• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Indictment - "Sealed" v. "Sealed" (1 Viewer)

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
About a month ago, there was a lot of speculation that Karl Rove had been indicted. Not only did the Liberal blogs jump the gun on this, but so did a couple of mainstream media figures. Turns out, they were most likely wrong.

A few days ago, Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, announced that his client was not a target anymore. Why Fitzgerald did not also announce the fact is indeed a mystery, but since Luskin could be disbarred by making that statement if it was not true, we can safely say that Rove is off the hook. However, what is being missed by the media is the fact that an indictment was handed down that week, does exist, and is under seal. The indictment itself is logged as 06 cr 128 , "Sealed v. Sealed". What is most unusual about the indictment is the "Sealed" on the left hand portion instead of the words "United States".

From the desk of Patrick Fitzgerald

So if Rove is not indicted, who is? This is going to be a most fascinating question, and it will persist for a while, since sealed indictments tend to stay under seal for weeks or even months, while the investigation progresses.

This should be one of the most interesting cliffhangers since "Who Shot JR" ended a season of the TV show "Dallas", back in the 1970's.

Who was indicted? Let the speculation begin.
 
I still wonder why Fitzgerald hasn't also announced that Rove is off the hook. Assuming Rove is off the hook, could what he said to get off the hook have to do with the indictment of someone else?
 
Am I to believe this is a legitimite website for Patrick Fitzgerald?

Poking around a little and I got the impression the owner is a bit nutso.
 
zymurgy said:
Am I to believe this is a legitimite website for Patrick Fitzgerald?
Even Superman & Hulk have blogs
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Even Superman & Hulk have blogs
Even Harriet Miers has a blog.
 
scottyz said:
Even Harriet Miers has a blog.

Harriet Miers? She DID get her up or down vote, didn't she? :2rofll:
 
BWG said:
Harriet Miers? She DID get her up or down vote, didn't she? :2rofll:

Actually, she didnt. Bush pulled her after Conservatives gave him hell about it, and she was never put up for a vote. :)
 
From the desk of Patrick Fitzgerald

What a great spoof! Very, very clever, though I wonder about the author's using the Patrick Fitzgeral likeness without permission - or maybe Fitzgerald has a sense of humour and agreed to it?
 
oldreliable67 said:
From the desk of Patrick Fitzgerald

What a great spoof! Very, very clever, though I wonder about the author's using the Patrick Fitzgeral likeness without permission - or maybe Fitzgerald has a sense of humour and agreed to it?

They may be in violation of the law misrepresenting an official in the Justice Department and government documents. Amazing Dana would post it as a true news item but then look what he did when he posted about the Army poll and misrepresented that as a scientific poll even after it was shown to be otherwise.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom