. From
Kid Oakland:
"Occasionally, Tenet had breakfast with Karl Rove, the president's senior political adviser, in the White House mess and joked that he would share secrets with Rove that even Rice was not allowed to know."- Bob Woodward, "Plan of Attack," p. 67-8. Tom Maguire, on
the enigma of Libby's notes: "[O]ne wonders whether the other contacts mentioned by Fitzgerald were in Libby's
"copious" notes. If so, Libby needs to sue his attorneys for malpractice, since they should have reviewed that material before submitting it to Fitzgerald and allowing Libby to testify. Of course, attorney ineptitude notwthstanding, if his notes included these contacts then it is easier for Libby to argue that he had no real intention of obstructing the investigation. On the other hand, if they were not in his notes, why not?"
. Crooks & Liars gives us a bit of
Nick Kristof: "Mr. Cheney said in a written statement: 'Because this is a pending legal proceeding, in fairness to all those involved, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the charges or on any facts relating to the proceeding.'
Balderdash. If Mr. Cheney can't address the questions about his conduct, if he can't be forthcoming about the activities in his office that gave rise to the investigation, then he should resign. And if he won't resign, Mr. Bush should demand his resignation."
.
Frank Rich: "To believe that the Bush-Cheney scandals will be behind us anytime soon you'd have to believe that the Nixon-Agnew scandals peaked when G. Gordon Liddy and his bumbling band were nailed for the Watergate break-in. But Watergate played out for nearly two years after the gang that burglarized Democratic headquarters was indicted by a federal grand jury; it even dragged on for more than a year after Nixon took "responsibility" for the scandal, sacrificed his two top aides and weathered the indictments of two first-term cabinet members. In those ensuing months, America would come to see that the original petty crime was merely the leading edge of thematically related but wildly disparate abuses of power that Nixon's attorney general, John Mitchell, would name 'the White House horrors.'"
. Meanwhile, the NYT sayd the idiot son remains
ignorant if not blissful: "[S]ome insiders say they are not sure if Mr. Bush fully grasps the degree of the political danger he faces and the strength of the forces arrayed against him. And Republican strategists and members of Congress say that while the components of the renewal strategy are easy to identify, they will be hard to carry out in the current environment.
Should Mr. Fitzgerald not wrap up the investigation into Mr. Rove soon, it would at a minimum divert news media attention from Mr. Bush's effort to highlight his agenda."
.
Roger: "I can see why Scooter thought Russert would lie for Cheney, given Russert's hosting duties in Cheney's informercials for war. But he should have known that Little Russ wouldn't give up his beachfront properties for the federal pen."
* And yes,
Skippy coined that phrase.
|
As a prosecutor, you can't always predict when the wall will crumble. So what do you do? You sit back, and wait for a tiny little crack. And then you exploit the hell out of it.
Scooter Libby just may be that point that rocks the entire case. Or maybe not. But to get there from here, you have to understand a little bit about what a plea bargain really is -- and how a prosecutor works a defendant to get one. I've been getting quite a few questions about plea bargains, so I thought I'd try to answer a few here.
A plea bargain is exactly what it sounds like -- an agreement between the prosecutor and the defendant on terms that both can live with to settle an outstanding criminal charge. But it is a bargain, not a gimme, for any criminal defendant.
Wikipedia has a decent enough shorthand description, which reads:
The defendant agrees to plead guilty or no contest (and often allocute) in exchange for some concession from the prosecutor. This concession can include reducing the original charge or charges, dismissing some of the charges against the defendant or limiting the punishment a court can impose on the defendant. [RH Notes: An allocution is where the defendant must state on the record to the judge exactly what his actions were in the commission of the offenses to which he pleads.]
It is a bargain that both sides have to agree to -- and prosecutors do not offer them lightly, no matter the stress of their case load. The defendant has to give something in return in almost every case of a plea.
A defendant faces substantial jeopardy in a criminal case. I've been in and out of state and federal prison facilities (as a lawyer, not an inmate) and, I can tell you from personal experience with my clients, they are not places where anyone would willingly spend any amount of time by choice. They are filled with violent, malevolent, and incredibly cunning people who would rip your throat out for looking at them sideways and not even lose a moment of sleep, and those are the ones that you see coming.
Even in a minimum security prison where you might be able to have some shielding from the more violent prison population, and even with the potential for a reduced sentence for good behavior hanging out there, it is not something to which I would ever subject myself under any circumstances if possible, and not something that Scooter Libby will relish as a prospect, either, I'm sure. With the federal prison system full to bursting right now, there are no "country club" prisons any longer.
The reasons for making this sort of agreement are many. In my experience, we offered them in the sorts of cases where you had a victim who would have had to re-live their experience on the stand -- cases where you have a child who has been the victim of sexual abuse, or an adult rape victim, or some other mentally traumatic experience -- where you have substantial physical evidence, enough to hold over a defendant to get a decent plea to a lengthy jail sentence, but not have to re-victimize the survivor by putting them through testimony on the stand and cross-examination.
You also sometimes have a case that looks good at the end of the initial investigation, but the more you dig into it and meet with witnesses, the worse it starts to look, and you offer a plea in order to salvage something from the case. I've been forced to do that in cases where I've had to deal with incredibly unsympathetic victims, that would have aliented the jury simply by breathing in the same room with them. (Those are the worst cases. Painful and completely unsatisfying.)
Having read through the Libby indictment, however, the evidence is solid, overwhelming, and multi-layered. None of the conditions listed above should apply in terms of problems for trial, so why offer Mr. Libby a plea deal at all? Why not force him to trial -- which a prosecutor is perfectly within his rights to do unless Mr. Libby wants to offer to plead to the entire indictment and take the maximum penalty?
Because there might be something that Fitzgerald wants from him, and through the leverage of these charges -- and the leverage of other charges still hanging tantilizingly out there according to the language of this initial indictment -- Fitz intends to get what he wants through a plea and an agreement of cooperation. (Jeralyn has discussed this a bit as well on TalkLeft here and TChris here.)
Sure, there is a chance of a pardon hanging out there. But from a President with little or no political leverage of his own. So you'd have to stay in the pokey for a coupla years and risk...well, you'd be risking a hell of a lot. Not to be blunt about it, but it's a lot of yourself on the line for a pardon that may never materialize. Not to be able to be with your family. To miss your children, your wife, everything you hold dear. And maybe, just maybe, not live until the pardon is offered, if ever. That is a lot to weigh.
There is also the possibility, held out in the langauge of the indictment, that Fitz could make a case for violation of the Espionage Act or IIPA with a few more facts added into the mix. Jane's covered this very well, so I won't re-hash, but it sure does provide some hefty incentive to flip, now doesn't it?
But here is the big question: Does Fitz want the cooperation from Libby? Or is he using Libby to widen that crack in the foundation -- and go after someone else who was on the brink of spilling what Fitz needs? Someone who is even more afraid of prison than Libby, and a whole lot more craven and less loyal in terms of thinking of "what's in it for me"?
Federal indictments do not have to be as detailed as the one that Libby received yesterday. Prosecutors are only required to bare bones the indictment in order to cover the essential facts. Fitz did a hell of a lot more than that and, to the folks on the inside of the White House, laid out a map to who has been talking a lot and who hasn't. (There is a fantastic article on Booman on this here. Must read.)
