If you read this Greg Palast story:
The Spies Who Shag Us

...you just may have gotten the crap scared out of you. Not to worry. The owner of this very blog has assured us that data mining is a quite ordinary thing and all businesses do it. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Google "Kevin Drum conspiracy theories" - 616,000 hits.

Frequency nailed it!

Good Friday early evening blog post Kevin. I like your style.

Drum: What on earth are you talking about? Data mining is something that businesses use all the time, and I've written on several occasions about how potentially dangerous it is.

Frequency: You do realize that you could type in any name along with "conspiracy theories" and get millions of hits, don't you?

Imagining Rove being frog-marched out of the White House is indeed comparable to porn.

But, Leopold's record is spotty. Too bad. The idea of the RoveToad in court (and then jail) makes me smile.

But, Leopold's record is spotty

But he does have a cool, sleuthly sounding name. Unlike Drudge, which sounds like something you need to clean out of your septic tank once a month.

"any name conspiracy theories"
14,600,000 hits

:)

Preemptive Pardon?

please...if this is a dream, don't let me wake up ;-).

"President Promises Preemptive Pardon Per Presidential Prerogative Protecting Personal Pals "

This is interesting...

Sources close to the case said there is a strong chance Rove will also face an additional charge of obstruction of justice, adding that Fitzgerald has been working meticulously over the past few months to build an obstruction case against Rove because it "carries more weight" in a jury trial and is considered a more serious crime.

Frequency nailed (Barney), the First Lady is not amused.

Frequency Nails IT!

Poor Barney.

It is certainly interesting, and the it appears to have a fair amount of evidence to back it up EXCEPT he hasnt been indicted yet and given the time he wont be indicted today tommorrow or the next day IF ever.

A little googling turns up several announcements when his indictment was believed inniment, this seems to be better sourced, but until the fat lady sings...

I will be watching the news closely on Monday to see anything about Rove being indicted.

So I wonder whether the big Bush speech on Monday will really be about immigration, or whether he got a heads-up that the indictment will be on Monday and he's actually going to address that. Just wildly speculating.

"President's Promised Preemptive Pardon Per Presidential Prerogative Protecting Personal Pals Performing Petty Partisan Projects Provokes Prolonged Public Protest Promoting Poor Polling Percentage"

Two birds with one stone dept.: Monday night, Bush will announce that Karl Rove is being sent to patrol our southern border.

As they say over at FDL:

Fitz!!

Google "Frequency Kenneth conspiracy theories" and you get 327,000 hits.

As I said before, if this is true: I'll have to tell my girlfriend to stay home; I don't want to die from too many orgasms.

No way, he can't be indicted - Plame wasn't covert.

If Rove knows he'll be indicted, it seems he'd resign first so that the stories could be about a "former White House adviser", as with Claude Allen.

If Bush knows, he should fire Rove rather than let Rove resign. I have no expectation of this happening, of course, but it should be pointed out if only as a reminder that there are alternatives to acting like the Worst. President. Ever.

Neil wrote: As I said before, if this is true: I'll have to tell my girlfriend to stay home; I don't want to die from too many orgasms.

Don't want to get too personal here, but are you implying that she can solve the "problem" of too many orgasms? Hmmm... never mind. :D

There's nothing "wild" about that particular speculation, in fact it's rather routine.

I've changed my mind - torture is acceptable. Can we start with pink, puffy Rove?

"conspiracy theories" by itself - 31,700,000 hits.

> A little googling turns up several
> announcements when his indictment
> was believed inniment, this seems \
> to be better sourced, but until the
> fat lady sings...

Imminent mushroom clouds; imminent indictments. What's the diff?

Cranky

Frequency Kenneth is just a Dan Rather groupie. Ignore him.

Craigie - Don't Rove look jus' like a hog? Wouldn't you love to hear him squeal?

Just wait! Any moment now, Fitzgerald will indict Hillary Clinton and Joe Wilson (who have been having an affair for years), and it will be revealed how they conspired with Michael Moore and Alger Hiss to frame the Bush administration.

Any minute now...

