It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fitzgerald: Rove will NOT be indicted

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 07:41 AM
link   
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday that Karl Rove will not be indicted in the investigation of the identity leak of Valerie Plame, a CIA employee. Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, was notified of the decision after the prosecutor had notified U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan of the news.
 



www.foxnews.com
WASHINGTON — Top White House aide Karl Rove has been told by prosecutors he won't be charged with any crimes in the investigation into leak of a CIA officer's identity, his lawyer said Tuesday, lifting a heavy burden from one of President Bush's most trusted advisers.

Attorney Robert Luskin said that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald informed him of the decision on Monday, ending months of speculation about the fate of Rove, the architect of Bush's 2004 re-election now focused on stopping Democrats from capturing the House or Senate in this November's elections.



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


There has been much speculation about whether Rove would be indicted, including a story last month by Jason Leopold of truthout.org, which claimed to have inside information that an indictment was imminent.

This should serve as a caution to all that we must not jump the gun in our zeal to bring down a person because of political differences.

Related News Links:
www.editorandpublisher.com

Related ATS Links:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 13-6-2006 by jsobecky]

[edit on 13-6-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

[edit on 13/6/2006 by Mirthful Me]




posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 11:45 AM
link   
No replies? After all the speculation on what Patrick Fitzgerald might do, when he finally does something, no one seems to have anything to say.

Interesting.



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 11:54 AM
link   
I am waiting to hear what truthout.org and Jason Leopold have to say about this. They had him wearing his prison jumpsuit not too long ago.



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Didn't they though. It was probably a coverup
. 'Cause we all know he was guilty, guilty, guilty...one more for fun...guilty. Amazing how quiet it becomes isn't it?

Could it be they just don't like you, jsobecky? Nah...I think your a likable person myself, and I'm never wrong
.

[edit on 13-6-2006 by seagull]



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 12:03 PM
link   
I see where Truthout has issued an apology for "getting so far out in front" of the actual news. Their reporter with "inside" information should be canned for his lack of integrity.



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by seagull
It was probably a coverup
.


Are you insinuating that Patrick Fitzgerald is complicit in a coverup regarding Karl Rove? Stop the presses!

Or is this just more wishful thinking?



[edit on 13/6/2006 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 12:11 PM
link   
Who me? I really, and I mean this in all sencerity, was kidding. Note the smiley face, or was it the wink. Oh well, no I don't believe there was a coverup. Someone will be sure to say there is though.



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Well i was wrong and the truthout article was wrong, BUT if the truth be told I doubt seriously if he's not being indited because they cleared him, more likely they cannot specifically pin this on him, even though it smacks of the type of personal attack rove specializes in.



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 01:29 PM
link   
I'll say coverup.

Exactly like grover says. Just because he is unindicted doesn't mean hes innocent. He ruined someones life and ought to be punished.

Of course roves boss can manipulate the system to save his own servant. Bush has siezed power to the extent that he controlls practically everything, and can make it go away.

Just like Ronnie Ray-gun did in the 1980s with the whole arms for hostages deal. North was expendable then. So set to watch Roves go-fer take any heat aimed at rove.



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
Well i was wrong and the truthout article was wrong, BUT if the truth be told I doubt seriously if he's not being indited because they cleared him, more likely they cannot specifically pin this on him, even though it smacks of the type of personal attack rove specializes in.
Oh, yea. I agree. But he's free to continue doing what he does best. Look out.



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
Well i was wrong and the truthout article was wrong, BUT if the truth be told I doubt seriously if he's not being indited because they cleared him, more likely they cannot specifically pin this on him, even though it smacks of the type of personal attack rove specializes in.

Maybe we should adopt the Scottish system of judgements, which include guilty, not guilty, and not proven, eh?

Until then, we must live with what we have.



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mirthful Me
Are you insinuating that Patrick Fitzgerald is complicit in a coverup regarding Karl Rove?


More likely, Rove turned state's evidence.

And, no, seagull, it's not because people don't like jsobecky!


What can we say? It's all been said right here. Rove is currently "not guilty" in a court of law, but in the court of public opinion and in REALITY... that's another story. How many of you really truly believe he's an innocent man, I wonder? Just curious.

Not a word about it on truthout. :shk: Astronomer70, is that a new apology or the same one as before? If it's new, do you have a link?

Fitz Blog



“Does not anticipate seeking charges” means that if Rove testifies at Libby’s trial as expected, and as his agreement no doubt provides for him to testify, (lawyers call it providing “ongoing cooperation”), then all will be well for him. But if he “goes sideways” on Fitz and testifies differently from what is now expected, he could be charged–w/perjury certainly, and his deal to avoid criminal liability in the larger conspiracy could be “off” as he could face charges in that as well.



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by seagull
Could it be they just don't like you, jsobecky? Nah...I think your a likable person myself, and I'm never wrong
.


Pfft. So they don't like me. What's their opinion against that of 10,000 lovely women anyway, eh?



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic


What can we say? It's all been said right here. Rove is currently "not guilty" in a court of law, but in the court of public opinion and in REALITY... that's another story. How many of you really truly believe he's an innocent man, I wonder? Just curious.


I keep coming back to the fact that by strict definition, Plame was no longer a covert agent. So where's the foul?



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 10:56 PM
link   
The fact that Mr. Rove, AKA Bush's Brain will not be tried or indicted is a blessing in disguise. It will spare us the agony of having the criminal proceedings suspended due to state security. Remember Iran-Contra!



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by grover
Well i was wrong and the truthout article was wrong, BUT if the truth be told I doubt seriously if he's not being indited because they cleared him, more likely they cannot specifically pin this on him, even though it smacks of the type of personal attack rove specializes in.

Maybe we should adopt the Scottish system of judgements, which include guilty, not guilty, and not proven, eh?

Until then, we must live with what we have.


actually thats not a bad idea.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join