And that, my friends, sows an awful lot of dissent, mistrust and all sorts of other nasties within the ranks.
Which often leads to a widening of the cracks, and a crumbling of the wall itself, holding back the whole cover-up in a conspiracy. There is no honor among thieves, and that "take care of myself first" mentality starts to take hold when you think folks around you have been sticking a knife in your back all along and weren't even decent enough to let you know.
It's not just single layer chess in this game, boys and girls, it's multi-dimensional. And I'm beginning to wonder if Libby isn't just the sacrificial pawn in this first round.
Guess we'll see over the next few weeks just how strong the bond is at the White House. That mortar is starting to look awfully crumbly around the edges to me.
For more on plea bargains that is fairly basic, check out:
* ABA Plea Bargain page.
* Wiki Plea Bargain page.
|
Since others have referenced it, I thought I'd transcribe exactly what John Dean had to say on Countdown last night (you can see it for yourself at
Crooks & Liars):
OLBERMANN: There's only one Vice President, and he is mentioned by title if not by name. Is that the end of the damage this will do to him, or as you suggested could the whole thing be boiling down here to Mr. Libby at some point having decided to protect him and could this reference in this indictment be a kind of wormhole to some future investigation of the Vice President?
DEAN Well clearly Scooter Libby is the firewall for Dick Cheney at this point. I don't think they could go very far on any further investigation unless Mr. Libby were to change his mind and start talking about only things that he would know and was privy to with relation to the Vice President. I have no indication that he would do so, it may well be this is an effort by the Special Counsel to put some pressure on Mr. Libby to see how much heat that firewall will take, because he's got it on him right now.
Will Scooter bow to the pressure and give up Big Dick? Hard to say. But
Josh Marshall has more on what Fitzgerald could hope to hear from Scooter. Citing Paragraphs 22-24 of the
indictments (PDF), which state that Libby talked with "other officials" about what he should say about Joe Wilson in response to media inquiries, one of his readers connects the dots to a New York Times article from the same period which indicates that Cheney did, indeed, take part in these conversations that Fitzgerald is hoping to use against Libby.
Nicely done, we might add.
Update: Commenter Susan S. points us over to the
BooMan Tribune, where lawyer and former SEC official Marty Ausssenberg has this to say:
[T]he real reason to lay out as much factual detail as he did was for Fitz to show the world (and in particular, the world within the White House) that he has the goods, and that he won't hesitate to drop the dime on some additional malefactors, particularly, Cheney. Let's face it: Libby is only the consigliere to Cheney's don. Even though the threat of spending 30 years in the pokey will be a powerful incentive for Libby to cut some kind of deal that might include turning on his boss, the possibility of the additional charges of revealing classified information, particularly against Cheney, is even more powerful since, presumably, Cheney does't appear to be at risk of a truth-telling-related indictment.
Let's agree on something else right now: Libby's case will never get to trial, primarily because Bush and Cheney will never allow such a trial to become precisely the kind of exposé of the administration's motives and actions in the run-up to the war they were worried the indictments would constitute. It would be their worst nightmare to have their war machinations presented to a jury of 12 ordinary citizens in the District of Columbia (read: predominantly African Americans) who would be sitting as proxies for the families of 2,000 plus military fatalities in Iraq and the plurality of the country that opposes the war. The risk there is not just exposure to the possibility of conviction in Washington, D.C., but a subsequent prosecution in The Hague as well.
Yes, my friends, Fitz is about to grab the pine tar rag, choose another, very special, piece of lumber and step back into the on-deck circle for the home run that is sure to follow. Batter up!
Oh yeah.
|
. Looks like everyone's struggling to keep up with Patrick Fitzgerald.
NYT:
With the term of his grand jury at an end, Mr. Fitzgerald said he could present any new evidence to an already impaneled grand jury if needed.
Already impaneled? That's new.
Mr. Rove's lawyer, Robert D. Luskin, said in a statement he was confident Mr. Fitzgerald would conclude Mr. Rove had done nothing wrong.
Yeah and I remain confident that my dog Kobe will win the Nobel Prize. Whatever.
Mr. Libby could face a trial that seems likely to expose to the public some of the administration's innermost workings and probably require testimony by Mr. Cheney. And it only highlighted how many elements of the case remained obscured by the secrecy of the legal proceedings.
As Redd has said, you don't put everything you've got in the indictment. You know those fuckers are poring over the indictments right now wondering what
else Fitzgerald has unearthed from underneath that slimy rock. Rove's probably on the phone right now. "Hey Ari! Long time no speak. No, no, not mad at all. Say, what exactly
did you say to the big Irish dude?"
Mr. Fitzgerald was spotted Friday morning outside the office of James Sharp, Mr. Bush's personal lawyer. Mr. Bush was interviewed about the case by Mr. Fitzgerald last year. It is not known what discussions, if any, were taking place between the prosecutor and Mr. Sharp. Mr. Sharp did not return a phone call, and Mr. Fitzgerald's spokesman, Randall Samborn, declined to comment.
Wow. I have absolutely no way to read that one, and certainly nothing that swings positive for Dubya.
At his news conference, Mr. Fitzgerald did not explain his reasons for taking no action against Mr. Rove, even though the prosecutor had advised him that he might be indicted and had continued interviewing witnesses and reviewing evidence as recently as midweek.
Well, fortunately Mr. Rove himself provided some illumination through statements this morning to the
LA Times:
As recently as Tuesday, for example, prosecutors began to focus on a 2003 e-mail exchange between Rove and a White House colleague. The exchange could be seen as supporting Rove's contention that he had not intentionally misled investigators.
Lawyers familiar with the case believe these e-mails were one element of a broad, eleventh-hour review of evidence — coupled with negotiations by Rove's lawyers — that led Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald not to include him in Friday's action.
(snip)
The e-mail exchange reviewed by prosecutors was between Rove and former White House media spokesman Adam Levine, and it focused on a topic unrelated to Plame or Wilson.
The exchange occurred several hours after Rove had talked to Time reporter Cooper. Prosecutors went back and interviewed Levine again this week, asking whether Rove had mentioned his conversations with Cooper. Rove did not initially tell investigators about his conversation with Cooper. In another session, Rove recalled that he had spoken with the reporter.
Levine told investigators that Rove had not brought up Plame or the Cooper conversation — suggesting that the topics were not priorities for Rove at the time.
"Levine's acknowledgment that the Cooper conversation did not come up in my client's conversation with Rove seems to support a theory that it just wasn't that important to Rove and could therefore have been easily forgotten," said Daniel French, Levine's attorney.
Okay. So let me get this straight.
This is your fucking defense? After twenty-two months and untold man hours, we're supposed to believe that Fitzgerald abandoned the idea of pressing perjury charges against Rove because he
didn't mention something to Adam Levine?
Fucking hell, I'll be your alibi, Turdy. I didn't talk with you about it, either.
If that's the best spin Rove can come up with, stick a fork in him 'cos he's
done.