Take a look at
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/21/msnbcs-shuster-signs-point-to-rove-indictment/

It looks good!
BTW, much as I might enjoy a good rush (not Rush) I don't want to die from it!

That preemptive spin at the end of Leopold's story has an authentic ring to it. It sounds as if the White House spinmeisters are already tuning up the 'that was long ago, leave it in the past and let's look at the future' rhetoric.
We should be ready to counter with reminders about Bush's boast that if anyone in his administration was involved in the Plame leak, they'd be fired.

Has407 said:
"I can intuit the part about being a more serious
crime, although the "carries more weight" is
unclear. Can someone with more legal insight
(cmdicely..?) please explain?

Perjury is lying under oath; it's a felony and that's bad enough. However, obstruction carries the additional taint (stench) of lying in an effort to sidetrack or derail an official investigation.
In other words, you're not only lying, you're doing so with the specific goal of concealment.

LeisureGuy's point about the President's immigration speech on Monday is an interesting one. But I doubt he'll talk about Rove.

Might it be a chance to stir up the right-wing base, change the subject and steal some headlines in Tuesday's papers?

Karl Rove may have done more damage to the American Republic than any single man in history. His masterful puppeteering of the idiot son of archcriminal George H.W. Bush has led to the bankrupting of the U.S. Treasury, the despoiling of the environment, the ruin of our international reputation and brought us to the brink of WWIII.

There is no prison cell dank and deep enough for this loathsome man who has no conscience....

Yeah, what next, the UFO landing? Better check yourself into the mental ward.

This is quite amusing. Once again, the Bush haters prematurely celebrate a supposed setback for the Bush administration.

The psyhiatric wards all over the country should be put on extremely high alert so that they are better prepared to manage the pandemic of nervous breakdowns that is bound to ensue as soon as their wishful thinking officially turns out to be just that.

I can't stop posting.

fake tbrosz:

I don't know why you think that these tortuous circumlocutions are tbrosz-speak. It's not so much how he says it that marks him, it's what he says. You've got the content down - now you just have to work on the vocabulary.

Karl Rove's hands may be weak, but I love their pale white glow. He's a porcelain beauty.

KARL ROVER
WHO DAT
AND
WHO CARES?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hey Kebun
whut ba be aba Enbatalecctual EELEETE?
Jeebus hewp uss eff eets ah Bush or ahh Rove

