Impeachable offense?
'Bush knew Rove was the leaker in 2003. Lied in 2004 when he said he didn't know who leaked. Obstruction of Justice.'
So:
1. We just had a two year investigation costing a ton of taxpayer money to find out something that the president knew all along?
2. Bush has kept Rove on staff even though HE KNEW Rove was the leaker.
3. It was June 10 of 2004 that Bush said he'd fire anyone involved in the leak. This was AFTER he already knew that Karl was the leaker, Bush knew that in 2003. So Bush lied when he told the public in June of 2004 that he would fire the leaker because he already knew who the leaker was.
4. Bush's comments border on obstruction of justice. He went public and made clear that he didn't know who the leaker was - he said he'd fire anyone found to have been involved, he hadn't yet fired Karl, so clearly he was saying that he had no evidence that Karl was involved. Bush was trying to cover up the fact that Karl was the guy. That's obstruction.
1. We just had a two year investigation costing a ton of taxpayer money to find out something that the president knew all along?
2. Bush has kept Rove on staff even though HE KNEW Rove was the leaker.
3. It was June 10 of 2004 that Bush said he'd fire anyone involved in the leak. This was AFTER he already knew that Karl was the leaker, Bush knew that in 2003. So Bush lied when he told the public in June of 2004 that he would fire the leaker because he already knew who the leaker was.
4. Bush's comments border on obstruction of justice. He went public and made clear that he didn't know who the leaker was - he said he'd fire anyone found to have been involved, he hadn't yet fired Karl, so clearly he was saying that he had no evidence that Karl was involved. Bush was trying to cover up the fact that Karl was the guy. That's obstruction.
- AmericaBlog.
No comments:
Post a Comment