. For some wonderful edification on the finer points of the indictments, go and visit
emptywheel over at the next hurrah, who is going over them with a fine tooth comb. The depth of her knowledge is just amazing.
. Oh and take a peek over at DKos, where one of the top o' the
recommended list is a diary about how Redd got it right and the MSM got it wrong.
.
Digby: "
Can there be any doubt that the Bush administration bet the farm on the idea that the press would keep their mouths shut? And can we all see that they were very close to being right? If Fitzgerald hadn't been willing to take it to the mat, they would have gotten off scott free. "
.
Gilliard: "
The funny thing is that after five years of Bush, people are so cynical that they think he can just throw up a few lies and walk away. He can't, much less pardon anyone. All the conservative bleeting about the indictment is just that, bleeting. It isn't serious....No, this is isn't Watergate, this is worse, because the criminality goes right to the WH. No henchmen acting on their own. It is likely this came from Cheney himself."
|
Having had some time to re-read the entire indictment, a large number of bits and pieces jump out -- and they also make a compelling argument about a larger picture that cries out for more questions being asked and answered. After running the entire indictment through my tired brain before bedtime last night, and then re-reading it again in its entirety this morning, let's just say there are some issues that need a whole hell of a lot more analysis and discussion in the days ahead.
To begin, from a lawyerly perspective, that's quite a rarified air witness list to be assembled from just this one indictment, and just from the names apparent within the "four corners" of the document itself.
* Wurmser
* Hannah
* Fleischer
* Bolton
* Preparers of the Wilson work-up from State
* Presumably that would include Fleitz (? -- question mark because that's not dead-on certain)
* Senior Officer of CIA (p. 4, pp. 4)
* "Other persons" in VP's office (p. 4, pp. 8)
* Cheney
* "Others" talking about how to deal with the Pincus call (Are these people just in the VP's office? Or was this discussions with WHIG members?) * Walter Pincus
* CIA briefer
* Judy Miller
* VP's legal counsel
* Catherine Martin
* "another government official" (p. 7, pp. 19)
* Official A (which, according to the WaPo is Rove) * "Others" on Air Force II with the VP and Libby on 7/12/03 (p. 8, pp. 22)* Matt Cooper* Tim RussertThat sure is an awful lot of high level governmental officials interested in an instance of criticism of the Administration, isn't it? That's an awful lot of energy to combat something so "mosquitoesque" (as Mary Matalin put it last week), isn't it? I mean, that's one hell of a public trial. Just the visuals of all these people traipsing in and out of the courthouse for days on end is enough to make Tweety dizzy.And in practical terms, how does Libby's defense counsel handle this. Do you put forth your most robust cross-examination in defense of your client's interest, as you would do in any other case? Really tear into people, even those with whom Libby has worked closely over years and years? Even with the Vice President? Or do you pull your punches -- and if you do, how hard a leap is it to start thinking that you are protecting someone else's ass?Imagine, if you will, that this case goes to trial. The Prosecutor would be well within his rights to call each and every one of these people, to the stand, under oath, to testify about the five counts alleged in the Scooter Libby indictment. That's not counting all of the investigators, and others who are not listed within the four corners of the indictment -- but still, that's an awful lot of people near the top of the food chain in the Bush Administration. All running around and talking amongst themselves about Joe Wilson and his wife. For weeks.And talking with reporters and others around town. For weeks.
Both the Libby interviews with the FBI occurred prior to the appointment of a Special Counsel in this matter. (In October and November of 2003, with counsel present at both.) It's certainly plausible that Libby felt that since Ashcroft was at the helm on this one, that he could be confident in holding things back or claiming journalist conversations assuming that no one was going to squeeze those journalists for their side.But why would he then hold things back when asked to testify twice in March of 2004 well after Fitz took the helm? Why stick to lies he had to have known would be shown to be lies -- from his own notes? I mean, if Libby is as detail oriented as we were led to believe, why not attempt to correct the record like Rove clearly has tried to do in his four visits to the Grand Jury, and his other negotiations with Fitz? Libby had to have done his own inquiries into Fitz's tenacious working of his cases. Was Libby fixed on sticking to his story? Did he get really bad legal advice (doubtful -- Tate is no dummy)?Or is he protecting someone else? Ah, the question everyone is asking themselves this morning, isn't it? Even all those people who haven't paid one whit of attention to this matter for the last couple of years are hearing news reports that say, "The Chief of Staff for the Vice President of the United States has been indicted in a five count indictment for failing to be honest with investigators looking into the outing of a CIA agent in a grave matter of national security." And they are thinking who is this guy really trying to protect by putting his ass on the line instead of fessing up?What exactly was Libby and Rove's job? Were they given carte blanche to be the Administration's hatchet men, keeping their bosses out of the loop (or out of legal jeopardy) whenever the dirty work needed doing against Administration critics? How far did that dirty work get to go -- not just with the Wilsons, but with other Adminstration critics as well? How far did that implied authority go -- and how much check-in was required for either of them?Seems to me that if you use someone to do your dirty work, your hands are just as dirty as the person who throws the mud.Let's think back: Richard Clarke, Paul O'Neill, Gen. Shensecki...the list just goes on, all the way back to the Rove special treatment job on McCain in South Carolina during the Republican primaries in 2000. (Well, back further than that, but if we're going to do a full Rove treatment on dirty tricks, this could take me months to write.)And I keep coming back to the central question of Swopa's "empty suit" theory. Did the Vice President and his staff and neocon allies at the State Department, the DoD and the CIA purposely skew intelligence and factual information so that the President primarily saw information that could lead him to only one conclusion -- the need to go to war with Iraq, with any dissent on the subject suppressed or discredited immediately? Or was the President aware from the beginning -- or at any time -- that the evidence was faulty, and has not been straight with the American public about his role in this, or about anyone else's role.My questions on the "Empty Suit" still apply. Maybe more so after the indictment gave us such a detailed glimpse into how business is done with this Administration. And we should all be pressing the people with the access to be asking them. And keep asking them until they get some answers.I look for Libby to try and cut a deal, if only to prevent the circus of a trial to continue to protect his boss. But the question now is whether or not Fitz will take a deal. Or what he'll want in exchange. How far is Libby willing to go -- how much of his own neck (and that of his family because they have a rightful say in this as well) stays on the chopping block -- to protect Dick Cheney? Fitz has worked this block before. And worked it successfully. If Libby flips to save himself the rest of his life in Federal prison, how far up the chain does this go?Don't know about you, but I sure feel like things have just moved from simmer toward boil.
|
That Patrick Fitzgerald considers lying in the course of an investigation a very serious crime is certain after today's press conference. If you lie to him and it inhibits him from pursuing information he needs to complete his task, he is not going to take it lightly. As the indictments against Libby showed today, he is not fucking around here.
Who has lied to him? Well, we know Judy Miller wasn't exactly forthcoming with him -- he had to jog her memory with a few notes before she gave complete testimony. But she was not indicted, presumably because he was more interested in the information she had to offer with regard to the "bigger fish" he has to fry.
He notably asked her questions about Dick Cheney.
Did Karl Rove lie? Well, his four trips before the grand jury indicate that Mr. Fitzgerald might think so. And many news organizations are reporting he is not yet off the hook.