Pleez inturdrpolete thees quote fer uss dummazz
sheeple, weez dint gu too skool, musch, shert Boos. yeh kno.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries.”
David Rockefeller,
( founder of the Trilateral Commission),
in an address to a meeting of The Trilateral Commission,
in June, 1991.
~~~~~~~~~~
Ah meen WTF?

Release the hounds!

By the way, does anyone know the technical difference between, say, sheer speculation and wild speculation?

Google Bush Conspiracy=
Results 1 - 10 of about 22,600,000

for Bush Conspiracy. (0.11 seconds)

Karl Rove is known as Ms Piggy
in the umm Discrete Bars
[Rumor=]

sheer speculation is almost naked.
wild speculation is dressed, but extremely noisy.
idle speculation is what you do when you can't be bothered to get off the couch to speculate.
mere speculation is what you do with traded options.

However, obstruction carries the additional taint (stench) of lying in an effort to sidetrack or derail an official investigation.
In other words, you're not only lying, you're doing so with the specific goal of concealment.

Can you be convicted of obstruction of justice without a showing that justice (e.g. correct punishment of wrongdoing) was indeed obstructed?

Doesn't somebody have to show that an actual crime occured, as opposed to a political vendetta, in order for "obstruction of justice" to be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt"?

Nixon (not tried), Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Dean, Colson, and others were guilty of obstruction of justice because the crime of suborning perjury actually happened, as evidenced by the tapes and the money trail. In this case, there is considerable doubt about whether a crime actually was committed, and with that doubt, surely there is "reasonable doubt" about whether obstruction occurred.

But, hey. Rove is the kind of high value target that Fitzgerald would like to nail.

I say "there is doubt", meaning that in a jury, there will be people who have such doubt, not that every writer at Political Animal respects such doubt. In the OJ Simpson case, almost all white people in the US thought that Simpson was guilty, but a jury of his peers had plenty of reasonable (in my opinion) doubt about the quality of the evidence and the veracity of the testimony.

Google "Kevin Drum conspiracy theories" - 616,000 hits.
Posted by: Frequency Kenneth on May 12, 2006 at 8:12 PM | PERMALINK

Google "Miserable Failure".

What was your point again?

I like Leopold, but his sources have been wrong a few times. On April 28, he wrote that "the special counsel leading the investigation has already written up charges against Rove, and a grand jury is expected to vote on whether to indict the Deputy White House Chief of Staff sometime next week" and added that if an indictment was handed down, "the special prosecutor will hold a news conference, likely on a Friday afternoon." This did not happen, at least as far as I know, so I kind of wonder about his sources. After all, if you were someone who worked at the white house, would leak to truthout.org?

I, for one, will be planting a revolver in Rove's desk, with a handgrip covered in epoxy.

Hopefully, just as they bust down the door, he will have seen the gun, and picked it up, wondering why it's there. And when the cops draw their guns on him, hopefully he'll wave it about madly trying to shake it loose.

One can dream.

On the pardon Rove concept (at least before the 2008 election) -
Bush can hardly pardon Rove and not Libby, because the latter likely then is more likely to implicate those above him.

If Rove is pardoned, he can't hide behind the 5th in testifying about the case - if he perjures himself, new indictment time.

If both Rove and Libby are pardoned, Fitzpatrick continues the investigation, now with both Libby and Rove a witnesses who can't be indicted.

Just wait! Any moment now, Fitzgerald will indict Hillary Clinton and Joe Wilson (who have been having an affair for years),
Posted by: Wingnut on May 12, 2006 at 9:27 PM | PERMALINK

Please. Just don't tell me it was because he gave her a blowjob, and she left a stain on his dress.

Karl Rove may have done more damage to the American Republic than any single man in history.... and brought us to the brink of WWIII.
Posted by: Stephen Kriz on May 12, 2006 at 9:38 PM | PERMALINK

According to the idiot son of archcriminal GHW Bush, we ARE in WWIII. No, I'm serious, he really said this (see scrutiny hooligans, or maybe it was billmon).

Doesn't somebody have to show that an actual crime occured, as opposed to a political vendetta, in order for "obstruction of justice" to be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt"?

Ask Martha Stewart.
Lying to an Investigator is a Crime.
She was as you remember not convicted of insider trading as many people STILL believe, The Judge called it 'Novel'...

Results 1 - 10 of about 7,340,000 for Bush incompetent. (0.62 seconds)
Ever lie to a cop and give a false name?
Big Fine!!! =)
So Yes IM A CRIMINAL
JUST LIKE MARTHA!!

Really You trollips must do better =_)

The odd thing about this is that if Rove gets indicted, how can it possibly take huge toll on Bush's approval numbers? What's left to give there? I guess they could crawl down into the low twenties -- maybe.

