Jump to content


Tom Isern
This topic is 6052 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Recommended Posts



MSNBC’s Shuster: ‘I Am Convinced Karl Rove Will Be Indicted’


Tonight on Countdown with Keith Olbermann, MSNBC reporter David Shuster said he was “convinced that Karl Rove will, in fact, be indicted.” He made three points to support his position:


1. Rove wouldn’t have testified for the 5th time unless he believed it was the only way he could avoid indictment. At this point, according to Shuster, the burden is on Rove to stop it.


2. It’s been 13 days since Rove testified and he has not heard that he is clear. Lawyers Shuster talked to say that if Rove would have gotten himself out of the jam, he would have heard by now.


3. Rove is referred to in the Libby indictment as “Official A.” According to Schuster, every time Fitzgerald has named somebody as “Official A” that person has been indicted.


Shuster also says Rove’s lawyers expect a decision from Fitzgerald within the next two weeks.




OLBERMANN: What are you gathering on this? Is the decision by Mr. Fitzgerald coming soon? Will it be an indictment?


SHUSTER: Well, Karl Rove’s legal team has told me they expect a decision will come some time in the next two weeks. I am convinced that Karl Rove will, in fact, be indicted and there are a couple of reasons why. First of all, you don’t put somebody in front of a grand jury at the end of an investigation or for the fifth time as Karl Rove testified a week and a half ago unless you feel that’s your only chance of avoiding indictment. So, in other words, the burden starts with Karl Rove to stop the charges. Secondly, it’s now been 13 days since Rove testified. After testifying for three and a half hours, prosecutors refused to give him any indication that he was clear. He has not gotten any indication since then and the lawyers that I have spoken with outside of this case say that if Rove had gotten himself out of the jam, he would have heard something by now. And then the third issue is one we have talked about before, and that is in the Scooter Libby indictment Karl Rove was identified as “Official A.” It’s the term that prosecutors use when they try to get around restrictions on naming somebody in an indictment. We have locked through the records of Patrick Fitzgerald from when he was prosecuting cases in New York and from when he has been U.S. attorney in Chicago. And in every single investigation, whenever Fitzgerald has identified as somebody as “Official A,” that person eventually gets indicted themselves in every single investigation. Will Karl Rove defy history in this particular case? I suppose anything is possible when you are dealing with a White House official. But the lawyers that I have been speaking with who know this stuff say don’t bet on Karl Rove getting out of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

In order to post in the Political Issues forum, all members are required to acknowledge that their post is in compliance with our Community Guidelines.  In addition, you acknowledge that it meets the following requirements: 

  • No personal attacks: Attack the issue not the person
  • No hijacking: Stay on the subject of the thread 

  • No bullying, hate speech or offensive terms/expressions

In addition, if the moderators feel someone is reporting content simply because if it’s political stance (such as but not limited to reporting it as off topic but not other off topic replies by those that agree with your stance), the reporting person may receive a warning as well.

Content that does not comply with the above requirements will be removed.  Multiple violations may result in a loss of access to this forum.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...