Scooter lied. We know that, or at least today have damn good reason to believe it. Today the indictments name (by job title) individuals who presumably will testify against Scooter if it ever comes down to that, Catherine Martin and Ari Fleischer among them.
Let's take a look at one of the assertions in the indictment,
p. 5, pp. 9:
On or about June 12, 2003, LIBBY was advised by the Vice President of the United States that Wilson's wife worked at the Central Intelligence Agency in the Counterproliferation Division. LIBBY understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA.
Now, later in the indictment,
p. 20 to be exact, we are given Libby's testimony from March 5, 2004:
I was very clear to say reporters are telling us that because in my mind I still didn't know it as a fact. I thought I was -- all I had was this information that was coming from reporters.
Then again, on
p. 21, from his March 24, 2004 testimony:
Q. And you're, you're certain as you sit here today that every reporter you told that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, you sourced it back to other reporters?
A. Yes, sir, because it was important for what I was saying and because it was -- that's what -- that's how I did it.
Now, Dick Cheney was questioned by Patrick Fitzgerald in June of 2004. We know that Fitzgerald knew about the June 12 meeting with Cheney because Libby's notes told him so.
Let's take an abject, flying leap of logic here and presume that Cheney told Fitzgerald the truth about this meeting, as verified by Libby's notes, which was that he told Libby that Valerie Wilson worked at the CIA at this time. Why oh why did it take another year and a half for Fitzgerald to bring Libby up on perjury and obstruction charges if that's all he was going to bring? And why did he need to throw Judy in the can to do it if he already had the corroborating testimony he needed to prove Libby was lying?
Okay, now let's make the more reasonable assumption and say the VP
didn't tell this to Fitzgerald at the time, but that in the wake of the discovery of the notes, Cheney indulged in the Judy Miller "I forgot" excuse. After all, Fitzgerald gave Karl Rove three subsequent opportunities to "refresh" his memory, right? Right. It's only logical that he would give the VP the same opportunity to come in and play it straight with him, right?
Except as far as we know, he hasn't.
Fitzgerald takes attempts to obstruct his investigation really, really seriously. He doesn't like being lied to. So he just lets Cheney skate, right? Never even follows up? Somehow I don't think so.
Maybe you can come up with another more reasonable explanation for all of the above, but the only one I can come up with is that Fitzgerald is still gunning for Big Dick.
|
Crooks & Liars is taking a nap and then going to a party with Mark Kleiman but tomorrow they will have the video up of John Dean on Countdown tonight with Keith Olbermann. The transcript is not available yet but Dean basically reiterated what David Gergen said earlier today, that Fitzgerald's tactics are probably meant to squeeze Scooter. He referred to Scooter as the firewall to Cheney, and said that the indictments brought down today were quite probably intended to test the resilience of that firewall.
We've known since Judith Miller's testimony that Fitzgerald has been inquiring about Cheney. At the very least today's indictments, if brought to trial, will give Fitzgerald the opportunity to question Cheney on the witness stand as he testifies against his former Chief of Staff. And at worst? Well, the threat of thirty years might make a guy like Scooter rat Big Dick out sooner rather than later.
Then again, maybe loads of character will cause Scooter to do the honorable thing and take the thirty years.
(((BWA HA HA HA HA!!)))
Update:
Swopa, on the
WaPo comment that Rove said something which "gave Fitzgerald pause" at the last minute:
But what about Rove? It's weird enough to consider what Karl could possibly have offered that kept Fitzgerald from deciding whether to prosecute him -- although it's easy to imagine Rove and his lawyers devoting every waking moment the past few weeks trying to invent something. (Aside from the probably vain hope that Fitzgerald would accept a bad deal out of a desire to wrap up his investigation by the time his grand jury expired, there's the simple incentive of staying out of the headlines as the first Bushite official indicted ... even if he gets nailed next week, the font size won't be quite so large.)
But maybe there's a connection between the two postponed sets of decisions. Did Rove tease Fitzgerald with the possibility of turning on the president or vice president? If so, is there a chance in hell that he meant it?
Now
that would be positively Rovian.
Update 2: Eriposte sends us
this link. Anything sound familiar?
Update 3: There is a video of John Dean on
Countdown here. Thanks to netro in the comments for the link. The one of Lawrence O'Donnell is excellent, too.
Update 4: Mark Kleiman:
There was nothing to keep Fitzgerald from saying, had it been true, something like: "The investigative phase of this case is now over. The grand jury has indicted the only person we thought, on the evidence we now have, had provably committed a crime worthy of prosecution. Of course it's possible that, in the course of the trial, new information might emerge that would implicate other people, and if that happened those people might be indicted. But as of now, we're not investigating anything or anyone else, and my previous request that witnesses and lawyers not discuss the case with one another or with the press is therefore no longer in effect."
Mark Kleiman is a very smart man. Have I said that today? Hope he and Amato (C&L) are having a bang-up time at the Wes Clark bash.
Update 5: Sweet leapin' Jesus -- me,
Kevin Drum and
Andrew Sullivan all agree on something, namely that Fitzgerald may be contemplating prosecuting the leak itself. No, I'm not kidding, read the Sully link, you won't be sorry.
|
Aug 19, 2005 (AXcess News) Chicago - F. David Radler, the ex-publisher of the Chicago Sun-Times, was charged with criminal fraud by federal prosecutors for his role in stealing $32 million from the paper's parent company, Hollinger International.Patrick Fitzgerald
acquitted himself superbly today. A country weaned on the
corrupt, leering hackery of Ken Starr -- who squandered millions of taxpayer dollars in a partisan witch-hunt -- got to watch as a guy with an inner core of decency got up and frankly spoke about his investigation with professionalism and honesty. We got to be proud of the Justice Department again. We got to enjoy a moment of confidence that if there is a bottom to be gotten to in all of this there is a man in charge who will honorably and doggedly find it.
But hopes were set high that an array of GOP scalps would be waving in the wind by this time today, and that was not the case. Did we pin them unrealistically on a man and a situation to whom they did not rightfully belong? Perhaps.
But perhaps the only thing in the situation that is wonting is time.
If I were Karl Rove right now, I'd be kicking myself around the room. The thing that got him into this mess in the first place is spinning shit he didn't need to spin, and it looks like he's done it once again.
Fitzgerald held his cards close today, and gave no indication that Rove was on the hook for anything, giving pause to many who were hoping that he would give some signal that Turdy's goose was yet to be cooked. But on Thursday evening, Rove's people were spinning furiously to everyone who would sit still --
NYT,
WSJ,
AP -- telling them that Rove was not going to be indicted today, but his attorneys had been told that he was "still under investigation."
Wow. If they'd just shut up, all the talking heads would be chattering today about how Rove was in the clear. Flip on the TV and listen for a while, and hear how even partisan wonks like Andrea Mitchell and Bob Woodward -- who are certainly parroting every other talking point Unka Karl sent them out with today -- are still not saying that Rove is in the clear. They don't know
what the fuck to say. The queen is dead and the Borgs are are wandering around aimlessly bashing into one another.