But perhaps this potential Bush disgrace, and any further disgraces, aren't for us today, but for posterity. We the public need to have seared into our memories, and locked into our history books, the monumental, unprecedented, astounding, and diseased catastrophe that was the Right Wing Presidency of George W Bush.

We shall forever remember it, so that we will never repeat it.

Drum:

I'll give you a serious answer. Here is an example:
The NSA and You

This post doesn't go all the way back to the beginning, but I'm lazy.

All along, you have accepted and perpetuated the incorrect framing of the NSA thing, i.e. as being a matter of "data mining." As per the linked post, you even frame listening into the conversations themselves a form of data mining.

That is wrong. And it weakens our beef because there is absolutely nothing criminal about data mining. Data mining is merely applying a collection of analysis tools to a dataset, however it may have been gathered. Perhaps the term itself confuses you. "Mining" may sound like digging for data, but it really means digging for patterms in the data - through analysis. I know this because I used to work in the business intelligence field.

The real issue has always been the gathering of the data, not the analysis of it. The fourth amendment is about unreasonable search and seizure of our private things, not about what CSI techniques are applied to the poisoned fruits of the S&S. To insist on framing the issue as a question about "data mining" is like, well, calling something else a "war on terror."

You are a smart man. As Somerby says, you are a consummate wonk. And you have a great talent for explaining a complex issue in terms that non-wonks can grok.

But as an advocate or commentator, ostensibly on the left, you have what I think is a serious flaw. You exhibit a sometimes incapacitating fear of ever being seen as wrong - or being caught on the "wrong side" of an issue. That fear, and over-compensation for it, leads to things like:
* handing out gratuitous Mulligans to the other side when they would never do the same for you
* quickly bailing on the story if you smell a weakness about to emerge on your side.
* framing the issue wrongly or weakly, as in this case.

When we are at war for our very liberties, the left can ill aford to have spokespersons who play softball, or who bend over backwards to appear to be the good guy. We are not playing against good guys.

That's all. You can go back to what you were doing.

--Drummer

craigie:

I don't know why you think that these tortuous circumlocutions are tbrosz-speak. It's not so much how he says it that marks him, it's what he says. You've got the content down - now you just have to work on the vocabulary.

Give the poor guy a break. He's probably getting close to burning out neural circuits as it is, forcing new sections of his brain into unfamiliar activity.

The odd thing about this is that if Rove gets indicted, how can it possibly take huge toll on Bush's approval numbers? What's left to give there? I guess they could crawl down into the low twenties -- maybe.

personally, I think they WANT to get Bush's approval numbers down.

So that Democrats in congress start to get a false sense of empowerment, and start trying stuff, hopefully before the 06 elections, so that the Republicans can fire up their base with "impeachment" and "investigation" hysteria.

Republicrat and ABRAXAS: You don't think it is a "real" crime to lie in an investigation? Hmmm... What was that impeachment thing that so many on the right got all excited about during the last administration?

As for your point that a prosecutor should be required to prove an underlying crime, beyond a reasonable doubt, before issuing an obstruction charge...
Sorry, but I don't think you get it. You issue an obstruction charge when an involved person clearly has lied and attempted to conceal and coverup the extent of their involvement. Very often, you're dealing with powerful and resourceful people. Very often, they are successful, to some extent, in covering up their culpability. Fitzgerald made this point, very eloquently, in his press conference after Libby was indicted.

It might help to think of a late-night, side-of-the-road traffic stop. You're suspected of drunken driving. To conceal your guilt, you refuse to take a breath or blood test. Okay, you can do that. But then we charge you with a refusal violation. And by the way, the penalty for a refusal is the same (or worse) in most states. Do you see? We have to give people a consequence when they try to game the system, and it's important to not provide an incentive to lie and coverup one's culpability.

So, to protect the integrity of the system, to discourage lying by those in an investigation, and to give the public SOME REMEDY against those who have lied and concealed their behavior in the context of a criminal investigation, the prosecution has the option of seeking an indictment for perjury or obstruction.

Unfair to Libby and/or Rove? I don't believe their stories about being confused and forgetful. Do you? If they lied to conceal criminal conduct, that was a matter within their control, wasn't it? They knew this could happen.

And as for Mr. Fitzgerald out to "bag" somebody prominent, without regard to the merits, please remember he's a Republican appointee. And he's the U.S. Attorney for the Northern Dist. of Illinois. He's already got a high-profile, grown-up job, and he's already been very successful in a number of very high profile public integrity cases in Illinois. Like that State's highest officials. He's very good, very hardworking, appears very conservative, and there's no evidence he pursues anyone without a damned good reason.

