Rove likely to resign if indicted
 

Karl Rove has a plan, as always. Even before testifying last week for the fourth time before a grand jury probing the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity, Bush senior adviser Rove and others at the White House had concluded that if indicted he would immediately resign or possibly go on unpaid leave, several legal and Administration sources familiar with the thinking told TIME.

Resignation is the much more likely scenario, they say. The same would apply to I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, the Vice President's chief of staff, who also faces a possible indictment. A former White House official says Rove's break with Bush would have to be clean—no "giving advice from the sidelines"—for the sake of the Administration.

Severing his ties would allow Rove—who as deputy chief of staff runs a vast swath of the West Wing—to fight aggressively "any bull___ charges," says a source close to Rove, like allegations that he was part of a broad conspiracy to discredit Plame's husband Joseph Wilson. Rove's defense: whatever he did fell far short of that.

Special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald appears to be seriously weighing a perjury charge for Rove's failure to tell grand jurors that he talked to TIME correspondent Matthew Cooper about Plame, according to a person close to Rove. Rove corrected himself in a later grand jury session. If charged with perjury, he will maintain he simply didn't recall the conversation with Cooper and told Fitzgerald as soon as he did.

Those strategies are being shaped absent any real knowledge of what Fitzgerald might do before the grand jury's scheduled dissolution on Oct. 28. "If he played his cards any closer to the vest, they'd be in his underwear," says a lawyer who is a friend of the White House. But Fitzgerald's intentions aren't the only mystery. Another character in the drama remains unnamed: the original source for columnist Robert Novak, who wrote the first piece naming Plame. Fitzgerald, says a lawyer who's involved in the case, "knows who it is—and it's not someone at the White House."

On Sunday, Oct. 16, the New York Times published its long-awaited account of reporter Judith Miller's dealings with Libby; she had spent 85 days in jail before receiving written and oral permission from Libby to testify before the grand jury. The nearly 6,000-word Times account says that notes Miller turned over to the prosecutor contain Plame's name, misspelled as "Valerie Flame," in the same notebook she used to interview Libby, but as Miller wrote in an accompanying first-person piece in the Times, she told the grand jury she believed that information came from "another source, whom I could not recall." In her 3,500-word account of her grand jury appearance, Miller says Fitzgerald also asked questions about Vice President Dick Cheney, including if Libby ever indicated to her whether "Cheney had approved of his interviews with me or was aware of them. The answer is no." The Times account makes clear that Miller's bosses supported her decision to go to jail but that there were deep tensions between Miller and her editors about her overall role in the affair and a disagreement between one of her lawyers, Robert Bennett, and the Times lawyer about her eventual reaching out to Libby that resulted in her freedom.

for full article..
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...118313,00.html

Fitzgerald also asked questions about Vice President Dick Cheney, including if Libby ever indicated to her whether "Cheney had approved of his interviews with me or was aware of them.

The answer is no."

I just wanted to highlight that for the moderator who created this thread.

-Rudey

Did I ever say anything about Cheney?

It was in the article you posted.

You did post an article right?

-Rudey

Yes but you make it sound like I am claiming Cheney is guilty of something. The article is about Rove will likely resign if indicted.

I didn't say you claimed anything.

You posted an article.

I posted a quote from that article.

That's simple really. Isn't it?

-Rudey

Ok. Can you explain why you wanted me to see that quote?

Well in this country we believe in innocent until proven guilty.

The quote is an example of the innocence (example emphasized).

-Rudey

I agree Cheney is likely innocent. Rove maybe as well. The article talks about if he is indicted he will likely resign, not stating he is guilty.

As a moderator, do you ever feel that you need to show any semblance of moderation?

-Rudey

If I was getting paid to moderate this forum sure.

Moderate runs the forum the way we feel it should be run. Nothing more, nothing less.

That's fine.

Then take your lumps and don't complain. Nothing more, nothing less.

-Rudey

Who's complaining? Seems like you're the one complaining.

Really? I don't see myself complaining and if I am complaining in your eyes, then you are complaining about my complaining.

-Rudey

Moderate (verb) does not mean the same thing as moderate (adjective).