So what are we to think of all of this? Well, consider:
1. Fitzgerald gave nothing away today. Or, damn near nothing. However he let it be known that he could not investigate the underlying claims of violations of the Identities Protection Act
because another crime was being committed that prevented him from doing so, namely the crime Libby stands accused of.
2. He's not done. As
he said,
"We recognize that we want to get this thing done. I will not end the investigation until I can look anyone in the eye and tell them that we have carried out our responsibility sufficiently to be sure that we've done what we could to make intelligent decisions about when to end the investigation. 3. In the Libby indictment, most individuals who are cooperating witnesses are indicated by their job title -- Assistant to the Vice President for Public Affairs, Under Secretary of State, White House Press Secretary (guess that explains where Ari Fleischer's been in all this, he's a cooperating witness). The exception is the anonymous "Official A," who purportedly spoke with Robert Novak in the week prior to July 11, 2003 (p. 8, pp 21). That's a distinction you would make if you were
still investigating someone and you did not want to prejudice that investigation.
4. When pressed about whether members of the press (read: Novakula) could not discuss their dealings with the grand jury openly, Fitzgerald said he had requested that they remain circumspect so as not to compromise the investigation. But when asked later whether this now meant that they were released from this obligation, it was the only time I saw Fitzgerald waffle during the press conference -- he wasn't prepared for that one, and he said he couldn't answer. If the investigation were really over, then why not? Given the statements he made regarding the importance of the press, wouldn't he want to free everyone up as soon as possible?
5. As
Josh Marshall and
Billmon have noted, it was indicated both in the indictments and in Fitzgerald's press conference that there might have been enough evidence to go after Libby for Identities Protection. Why didn't he? Especially since the one time Fitzgerald stepped beyond his role as Special Counsel to editorialize was when he underscored the damage that had been done to the intelligence community by the outing of Plame. This guy probably hugs the Patriot Act in his sleep. He is a total law'n'order true believer. He would not pull his punches on that front, and has in the past been
extremely aggressive -- some would say
draconian -- in protecting what he saw as threats to the national security.
Now we enter the realm of -- admittedly -- pure speculation. But Fitzgerald has Libby on 30 years worth of counts, and he's got him
cold. No wiggle room. Libby may not do 30 years, but he ain't doing 6 months. He is F-U-C-K-E-D fucked. It was the Veep's boon companion himself, David Gergen, who said on MSNBC today that this is squeeze time. It really matters little to a man of 55 whether he is looking at 30 years or 60 -- he'd rather have 60 thrown at him if some of them were shaky and he thought he could use the wobbly ones to get out of the rest.
There is no wobble in the indictments handed down today. It's pretty clear. Libby can deal or swing.
Which brings us to David Radler. Who is David Radler? David Radler was the #2 man at Hollinger International. The day after he was indicted by the US Attorney for the State of Illinois Patrick J. Fitzgerald for looting money from the stockholders of Hollinger, he announced he'd rather "cooperate with investigators" (read: rat out his boss, Conrad Black) than spend the rest of his life perfecting the ultimate starch job in the prison laundry. Radler decided he would take Door #2 and do twenty-nine
unpleasant months and pay a fine when the prospect of life in prison became a reality.
That's just the way Patrick Fitzgerald works. If the Hollinger case, and the Ryan case, and the Daley Case, and the Al Quaeda case and the Gambino case are any indication, Fitzgerald will now use what he's got to get more.
So if I was Big Dick Cheney, I wouldn't be sleeping very easy tonight. At the very best, his chief aide was just popped for lying to protect
him. Do you think Andrea Mitchell could spare some TV time from mewling over what a loss it will be not to have Scooter in the Hamptons during the summer to discuss the serious implications of the Vice President's role in this highly dubious affair? Well probably not, but if there's a God in his heaven tonight the tightly-stretched skin of her face will soon snap and whiplash her into inactivity.
Do not make this mistake of thinking a presidential pardon will be a panacea for those involved. Fitzgerald's honorable and straighforward presentation today made it nigh impossible for the Rovians to fall back on their old tricks and launch a smear campaign -- Matthews damn near crowned him Pope this afternoon, and any attempt at a pardon will just make Bush look like an impeachment-worthy crook out to thwart the efforts of an honest public servant. Every solution they can come up with seems to beget more problems.
There is no joy in Bushville tonight.
|
Josh Marshall makes a great point on Talking Points Memo. Something I missed on my quick read through earlier, but well worth considering in terms of what may come down the road at a later date.
There is a lot to read, re-read and analyze in the indictment and, unfortunately, I have an uncooperative toddler on my hands and a husband who isn't home yet. Promise I will get to something more in depth soon.In the meantime, consider what it could mean if Rove is Official A. Or Cheney. It's the speculation that keeps on giving, isn't it?No way in hell I'd ever sit down at the Texas Hold 'Em table with Fitz.
|
Fitz gave a great opener in his press conference today. It tracked the tone and the seriousness of the five count indictment issued today, and underscored just how important this case is in terms of how this case relates to national security matters and the integrity of government.
Fitz made it very clear that this case was not just about the Wilsons and people who may have disliked them -- that this case was about all of our security, now and in the future. And it's not over.
Fitz talked at length about Grand Jury secrecy, and was careful to lay out why it is that a witness in an investigation, in front of a grand jury -- in any capacity throughout an investigation, but especially dealing with a matter of national security -- must tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Fitz detailed, as he did in the indictment, that Libby gave a compelling story initially to investigators -- which it looks like was completely false. Instead of being at the receiving end of bits of information, Libby was the start of a long chain of information being disseminated that should not have been discussed outside the confines of people who had a need to know it for national security reasons.My read on Fitz was that the lying makes him very, very angry. For a lot of reasons, but most of all because national security is very serious business, and Libby violated not only the legal trust and the laws, but also his fiduciary obligations as a government official in his position in doing what he did. I know it pisses me off.One question: At least 4 people in government talked with Libby about this. Well, isn't that interesting? The GOP talking points are going to be that Libby was stupid/idiotic/overreaching/etc., but he clearly wasn't the only person discussing this within the government and who was he protecting by doing all of this and putting his own ass in jeopardy by testifying falsely? Big questions that I hope will be asked by the media.It is clear from the indictment that there is an enormous amount of detail -- not within the four corners of it, and held back from the rest of the investigation. Fitz is making it very clear, without being specific because he cannot be according to the law, that the investigation is ongoing. And that charges can be brought before a grand jury in DC at any time, should they be warranted.I'll say this: after watching Fitz, anyone who tries to raise the question of whether perjury is a "technicality" is going to end up looking like a moron. Because that clip of him explaining the importance and ethics of the rule of law in an investigation was exceptional. And the multiple allegations of false statements and testimony point to a considered pattern on the part of Libby.This reaches to the very heart of how this Administration conducts itself. This reaches to the very heart of how they operate in shutting down any and all criticism -- inside and outside the government. And there are going to be some very difficult questions for them to answer.And Fitz is not done yet. Not by a long shot. You could see in his demeanor, and you can read it in the indictment -- there is a whole lot more to this. I hope we get to know the rest soon.(Graphics love to
Corbis.com.)
|
There are smoking guns all over the place in the Libby indictment.
