Finally got hold of my friend, a Senior Federal Judge

[karlrschneider]

He is the chief judge of a fairly large district, appointed by Nixon in 1971. He and his wife are good friends of ours and completely on the opposite side of our political position...he is extremely 'conservative' but I don't believe for a moment that affects his judicial decisions. We have frequent (sometimes loud and semi-drunken) arguments but I respect his opinion and believe he respects mine...we have agreed to disagree probably to the 99% point. (We share histories of many decades of flying airplanes, although his predates my own by a generation)...his wife, who I happen to like personally in general terms, is unfortunately a disciple of Limbaugh. We have frequent and often loud discussions about that...but

I quizzed him about the Rove business this evening. Here is what he said:

1. Luskin would be a fool to lie about the alleged communication from
Fitzgerald. It would put his credibility and his legal career in
jeopardy and would also subject him -possibly- to criminal sanction.

2. If the Federal Grand Jury did bring in a True Bill, it would be VERY
unlikely the prosecutor wouldn't ratify it for prosecution, but he
does have that option. (I asked him what circumstances might
precipitate that option, he opined it might hinge on political
matters, and wouldn't comment further)

3. (This is the most interesting part)...Rove probably DID divulge the
Plame information, but how "illegal" that was is (to use his words)
"open to interpretation." He wouldn't give me what -his- own
interpretation would be if it came to his court.

So I'm facing yet another conundrum...to believe a guy (he's 88 years old and obviously no dummy) who I consider a friend, or imagine he's toeing the party line for...what reason? Shit, I don't even know WHAT or WHO to believe any more.

[rusty_parts2001]

1. Nothing very illuminating from the old geezer.

[Breeze54]

2. The way

I understood it, was that even if Rove was indicted, bush could pardon him in secret
and nobody would be the wiser. In fact bush could pardon him without an indictment!
So that he'd never be charged anyways. So? I guess we'll never know.
I hope I got that right. It also had to do with sealed indictments.
But I think even a sealed indictment wasn't necessary.

I have it posted on another place. To lazy right now to go hunt it down.
But Bush Sr. pardoned people like that and so did Reagan and Ford.