Daily News story with confirmation from White House sources: Bush knew about Rove's role in the Plame Affair two years ago.
Josh Marshall's item on the story over at the redesigned and markedly-more-debonair TPM (check out that stubble!).
My previous deductions here at 13D go back three months: July 17, July 23, October 14. Bob also contributed some commentary.
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Over at Salon, Tim Grieve is pointing out that this puts the lie to an October 8 AP story which reported that Rove had lied to Bush back in 2003.
Apparently, the anonymous AP White House source was lying to protect the President.
-Derek
So, here's the deal: Bush was interviewed, but not under oath. However, if he's dead to rights that he knew that Rove and Libby were involved back in 2003, he could avoid conspiracy charges only if he took the 5th when asked. In his public statments, he recently says "I'm not going to comment on an ongoing investigation." However, back in October 2003, Bush made the public statement that he doesn't think that the leaker will ever be caught. If it can be shown that he knew who the leaker was while making that statment, that seems to be tantamount to admitting conspiracy to obstruct justice.
Post a Comment