1. p. 7 - 19. "Not earlier than June 2003, but on or before July 8, 2003, the Assistant to the Vice President for Public Affairs
learned from another government official that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, and advised LIBBY of this information."
Assistant to the Vice President for Public Affairs from 2001-2004 was Catherine Martin. From Seymour Hersh's
New Yorker article, 10/20/03:
In response to claims that Joe Wilson had circulated his Niger report prior to the State of the Union Address, Martin denied that Cheney had any knowledge of it. “The vice president doesn’t know Joe Wilson and did not know about his trip until he read about it in the press,” said Martin.
She learned from ANOTHER governmentn official? Whole lot of people got some 'splainin to do.
2. p. 8 - 21. "On or about July 10 or July 11, LIBBY spoke to a senior official in the White House ("Official A") who advised LIBBY of a conversation Official A had earlier that week with columnist Robert Novak in which Wilson's wife was discussed as a CIA employee involved in Wilson's trip. Libby was advised by Official A that Novak would be writing a story about Wilson's wife."
Who is "Official A?" Rove?
3. How many friggin' people told Libby that "Wilson's wife worked for the CIA?" In addition to Catherine Martin:
. The Vice President (June 2003)
. "a senior CIA officer" (June 11, 2003)
. Undersecretary of State (Bolton? Grossman?) June 12, 2003
Can you spell "conspiracy?"
Fitzgerald coming on TV now with Jack Eckenrode. One of the Chicago Trib people who covers him told me he never needs to look down at his notes and speaks from memory, even when reciting complex charges. Looks to be true (no Bushian bozo teleprompter here).
Update: John over at
C&L will have press conference & questions up as soon as Fitz is finishd.
Update 2: Think Progress has the PDF of the indictment.
Update 3: Digby: "
This is the first time in 130 years that a sitting White House official has been indicted. The last time was in the Grant administration. Honesty. Integrity. Honor. Dignity."Update 4: Gergen on MSNBC --
"I feel like the prosecutor feels he hasn't gotten the truth from [Libby] yet and he's going to squeeze him."(graphic by Valley Girl)
|
Documents not posted yet regarding the indicment at the DOJ Special Counsel website. Will live blog as I'm reading them, with updates as I go when they get there, so you get the news as I get it. This is likely to come out as a jumble, so I will come back and do a wrap-up analysis piece afterward.
Scooter Libby has been indicted according to CNN on Obstruction of Justice, Perjury and Making False Statements. Soon as documents get posted, I'll start review. There may be much more.
5 count indictment: MSNBC reporting a 5 count indictment.
Brian Williams now talking to Timmeh about his role.
The Washington Post has its article up here.
One reference in indictment to VP, regarding Cheney's advising Libby of Wilson's wife working for CIA. Libby asked "Undersecretary of State" to investigate Wilson's claims -- Undersecretary used State Department resources to look into it. (Shuster -- MSNBC)
1:08 pm ET: Scooter Libby has offered his resignation to Andy Card. It has been accepted by the President.
Update: Documents now up at Smoking Gun.
_______________________
Indictment read:
Pages 1 & 2: Establish background that Libby had access to and knowledge of proper handling of classified materials. Shows that Libby signed his SF-312 on 1/23/01 for clearance.
Page 3: Addresses the SOTU "16 words" issue -- meaning this will definitely come up at trial, if there is one.
Page 4: All of this deals with the actions that show that Libby's attempts to cover things were bunk -- and that the SPecial Prosecutor had substantial cooperation.
On 5/29/03: Asked Undersecretary of State about information on Amb. trip to Niger.
On 6/11/03 or 6/12/03, Libby was advised by USoS, that Wilson's wife worked for CIA and that she was involved in him going on the trip. (Can you say Bolton? Or Wurmser?)
On 6/11/03, Libby spoke with Senior CIA Officer re: Wilson and his wife. (Can you say Fleitz? Or Tenet?)
Page 5: On 6/12/03, the VP told Libby about Wilson's wife. Then Libby spoke with Pincus. (At least, that's my surmising, by the "senior VP aide" attribution.)
On 6/14/03, Libby met with senior CIA briefer and bitched about Wilson and criticisms of Administration policies by folks at CIA.
6/19/03 New Republic article with Wilson quotes discussed.
Page 6: Shortly after article, Libby spoke with his Chief Deputy. (Can you say Hannah? And cooperation?)
6/23/05 Judy Miller first meeting on this. (Guess they were hoping no reporters would be subpoened, eh?)
Okay, there's a continued narrative of facts on all of the various conversations between Libby and others in the WH and the VP's office and State and the CIA and the media. It's VERY detailed -- Fitz got a lot of people to talk A LOT. (I'm not going to detail everything, because it's pretty clear on the read, just going to skip to the criminal conduct.)
One point, Libby's counsel was present with him at every interview. Very good to know -- no question that Libby was tricked into making false or misleading statements or anything along those lines.
There is substantial documentation of facts on every single one of these counts. Fitz is really thorough. Impressive, but expected from a US Attorney.
One Count Obstruction, for a whole host of behaviors that add up to a pattern of deliberately lying and trying to hide information from the Grand Jury, from investigators and from Fitz. This is a very bad pattern, just at first glance on paper. Very bad.
The Two Counts of False Statements clearly show a belief on Libby's part that the Prosecutor would not go to journalists. He felt safe in lying about this, thinking none of them would talk. (Wrong prosecutor to try this with, I must say. Interviews may have occurred in that time frame when Ashcroft was still heading things for the DOJ.)
Two Counts perjury also just plain stupid and bad. The Russert testimony and the Matt Cooper testimony.
I note that Fitz isn't using anything much from Judy Miller in any of these five counts. I wonder if we will hear more about that down the road -- either at the press conference or in any expansion of the investigation if a new Grand Jury is empanelled.
As a first read, I have to say, this looks factually quite well documented and that Libby is a crappy, weaselly person on the stand. I bet the G/J members had an even better take on that as they sat listening to it.
There is a first pass on this. Am going to have to print it out, dissect it, and spend some time doing margin notations, but this looks very bad for Libby. And it may only be a first pass at him -- if there is a second jury empanelled, the potential for conspiracy and other charges still hangs out there. Especially the potential for Espionage Act and possibly even IIPA violations, along with any additional conpiracy worries. Press conference ought to be very interesting this afternoon.
|
Andrea Mitchell Can't Fucking Read -- MSNBC just announced that Fitzgerald is telling the Democratic members of the House that in response to their letter, he is going to give them the report they are requesting wrapping up TraitorGate.
Then she read it again and went "oops" -- he's NOT going to issue the report, he doesn't have the authority to do so.
Hopelessly compromised, dissembling shill and GOP political operative Mitchell accused Democrats of wanting a report so they could "politicize" the matter. How about you stop reporting on this until you tell us what your involvement is? Maybe people just want to know what's going on. Is that a political request, Andrea? To want to know what happened here? To want the truth about why we went into Iraq in the first place? Are you saying Democrats are the only ones who want to know why 2,000 Americans are dead?
Well I guess that just might be true.
