I can't see how there could not be more, based upon the text of the indictment.

However, there are very, very powerful forces working against Fitzgerald.

We shall see.

One who is more in the know than Buchanan on legal matters, and one who knows white house internals as well, is John Dean.

He has written several articles lately about the indictment landscape. Links to those articles are available on his bio-page under "columns by John Dean" (link here).

And if anyone wants an easy-to-read insider perspective on how bad THIS White House is, read Dean's "Worse than Watergate." Of course, all of the right-wingers came out bashing Dean after it was published but that was to be expected.

I read "Worse Than Watergate" earlier this year. If only every American would read it, they would get on board with those of us that can see what is really going on in this country. It was a real eye opener, and it laid the foundation for my current thinking. I believe that is when I decided to google something like "bush corruption" and Brad Blog came up...and I started reading this blog (and HuffPo) on a daily basis. Dean's book is an easy read and pretty entertaining to boot.

Current Las Vegas odds (unofficial, that is) on upcoming indictments by Fitzgerald for at least one count of conspiracy, perjury, or obstructing justice:

Karl Rove EVEN MONEY
Stephen Hadley EVEN MONEY
Richard Armitage 2-1 AGAINST
John Bolton 3-1 AGAINST
Andrew Card 10-1 AGAINST
Condi Rice 20-1 AGAINST
Ken Mehlmann 20-1 AGAINST
Karen Hughes 25-1 AGAINST

Wild-card players in endgame: Jeff Gannon (got Plame's identity from someone), Scottie McClellan (Gannon's source?), Bob Woodward (his source could the key to everything), Libby's lawyers (will they bring Cheney down by going to trial?).

As they say on Court TV...we'll be back after these messages.

I've got "Worse than Watergate" on my desk here at work as well... http://www.bradblog.com/...ages/emoticons/smile.gif

To change the subject for just 1 sec, at lunch today in the background, CNN had someone on commenting about Sadaam's lawyer, Ramsey Clark. I gotta find out this CNN commenter's name, because he said the most assinine thing I ever heard. He said that Sadaam did himself a disservice hiring Ramsey Clark, because Ramsey Clark wrote a book that seemed to be symathetic with Sadaam.

So, this CNN jackass is saying, that it's a bad idea to hire a lawyer that's on your side? What kind of a statement is that??? This commentator also said that Sadaam should've hired a lawyer who was against him, but ethical. Who exactly gets these jackasses as supposed "expert" commentators, on CNN? The CNN person DID NOT SAY to this commentator, "So, you think people should hire lawyers who ARE NOT for them? What do you mean by that?" The CNN person did not say a thing. I have to find out who this jackass was, who they had on. CNN STINKS ON ICE!!!!!!!!!

Welcome to the Rabbit Hole, Alice.

I'm responsible for the hiring and firing at CNN, Fox, MSNBC, the White House, among other places!
As for Las Vegas odds, odds for eliminating me are 95 million to one! But just in case; quick, Carl, bolt the White House doors! I think I see John Kerry coming!

So.. What does this mean then?

Seems to me that this Administration's "official policy" is, we get to do what ever we want.

Justifying torture because it's being done to "bad people"? Doesn't that kind of undermine our -entire- legal system? So, now, the government just has to say "this person is bad, laws don't apply"? And with the Patriot Act out there, they get to do that to -any- American they want... and just have to say "we suspect them of being connected to terrorism", no facts, no proof, no evidence.. then ship you off to some cell 1/2 way around the world and torture you till you "admit it"?

What a joke this Administration is. And all the lives of dead patriots and soliders who's sole scarafice was to preserve freedom and justice.. and these sick fucks toss it all away for their own ends... All the soldiers who must be turning in their graves right now.. how sad.

After watching "Hardball" tonight, I believe the odds
of a Fitzgerald indictment have changed, from:

Karl Rove...EVEN Money

to:

Karl Rove...8/5 IN FAVOR

RLM #11

Have you noticed that Matthews is backing off a bit after the scathing series of a week or so ago?

I think he took some heavy hits from the neoCons ... they put pressure on Matthews thru his bosses and employers.

Meanwhile, other sources agree with your change of odds from even to 8/5:

"Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald will present evidence to a second grand jury this week in his two year-old investigation into the outing of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson that could lead to a criminal indictment being handed up against Karl Rove, President Bush’s deputy chief of staff, attorneys close to the investigation say." (link here).

John Dean also agrees with this scenario (link here). As I said before, it depends on whether or not the great pressure and campaign being waged from the white house and congress against Fitz will bear fruit.

If not and if Fitz "stays the course", there will be more indictments.

I think a new indictment would be more powerful than the first, even if it has fewer counts, because there was widespread speculation in the neoCon sphere that there would be no more.

Expect a massive ship jumping of republicans from the neoCon ship of state as an additional result.

And if the president dumbs down a bit more and still has only "stay the course" as his mantra, I expect him to be thrown overboard with Rove.

For Dredd: I agree Matthews has changed his tune a bit. Don't know if the neo-cons got to him. Might just be his devil's advocate's TV posture.

I think he was PO'd over being dragged into the Plame case by Libby; after that he got aggressive against Bush & Co. Now he's going back in the other direction a bit. Devil's advocacy suits Matthews' temperament, and also keeps the viewer emotionally involved. When he has an anti-Bush interviewee on, he sounds pro-Bush himself; if his guest is a conservative, he sounds like a liberal.

Whenever Matthews tries to break a guest down by firing questions at him before the guest has answered the previous question (he did this with Paul Hackett, constantly), and the guest refuses to give an inch (Hackett stood his ground beautifully), Matthews will compliment the guest for being consistent and strong. Translation: "I've been trying to throw you off for the last five minutes, but you wouldn't bite. Good for you."

Is that honest reporting? I don't think it is. But what I really can't understand is why no guest has ever once stopped Matthews and said, "I'll answer that question, but first let me complete the answer to the previous one. You didn't let me finish."

Matthews raises rudeness to an art form, and as far as I know not a single interviewee has ever scolded him for it. That might be because the guest promises not to challenge Matthews' tactics before they go on the air.

les amatrices
seins amatrices
nues amatrices
mures amatrices
vraies amatrices
amatrices coquines
sites amatrices
filles amatrices
amatrices poilues
beurettes amatrices