Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bentway who wrote (253437)	10/2/2005 10:23:36 AM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1577025

re: But a new theory about Fitzgerald's aim has emerged in recent weeks from two lawyers who have had extensive conversations with the prosecutor while representing witnesses in the case. They surmise that Fitzgerald is considering whether he can bring charges of a criminal conspiracy perpetrated by a group of senior Bush administration officials. Under this legal tactic, Fitzgerald would attempt to establish that at least two or more officials agreed to take affirmative steps to discredit and retaliate against Wilson and leak sensitive government information about his wife. To prove a criminal conspiracy, the actions need not have been criminal, but conspirators must have had a criminal purpose. You've got Cheney's Chief of Staff, and Bush's <then> "top political adviser" (now Chief of Staff), simultaneously outing a CIA agent to discredit her husband (same method, not using the name, which indicates forethought that this was illegal). It's certainly not a stretch of imagination to guess that Bush and Cheney were aware of the "conspiracy" to commit the outing, which is a crime. That possibility... and what else did Fitzgerald come across with all these folks under oath? Coupled with Miller finally agreeing to testify after assurances that the testimony would be limited to her communication with Libby, not her communications with, say, Cheney, makes you wonder what's under the hat. What happens with this? Could be everything and could be nothing, or anything in between. Watergate redux? Maybe. Nothing, maybe. Stay tuned... John

To: bentway who wrote (253437)	10/2/2005 10:26:52 AM
From: 10K a day	Respond to of 1577025

it's like this, man, Rove knew. And Rove spilled the beans. He just OUTED JOE WILSON'S WIFE and never outed 'Vallerie Plame.' <sic> Thats it.

To: bentway who wrote (253437)	10/2/2005 11:33:19 AM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577025

Their testimony seems to contradict what the White House was saying a few months after Plame's CIA job became public. In October 2003, White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters that he personally asked Libby and Rove whether they were involved, "so I could come back to you and say they were not involved." Asked if that was a categorical denial of their involvement, he said, "That is correct." Seems to contradict? That biased MSM must be driving the wingnitwits crazy... Al