Update: 9:30 am - Still no docs up at
Fitzgerald's website. John from
Crooks & Liars is on the case, calling DC and Chicago, who both say that they thought the documents were up. Amato is trying to smooth talk the chick who answers the phone. I'm sure that means it'll be up any moment.
Update: Libby has been indicted on false statements, obstruction of justice and perjury. Five count indictment.
|
Sending out a big thank you to the wonderful web-person for the Special Counsel website. Am saying it in advance, because life is about to become hellish for whomever that is.
The first new document is up on the Special Counsel website. You can view it here.
It's basically a press conference announcement for 2:00 pm ET today, but something caught my eye.
"...regarding the status of the Special Counsel's investigations."
Hmmmmm...sure does sound like we're going to have a scorcher of a day. And if it seems that way to me, imagine being at the WH today.And also, the media stampede to the 7th floor conference room. How hilarious would that be to watch?(Still having image issues with Blogger. Will update with pix when I can do so. I've been saving up a couple for today, so I sure hope it starts working soon.)UPDATE: Interesting article from the WaPo on where Bush may go with the next Supreme Court nominee. Something to read and contemplate while we wait for more docs.Also, I want to mention how impressive I think that John Eckenrode and the FBI investigation team has been in all of this. I've worked with a lot of criminal investigators, and the vast majority of them have leaked like sieves at the state level, and sometimes even at the Federal level on a high profile case. These guys have done their jobs, kept their heads down and their mouths shut -- and I can't say enough how impressive this has been. The discipline has been very impressive, and they should be commended for it.UPDATE #2: MSNBC reporting that an indictment will be returned today. They will follow normal procedure on this. More as I get it.UPDATE #3: Bob Barr just said on CNN that the investigation is focusing on top levels of the National Security staff as well. And is talking about the importance of NOC status and why this case has such enormous ramifications. Holy cow. (Yep, that's the very same Bob Barr who was a Congressman from Georgia. Former US Atty., former Clinton impeachment person for the House GOP side. The very same.)Jeff Toobin on CNN just brought up a very good point. If Libby is indicted for making false statements/obstruction or perjury regarding from whom he learned about Valerie Plame, and if Fitz has those notes showing that Cheney was the one who told Libby about her. The way that Fitz will prove that Libby was lying will require that the VP be called as a witness in any trial that will occur, pulling the VP right into the center of the case, whether or not an indictment may be issued for Cheney. It's a point that I missed, but one that bears some consideration and repeating. It just gets more interesting today.
|
I'm up, drinking my coffee, watching Imus because he has Timmeh on this morning. And lo, and behold, Timmeh starts talking about his time before the Grand Jury. Hallaleujah! It's a miracle.And he said that he testified that he had never before heard of Valerie Plame, and that he was not the recipient of any leak.Wow, that was tough. And it took him this long to say it? Good heavens!Russert also says that they are expecting the announcement from Fitz sometime this afternoon. Which, of course, gives Fitz much time with the G/J for the morning if he needs it for voting on things like, say, large indictments and stuff. Luskin spent all that time phoning in the spin last night, and it may be all for nothing. Isn't that sad? Ahem.Intriguingly, Imus (who I know isn't exactly accuracy in media or anything, but still...) reported this morning that Rove, himself, was the source for some of the reporting, according to the AP. Let me just say that if a client of mine started calling reporters about whether or not he was innocent or wouldn't be indicted, reporters here would just laugh and hang up. Man, I'd love to know for whom Rove was a source, if that's true. That's just hilarious.Reuters is reporting the following this morning:
One lawyer involved in the case said the attorneys made final appeals to Fitzgerald to try to avoid indictment, raising the prospect of last-minute plea agreements.
When asked whether Rove was trying to negotiate Fitzgerald down to a lesser charge, Luskin responded: "False."
MSNBC is reporting that Rove is telling people he will remain under investigation, that he will not be off the hook at all, and is telling them that he will not be indicted today. (Again, I'm not believing anything until I hear it from Fitz directly. Everything else is spin.)
Luskin has been making the case that any errors in Rove's testimony were inadvertant, according to Bob Kerr on MSNBC. And Fitz is not satisfied with that as an answer. Libby shopping for a new trial attorney (Jeralyn covered this yesterday -- trial is a whole different ballgame, and she's absolutely right that this is the best move for Libby if he's facing indictment.)
Bascially, no reporter really knows much of anything about what will happen today, other than to say that something will likely happen today. More non-news -- and hopefully some actual news -- when we get it. G/J scheduled to meet at 9 am ET, so here's hoping.UPDATE: MSNBC reporting that at noon, there will be a release of documents. And at 2:00 pm ET, there will be a news conference from Patrick Fitzgerald. UPDATE #2: Just a reminder about a couple of issues. If there is a plea agreement that includes an information rather than an indictment, that will likely be a part of the document dump today at noon. Also, and this is important to remember, if there is an allegation of a conspiracy, there can be multiple defendants included in a single indictment -- so one indictment may not mean only one person. Wait until you read the actual documents to see what is being alleged at this point.UPDATE #3: The WaPo has updated its article from last night. A few new interesting tidbits, including: Fitzgerald has a number of legal options. They range from concluding that no one broke the law, to charging a number of government officials with a conspiracy to unmask Plame or obstruct justice during the investigation. But it was hard to find anyone involved in the case yesterday who believed Fitzgerald will not indict someone today.
Well, that's quite a bit different from last night's all rosy spin zone, now isn't it? Additionally, they expressly say: It was unclear yesterday whether Fitzgerald had issued formal letters notifying anyone that he or she was a target of the investigation. However, that step might not be necessary for Libby or Rove, who previously have been warned verbally that they face possible legal jeopardy.
Which pretty clearly says, "Hello I'm Pat Fitzgerald, and I may indict your ass." And then there is this: "The Special Counsel has advised Mr. Rove that he has made no decision about whether or not to bring charges and that Mr. Rove's status has not changed," said Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, in a statement released this morning. "Mr. Rove will continue to cooperate fully with the Special Counsel's efforts to complete the investigation. We are confident that when the Special Counsel finishes his work, he will conclude that Mr. Rove has done nothing wrong."
Well, that says absolutely nothing. As Fitzgerald is meeting with the Grand Jury as we type, and had a whole night to think about things anew, we really will not know anything until he makes an announcement today.
|
MANY UPDATES: SCROLL DOWN TO BOTTOMRumor mill says announcement of Libby's indictment comes tomorrow, Rove's does not (sorry) but only because he is still under investigation -- this gj gets extended for a short while -- the notes that hung Libby were part of the original document discovery but they were on a hard drive Libby tried to wipe and Fitzgerald reconstituted -- take this all with LARGE GRAIN OF SALT washed down with some hard cider because as we all know by now Fitzgerald's done a superb job of plugging leaks in his office and we are all just extrapolating from very scant information.