Postscript.

For the government toi be in possession of the call records of what appears to be the majority of the telephone customers in the US is just plain wrong.

It may turn out, in case law, to pass Constitutional muster (although I can't see how). It may turn out to be legal because they simply bought, as if they were a business. But regardless, it is wrong, wrong, wrong. It is an invasion of privacy on a massive scale.

It doesn't matter whether the government uses sophisticated data mining tools on it, or simply keeps it around in case they want to target a political enemy or leaker. The very possession of the data is in conflict with the principles upon which the country was founded.

Let us not give the Bushies weasel-out room by arguing about data mining, because we will lose the argument. Data mining is not wrong or illegal. Private data collection, without probable cause and judicial review, is the real issue.

It may turn out that they get away with it, but at the very least it should validate something I've known since I got into the computer and marketing field. There is a dire need for more stringient laws protecting of consumer data. The awesome and cheap power of the computer makes it necessary to protect things we didn't think needed protecting, because the cost and trouble (in the old days) of abusing our privacy was itself an effective protection.

And now we may have learned one more thing, the hard way: Data can be "laundered" the much same way money is laundered. That is what the Bushies seem to be claiming. The telcos came into possession of it lawfully, then sold it, lawfully, to the government -- where the government couldn't have legally obtained it otherwise.

Add that issue to the Democratic to-do list for when we regain control.

Sorry, Drummer, but there's a statute that prevents telecom companies from selling such information to the government. That's why Qwest didn't go along, they would be liable.

Jason,

I think you misunderstood my post. I am on your side. Please re-read.

You also misunderstand data mining. It's a technical term, meaning the sophisticated analysis of huge datasets, looking for patterns. It is not illegal.

Snooping on US persons without a warrant or challengable subpoena (to collect the data to be analyzed) IS illegal. We hope.

republicrat: Can you be convicted of obstruction of justice without a showing that justice (e.g. correct punishment of wrongdoing) was indeed obstructed?

I'm not sure that follows. The commission of an alleged crime nominally requires due process to confirm that a crime occurred, and prosecution and punishment the perpetrators.

But does inability to prosecute the prepetrators (e.g., for lack of evidence) render the question of whether or not a cime was committed irrelevant? That seems disingeneous. E.g., if you have a bound and gagged body with a bullet in the head, there would seem little question that a crime occurred. And if someone who has knowledge--knowledge that could lead to the apprehension, prosecution and punishment of the perpetrator--and who misleads investigators, then that person would seem to be guilty of obstruction, regardless of their participation in the actual crime.

While Fitzgerald's previous filings seem to skirt the issue of whether a crime was committed (although the appelate court appears to believe that a crime was committed), an obstruction of justice indictment--whether against Rove or anyone else--would appear to be extremely significant.

So it turns out that an indictment of Karl Rove on multiple federal felony charges will actually be a good thing for the White House -- at least, according to one anonymous White House aide. Who knew?

So it turns out that an indictment of Karl Rove on multiple federal felony charges will actually be a good thing for the White House

In a funny way, I think that's actually true. Bush will - being Bush - completely disavow Rove immediately, and claim that every bad thing that ever happened was Karl's fault. Some number of people still want to believe that because Shrub wears cowboy boots and talks funny, he must be a good guy. So they'll buy the "Rove did all the bad stuff" theory. Bush's numbers may go up a tick, for a tick.

Then later, Bush will pardon Rove and nobody in the backwash will care.

Jason -

I've been speculating (idly, see above) about this very issue. If we want to get conservatives to understand this issue, it needs to be framed in terms of gun control. Your AK-47 example is excellent.

What if (assume the technology) the government decided to drive by every house in the US, using it's new remote gunpowder detection facility, to check to see if any households had guns that were not registered? Would that kind of fishing expedition be ok? Why not? Surely you don't support criminals having illegal guns?

Etc.

Frequency nails Tbrosz!

Frequency nails Tbrosz nailing American Hawk nailing Freedom Fighter!

...you just may have gotten the crap scared out of you. Not to worry. The owner of this very blog has assured us that data mining is a quite ordinary thing and all businesses do it. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Posted by: Drum and Drummer on May 12, 2006 at 8:12 PM | PERMALINK

