NOOOooooo not another Poll!

Polls are cool, Rove was a scape-goat.. :huh:

 

Rove has been Commander-in-Chief of the Dirty Tricks Unit for Bush since the latter was Governor of Texas. Anyone who thinks he didn't call this shot is stupid or naive.

 

Has the prosecution ever come out and said he was cleared, or was the announcement only from Rove's lawyer?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ShellyT @ Sep 1 2006, 01:10 PM) [snapback]312863[/snapback]</div>

Fitzgerald is persuing the lies that were told during the leak investigation, not the leak itself. Not even Libby is "guilty" in a legal sense of anything. He hasn't been tried yet. The kow is trying to play word games with the word "guilty", since Rove is culpable of leaking, so in that sense he is "guilty", but not in any legal sense.

 

From the NY Times at http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/30/washingt...itage.html?_r=1 (subscription required, but its free):

Now that the leaker is not one of the "neo-cons" but someone the Democrats like ... he's one of the "Powell Guys" ... the controversy will fade away. But the bro-ha-ha didn't need to happen anyway, and this whole affair is one more example why independent prosecutors, given full latitude, are a bad idea:

Ah, but why let an admission to the FBI stop you from appointing a special prosecutor? Its so tasty to have one fishing about, looking for loose change in the sofa. What's a few million here or there to spend when you might be able to embarrass Dick Cheney ... hire the prosecutor ANYWAY even though you already know who did it. You never know what you may turn up ...

For instance, maybe someone will slip up and say they "heard it in the papers" when you can prove they saw it in a memo ... if they read it, of course ... and AH-HA! Snagged the big one! A guy named "Scooter", for heaven's sake.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Sep 1 2006, 03:24 PM) [snapback]312914[/snapback]</div>

On the other hand, the NSA activities have been found unconstitutional, and W's support of them could not only lead to impeachment, but possibly (although not probably) prison.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Sep 3 2006, 01:25 PM) [snapback]313567[/snapback]</div>

Did you note that you were quoting yourself? While usually I pass those kinds of things off as harmless error, in this case it is appropriate to note that not only are you talking to yourself, but you are probably the only one who believes this.

Since when has a SupCt case deciding the legality of something EVER been a reason for impeachment? We impeach people for high crimes and misdemeanors, not differences of opinion. Until the law is settled, which is what the SupCt decision does, there is no crime.

Do you have a single legal scholar who agrees with you?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Sep 3 2006, 08:01 PM) [snapback]313725[/snapback]</div>

Yes of course I know that. It was an afterthought. and no I'm not the only one who believes it, it's a pretty common stance.

It's up to Congress to determine what constitutes a "high crime and misdemeanor". (Ask ANY legal scholar, they will tell you the same.) Violations of the 1st and 4th amendment against the American people seems to me to be a higher crime than lying about a blow job, but maybe that's just me.