out...

Not only will I delete your post, but I will tell you that you had better be around a bit longer before you call me out. I suggest you report bad posts if you see them, I don't pay close attention to every post in every thread, every minuite of the day (like 15 minutes ago when the insult happened). If you don't report bad posts, or PM me, you are not helping.

If you want to escalate thing by calling me out in a snide comment in a thread, I suggest you search this forum for what it means to be edited with extreme prejudice. -- dr hoo

Biting my tongue with "extreme prejudice."

Tick Tock!

Tick Tock!

your going to keep this thread at the top, and then a year later you will say "I told you so"...

your going to keep this thread at the top, and then a year later you will say "I told you so"...

Considering how the Rove fans here think it will never happen... if it happens, even if it takes a year, he *will* have told us so.

My source refuses to define the time frame for "about." He has only repeated the obvious. "Fitzgerald is not in a hurry."

Is this what you're talking about? :)


Fitzgerald to Seek Indictment of Rove
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Report

Friday 28 April 2006

Despite vehement denials by his attorney, who said this week that Karl Rove is neither a "target" nor in danger of being indicted in the CIA leak case, the special counsel leading the investigation has already written up charges against Rove, and a grand jury is expected to vote on whether to indict the Deputy White House Chief of Staff sometime next week, sources knowledgeable about the probe said Friday afternoon.

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald was in Chicago Friday and did not meet with the grand jury.

Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, was informed via a target letter that Fitzgerald is prepared to charge Rove for perjury and lying to investigators during Rove’s appearances before the grand jury in 2004 and in interviews with investigators in 2003 when he was asked how and when he discovered that Valerie Plame Wilson worked for the CIA, and whether he shared that information with the media.

{snip}

In recent weeks, sources close to the case said, Fitzgerald's staff has met with Rove's legal team several times to discuss a change in Rove's status in the case - from subject to target - based on numerous inconsistencies in Rove's testimony, whether he discussed Plame Wilson with reporters before her name and CIA status were published in newspaper reports, and whether he participated in a smear campaign against her husband.

The meetings between Luskin and Fitzgerald which took place on several occasions a few weeks ago were called to discuss a timeframe to schedule a return to the grand jury by Rove to testify about, among other things, 250 pages of emails that resurfaced February 6 from Vice President Dick Cheney's office and the Office of President Bush in which Rove wrote to former White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card about strategizing an attack against Wilson, sources familiar with the case said.


Link to article. (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/042806Y.shtml)