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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (708313)	10/21/2005 3:03:56 PM
From: pompsander	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Here's a couple of those honest guys you were talking about... Possible cover-up a focus in Plame case By Adam Entous 50 minutes ago WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Prosecutors investigating the outing of a covert CIA operative are focusing on whether top White House aides Karl Rove and Lewis Libby tried to conceal their involvement from investigators, lawyers involved in the case said on Friday. ADVERTISEMENT Rove, President George W. Bush's top political adviser, and Libby, who is chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney, are at the center of federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation into who leaked the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame. Plame's identity was leaked to the media after her diplomat husband, Joseph Wilson, challenged the Bush administration's prewar intelligence on Iraq. The lawyers, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter, said Fitzgerald appears likely to bring charges next week in the nearly two-year leak investigation. The grand jury, which expires on October 28, convened on Friday, but it was unclear what issues they were working on since the panel appears to have completed hearing from witnesses. Fitzgerald is expected to meet with the grand jury early next week for a possible vote on indictments. One of the lawyers said prosecutors were likely starting to present their final case to jurors, either for bringing indictments or to explain why there was insufficient evidence to do so. "I would be hesitant to say it's a sign one way or the other," the lawyer said. Fitzgerald's spokesman declined to comment. While Fitzgerald could still charge administration officials with knowingly revealing Plame's identity, several lawyers in the case said he was more likely to seek charges for easier-to-prove crimes such as making false statements, obstruction of justice and disclosing classified information. He also may bring a broad conspiracy charge, the lawyers said. Legal sources said Rove may be in legal jeopardy for initially not telling the grand jury he talked to Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper about Plame. Rove only recalled the conversation after the discovery of an e-mail message he sent to Stephen Hadley, then the deputy national security adviser. Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, had no immediate comment. Luskin said earlier this week that Rove "has at all times strived to be as truthful as possible and voluntarily brought the Cooper conversation to Fitzgerald's attention." Libby could be open to false statement and obstruction charges because of contradictions between his testimony and that of New York Times reporter Judith Miller and other journalists. Miller has testified she discussed Wilson's wife with Libby as many as three times before columnist Robert Novak publicly identified her. Libby has said he learned of Wilson's wife from reporters but journalists have disputed that. Wilson says White House officials outed his wife, damaging her ability to work undercover, to discredit him for accusing the administration of twisting intelligence to justify the Iraq war in a New York Times opinion piece on July 6, 2003. After initially promising to fire anyone found to have leaked information in the case, Bush in July offered a more qualified pledge: "If someone committed a crime they will no longer work in my administration."

To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (708313)	10/21/2005 3:05:01 PM
From: Bill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Personally, I question whether she could even understand what either justice was talking about.

To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (708313)	10/22/2005 9:04:55 AM
From: BEEF JERKEY	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

MIERS ON THE CONSTITUTION....On her Senate questionnaire, Harriet Miers only took a stab at answering one question about her experience with constitutional law — and she blew it: At one point, Miers described her service on the Dallas City Council in 1989. When the city was sued for violating the Voting Rights Act, she said, the council "had to be sure to comply with the proportional representation requirement of the Equal Protection clause." But the Supreme Court repeatedly has said that the Constitution's guarantee of the "equal protection of the laws" does not mean that city councils or state legislatures must have enough minority members to match the proportion of blacks, Hispanics and Asians in the voting population. ....Stanford law professor Pamela Karlan...said she was surprised the White House did not check Miers' questionnaire before sending it to the Senate. "Are they trying to set her up? Any halfway competent junior lawyer could have checked the questionnaire and said it cannot go out like that. I find it shocking," she said. So much for that famous attention to detail. This soap opera just gets worse with every passing day. washingtonmonthly.com