I would guess that most Americans (myself included up until recently) have no idea about any of the NSA's invasions into our privacy that have become commonplace over the years, and the abuses that have occurred for partisan political gain.

I don't recall ever consenting to give up my Constitutionally guaranteed rights, and I don't believe that any red-staters thought that a vote for Bush meant "He can do any damned thing he wants."

Frequency nails Tbrosz nailing American Hawk nailing Freedom Fighter!

One more guy and they can make a circle.

I don't believe that any red-staters thought that a vote for Bush meant "He can do any damned thing he wants."

I do. After all, the guy wears cowboy boots and talks funny. How can he not be a great president?

Jason,

Whichever of us is right or wrong about the meaning of the word "data mining", and whether there is a law or regulation prohibiting it, let me say this:

What I would like (and hope you would also) is for it to be illegal for the NSA to obtain and have the data in the first place. (That would eliminate the data mining.) I would like for the Fourth Amendment to apply to the gathering of the data in the first place. I would like for the NSA to be prohibited from tapping into the call records of US citizens, just as it was always (supposedly) prohibited from turning its antennae and spy cameras on US citizens.

I don't want to get into arguments with right-wing judges about how the NSA might massage, analyze, link-trace, or do whatever with my private call data. I don't want the government to have the call data in the first place.

I hope you are finally getting my drift - and I earnestly hope you will agree that it would be far better to prevent the NSA from obtaining our private data in the first place, rather than undertake any sort of discussion about what they are permitted to do with it once obtained.

If you agree that it would be better to keep the horse in the barn, then I'll just add one minor thing:

I personally don't think there is any specific prohibition against riding the horse around a bit if someone happens to find and capture it after it escapes. Indeed, we are talking about data here, which can be cloned and ridden around without damage to the original "horse."

I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

Most ominously: The authors of the Constitution clearly talked about horses and barns, searches and seizures, courts and warrants -- but unfortunately they forgot to mention data mining.

Jason Leopold has broken some big stories, but he's also been wrong about things as well. I'll believe it when I see other reporters confirming it.

Not that I would mind seeing a good frog march ...

Rove's departure at this point is anticlimactic. Now a Bush departure -- that would be something.

BTW: The euro is now over 1.29 to the dollar. Looks like the currency traders have made up their minds.

Rove indicted! Great news for Bush!

What??? you say? No, but it's good news, honest. In the sense that all news is good news for W. Kinda hard to figure why he's hitting 29% approvals but that's a fact and we all know that the facts are biased against him. Anyway, the thing to keep in mind--well, two things. One is, drink the KoolAid s-l-o-w-l-y, it works better that way. And t'other is, All News Is Good News For Bush. So be sure to look for this spin (from the article) to be mouthed by a Mara Liasson near you:

Some White House staffers said it's the uncertainty of Rove's status in the leak case that has made it difficult for the administration's domestic policy agenda and the announcement of an indictment and Rove's subsequent resignation, while serious, would allow the administration to move forward on a wide range of issues.

"We need to start fresh and we can't do that with the uncertainty of Karl's case hanging over our heads," said one White House aide.

Totally raucous laughter @ obscure

Results 1 - 10 of about 39,400 for eric paulsen conspiracy theory. (0.58 seconds)

I am ashamed my score is so low.

I don't recall ever consenting to give up my Constitutionally guaranteed rights, and I don't believe that any red-staters thought that a vote for Bush meant "He can do any damned thing he wants." - Maven

Now we all know what he was spending that political capital on. I guess Radio Shack accepts political capital same as cash.

Anyone know if Rove traveled to Florida with Bush this week?

If not, that might mean something.

has407 and shyster: I don't disagree completely. However, an indictment is based on an extremely onesided presentation (no cross-examination, no attorney present, no counter witnesses), and I was thinking about conviction. When Libby was indicted I opined that the charges of lying to the FBI would probably stick (based on the Martha Stewart example, where in fact they did get a conviction on "lying" without proving any crime that she was denying), but that the charges of obstruction of justice would not stick. Now I think that, starting with a presumption of innocence and with the burden of proof on the prosecution, I think he'll be acquitted on all counts (or more likely, have a hung jury, with no follow-on prosecution). This is a test of my knowledge and understanding: making predictions. In the O.J. Simpson case I predicted a hung jury because I thought I understood his peers well enough to know that all of them had seen plenty of racism and perverted evidence; I was only half right.

