From: Adam <""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the field.near
the bridge">

George Sherwood wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 20:47:54 +0100, Adam wrote:
>
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/04/27/BL2006042701058
.html
>>
>> "Karl Rove has a long history of doing his best work when he's facing
>> disaster, and that's where he was again yesterday as he made a startling
>> fifth appearance before grand jurors investigating the leak of a CIA
>> agent's identity.
>>
>> Was he able to clear up the contradiction in his previous sworn
>> testimony? Or did he provide the grand jurors with further evidence of
>> perjury or obstruction?"
>>
>> Shades of Clinton or what?
>>
>> "Was he able to clear up the contradiction in his previous sworn
>> testimony? Or did he provide the grand jurors with further evidence of
>> perjury or obstruction?"
>>
>>
> One bloggers take.  I would rather take what Fitzgerald says and that is:
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060427/ap_on_go_ot/cia_leak_investigation
>
> Rove "testified voluntarily and unconditionally at the request of Special
> Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald to explore a matter raised since Mr. Rove's
> last appearance," Luskin said in a statement. "Mr.
Fitzgerald has affirmed
> that he has made no decision concerning charges." According to Luskin,
> Fitzgerald has advised that Rove is not a target of the investigation. A
> target is someone likely to be indicted.
>
>
> This is all about the hopes of those people that don't like Rove.
>
> George

Nah. It's about everything being connected. Let in an investigator &
you never know where things will lead. Ask Clinton.

Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5