For someone who has me on ignore, you sure do follow my posts a lot.

And save those English lessons for yourself. Maybe they'll be handy for you some day.

-Rudey
--Stalk much?

Inferring that someone is a stalker because she responded to your continued misuse of the word "moderate" is pretty lame. Rather than engaging in ad hominem attacks, why don't you explain your apparent obsession with The1calledTKE?

1) You are a stalker because you can't stop following my posts. Even when you pretend you've got me on ignore.

2) Playing grammar police is "lame". Save those grammar lessons for moe.ron, or pay more attention to your own grammar.

3) Obsession? Apparent? Well either you're making things up, have psychological issues that cloud your judgement, or aren't bright enough to see there is any obsession on my part.

-Rudey

(1) Following your posts? Other than this thread and responding to your snide little comments, you're pretty much a non-factor in my GC posting. You, on the other hand, can't get enough of commenting about me and my ignore list.

(2) I'm not playing grammar police. You've consistently misused a word in this thread to imply that a moderator should be moderate. That's faulty word usage and blatantly incorrect.

(3) Apparently I am bright enough to see that there is any obsession on your part.

Not really on all 3 parts. I've determined your problems are biological and there is little more to address with you in this thread.

-Rudey

You must be very talented if you can diagnose biological problems on the internet. Too bad you can't engage in a discussion without resorting to attacks.

Rudey, you always insult people when they make valid points which you don't agree with.
This is not a Dick Cheney thread! It is about Karl Rove! If you want a Dick Cheney thread, feel free to start one. Either talk about Rove or find a new thread to haunt!

I saw no attack. Stop making things up. Go to a doctor and keep me on ignore.

-Rudey

Show me the insult.

I quoted a line in his article that he posted. Did you read it at all or are you just bored and wanting to attack me?

-Rudey

I was referring to when you called Valkyrie a "stalker" and when you said she had problems which are "biological."
And my point still stands, if what you want to talk about is Cheney, start a Cheney thread instead of hijacking the Rove thread.

She was. But you don't know anything about that and are commenting.

I didn't come on here to talk about Cheney. If you wanted to attack me, create a thread for that.

Again, next time read, think, and then comment. Your attacks should be saved for the next election. And I thought a girl that enjoyed cute little Sanrio cartoons would be much kinder.

-Rudey

It's okay. If I lacked the skills needed to engage in argument or discussion on a message board, I'd probably resort to unfounded personal attacks, too.

No ifs about that.

-Rudey

Rudey, Please get over Yourself and let it go.

You dont have to continue to act or seem to be an ass.

I really dont think anyone is impressed with Either Your trying to build Your Post numbers or want to just be silly so to speak?

Does a membrane sound good? You know like a broken condom?;)

Tom,

You should concentrate on how people view you. If you too want to jump on the "Bash Rudey" wagon, go ahead, but I doubt anyone will care that you chose to pad your post number by doing so.

-Rudey
--I don't know what condoms are.

WOW, You are a real shits and grins!:)

No, I really dont care what people think of Me usually the FAB 4 as unlike Yourself a multitude!

You just dont seem to get it? You cannot be that inane, can Oye You?:confused:

Oh, are You off the clock at work or still using Company PC?:(

Go to the local Pub and try to impress some of the Normal Ale Drinkers.

I don't like pubs. How do you sell cigarettes and contemplate giving people lung cancer while posting on GC? :*(

-Rudey

Cause I love screwing people like You do!:)

If You were a Lab Rat, close, and had s**t injected into you as they do, Hell You could make a Rat Die.

You just advise people to Spend Hard Money investing in stocks/bonds that can be worthless. I guess that is what You do or profess. I never found a Broker that knew more than me when it came to investing!

Tired of your baiting, go home shipless wonderer! You dont go to Pubs? They dont allow You in as being the resident dill wad?

I'm not a broker so you may wish to apologize to those on this website that are.

By the way, I'm neither gay nor interested, but I do appreciate your attention.

-Rudey
--I love big signatures and tend to keep my old ones.

You sure do a whole lot of mocking other people's professions - first lawyers, now financial people. I'm not sure what any of it has to do with the topics you post in, but maybe that's just me.