matt >"No way, he can't be indicted - Plame wasn't covert."

Nice try asshat but that has NOTHING to do with what is involved here

Libby was indicted because he got in the way of an investigation, not because he passed/didn`t pass some secret information & Mr. Fitzgerald was VERY clear about this during his press conference

"...throwing sand in the umpire`s eyes..." was how he put it

should Mr. Rove be charged it will be because he helped with the sand incident & not because he corked the bat

and for the rest of you incomps hanging around here hoping your handlers will increase your allowance, data mining isn`t anywhere near "illegal" so get over it

gathering the data set the NSA apparently has is what is illegal, plain & simple but then they have been doing that for decades so maybe it IS understandable why they don`t think it is illegal

Catch Up assclowns; you are Waaaaay behind reality

"Proof depends on who you are. We're looking for a preponderance of evidence, and some people need more of a preponderance than other people." - John Kantner

TPM: New theory on the Foggo story -

He's being busted for illegally purging Mary McCarthy, who was working for the Inpsector General.

This is payback for Mary McCarthy. Remember her? Fired for leaking to the press, only she didn't?

OBF, I don't think so. It's more like Foggo tried to save his own ass by firing her first (assumedly the IG was investigating him)...but he didn't figure that the FBI, the IRS, and the PTA were all gunning for him too. Meanwhile, the FBI wanted to search the CIA but didn't want to inform the Goss-Boss (who would have leaked to Foggo), so they went to the DNE. He got the POTUS involved, and the Goss was tossed. With him out of the way, the FBI and the IG tossed Foggo's office and home. And there you have it.

When Libby was indicted I opined... Now I think that... I think he'll be acquitted on all counts... This is a test of my knowledge and understanding...

How marvelously redolent of our commander-in-chief! You know, the guy who said that the interesting thing about George Washington was...

That's George Washington, the first President, of course. The interesting thing about him is that I read three -- three or four books about him last year. Isn't that interesting?

That's right, republicrat, it's all about YOU!

Frequency nailed it!

Awww, STFU. The only thing Frequency nails is his sister.

Frequency has been wrong about every single goddamn issue he touches - he's like the Decider, but minus the wealthy family.

The Leopold article is redolent of Rove. You know that smell of fresh Turd blossom in the morning.
For instance the multiple references to ' domestice' this and ' domestic' that.

Bait and switch. Works every time like uncle Hermann always said. Phase 2 and the overseas elements of Rovesputins influence are what the evil claven are still criminally covering up. Any fool who gets sucked into this criminal cover-up of Yellowgate such as Dan Bartlett or Rich Lowrey is risking their political lives. I'm warning them - think of the children.

I am ashamed my score is so low.

As well you should.

Piker.

"one more and they could have a circle"

Ah, yes, a circle of jerks.

Young Bush became a shrub, withered into a twig and now has grown into President Irrelevant as his trolls become more shrill.

Get frequency kenneth a Nail Gun.

SO if it turns out that Bush HIMSELF knew and authorized the leak will he be indicted too?

I think Fitzie is a national hero. I can't imagine the pressure he has withstood to help save the nation from some of the most corrupt and nefarious scoundrels ever to annoint themselves with the balms of secret societies. If Rove is indicted, it will be for one of the more peripheral evil plots. That's irony in action--but you use the tools God gives you to do good works. In our darkest times there always seem to be a few heroes who don't listen to the threats of evil men--Fitzie, Colbert,
Helen Thomas--but they seem fewer these days.

Sparko -
He certainly provides a contrast to the typical picture of a law and order conservative, one that I think is all to rare.

The latest scoop from Truthout is that Rove is already indicted (technically, anyway):

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051306W.shtml/

A big THANK YOU to Craigie for the levels of speculation!

Eric Paulson:

don't worry, looking for 'northzax conspiracy theory' only snags 105 hits, without dupes, I don't even fill a page...
I should get out less.

That's right, republicrat, it's all about YOU!

In a manner of speaking, that's true. This is one of the places where I test my knowledge. where I'm wrong, I'll find out; where I'm right, I'll find that out as well.

It's really all about ideas and evidence.

tbrosz wrote regarding the fake tbrosz: Give the poor guy a break. He's probably getting close to burning out neural circuits as it is, forcing new sections of his brain into unfamiliar activity.

Whereas you have sweet, sweet cognitive dissonance -- and a bountiful supply of intellectual dishonesty -- to comfort you in the familiar activity of carrying water for the Bush Administration, despite the increasing evidence of its mendacity, incompetence and corruption. Shame on you.