Fitzmas eve stocking stuffers:
. video of Fitzgerald
testifying before the 9/11 commission, his testimony starts 1 hr. 39 min. into it (it's quite long)
. video profile of Fitzgerald on PBS
NewsHourAnd via
David E., we came across this by
Darrel W.:
Twas the night before Fitzmas, and in the White House
Every one was scared shitless, and Bush was quite soused
The indictments were hanging like Damoceles’ sword
As verminous oxen prepared to be gored
The perps were all sleepless, curled fetal in bed
While visions of prison cells loomed in each head
And Dick in his jammies, and George in his lap
Were sweating and swearing and looking like crap
When out on the web there arose such a clatter
The blogs and the forums were buzzing with chatter
Away to the PC Rove ran like a flash
He booted his browser and cleared out his cache
The rumors that flew through the cold autumn air
Made Dubya shiver with angry despair
When what to his horror-filled eyes did he spy?
A bespectacled man with a brown suit and tie!
With an impartial manner that gave Bush the shits
He knew in a moment it must be St. Fitz!
With unwavering voice, his indictments they came
He cleared out his throat and he called them by name:
Now Scooter, Now Libby,
Now Blossoming Turd,
Now Cheney, dear Cheney,
Yes, you are the third
To the bench of the court
Up the steps, down the hall
Now come along, come along,
Come along, all!
He then became silent, and went right to work
He filed the indictments and turned with a jerk
And pointing his finger at justice’s scale
Said, “The people be served, and let fairness prevail.”
He then left the room, to his team gave a nod
And the sound could be heard of a crumbling facade
And we all did exclaim, as he faded from sight
“Merry Fitzmas to all, and to all a good night!”
Update: NYT and Drudge reporting same things -- but Times also says:
Mr. Fitzgerald's preparations for a Friday announcement were shrouded in secrecy, but advanced amid a flurry of behind-the-scenes discussions that left open the possibility of last-minute surprises. As the clock ticked down on the grand jury, people involved in the case did not rule out the disclosure of previously unknown aspects of the case.
I would imagine Blackberrys are still flying and anything is still possible.
Update 2: From the
WaPo, who have been wrong on just about everything this week:
Though there was considerable speculation among lawyers for witnesses in the case that Fitzgerald could choose to empanel a new grand jury and extend his investigation, two legal sources said he has indicated he does not plan to take that route and will wrap up the case today.
Well even a blind pig can find a turnip every now and again, we'll see what happens tomorrow.
Update 3: From the
LA Times:
People close to the investigation said that, as of late Thursday afternoon, Rove had received no notice that he was going to be indicted. Some observers took that as a sign that the longtime Bush strategist might emerge from the investigation without being charged.
But others said that Fitzgerald might be waiting until Friday to alert those being charged to reduce the chances of last-minute leaks about his intentions.
High-stakes poker is behing played here, throughout the pages of these papers and beyond. They are hardly objective, dispassionate observers.
Update 4: Can we just say the timing on this one is fucked? Just up from the
NYT, an article by Doug Jehl on the FBI counterintelligence case into the Niger documents:
The continuing inquiry into the source of the forged documents has been conducted separately from the investigation by the special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald into the leak case, which has to do with whether Bush administration officials committed crimes related to disclosing the identity of Mr. Wilson's wife, an undercover C.I.A. officer.
Law enforcement officials say they do not believe that the two issues are related.
I am so not happy about having THIS thrown at me just as I was getting ready for a good night's sleep before tomorrow's whatever-it-may-bring.
Update 5: AP hearing the same thing:
A person outside the legal profession familiar with recent developments in the case said Thursday night that Rove's team does not believe he is out of legal jeopardy yet but likely would be spared bad news Friday when the White House fears the first indictments will be issued.
Fitzgerald signaled Thursday he might keep Rove under continuing investigation, sparing him from immediate charges, the person said, speaking only on condition of anonymity because of the secrecy of the grand jury probe.
"Outside the legal profession." Wow, did
Marc Corallo get on it that fast?
Update 6: From the
WSJ (I'll spare you the bs about Turdy being "a superb political strategist") :
Karl Rove, President Bush's chief political adviser and deputy White House chief of staff, was informed yesterday evening that he may not be charged today but remains in legal jeopardy, according to a person briefed on the matter. Mr. Fitzgerald, who meets with jurors this morning, has zeroed in on potential wrongdoing by I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, and is likely to charge Mr. Libby at least with making false statements. The testimony of reporters who have been witnesses in the case has contradicted Mr. Libby's public statements.
(snip)
It is possible that others in the administration could face indictment as well, including whoever originally leaked the name of Central Intelligence Agency operative Valerie Plame to columnist Robert Novak, the first to publish it in July 2003.
Boy I sure would like an answer to that one tomorrow, eh?
Update 7: BREAKING: BOB WOODWARD IS STILL AN ASSHOLE
No, no. And this is not even a firecracker, but it's true. They did a damage assessment within the CIA, looking at what this did that Joe Wilson's wife was outed. And turned out it was quite minimal damage. They did not have to pull anyone out undercover abroad. They didn't have to resettle anyone. There was no physical danger to anyone and there was just some embarrassment.
So people have kind of compared -- somebody was saying this was Aldridge James or Bob Hanson, big spies. This didn't cause damage.
Or so he said on Larry King tonight. Hey Bob, while you're spewing bullshit, can we hear the one about how Patrick Fitzgerald is
turning the United States into a banana republic by jailing Judy Miller?
And you thought we forgot.
|
. Reuters reports a
Fitzgerald sighting today:
Fitzgerald spent the day in Washington with his deputies as he prepared to wrap up the two-year investigation.
The prosecutor, who has joked about not looking good in photos, took a short break to walk to nearby Antons barber shop, where he got a shoe shine.
(snip)
"He was very friendly and he looked happy. He was very relaxed," one of the owners of the shop said, adding: "The shoe shine guy doesn't ask questions. Customers have a right to privacy."
Boy, we hope he didn't take our rumpled suit comments to heart. Ken Starr was always quite polished and he was a dick.
. Jonathan Chiat has an
interesting rebuttal to Kay Bailey Bitcheson and others who are pooh-poohing perjury:
It's certainly true that not even Karl Rove deserves to go to prison for accidental or inconsequential misstatements. But, if Rove didn't do anything illegal in the first place, then why would he obstruct justice or perjure himself in some substantive way? Clinton's motive for lying was perfectly clear: He wanted to avoid the personal and political embarrassment of confessing his perfectly legal affair with Monica Lewinsky. Indeed, a whole strand of Starr's investigation was set up in order to trap Clinton into lying under oath about his sex life. What motive would Bush's men have to lie except to thwart the prosecution?
. Jeralyn (who called the whole Scooter/WHIG thing from the get-go)
places her bets.
.
Digby offers advice to professional bloviators:
This is why we shove their previous mantras about perjury and obstruction and "rule of law" in their faces. This is why we repeat the words that Bush used in the 2000 campaign about "not only doing what is legal but what is right." This is why we always, always, bring this back to the fact that 2000 Americans are dead and tens of thousands are disabled because of a war that the administration lied about --- lies that Karl Rove and Scooter Libby tried to cover up.
. Sean Hannity takes a break from his role as king of the chronic masturbators of
Hannidate to bash Fitzgerald, according to
Think Progress. Wow. I mean, what, no unpaid parking tickets?
.
TBogg wonders if Condi has been a-late night cavorting though the DC piano-bars with Kenn Mehlman, "who can belt out a mean
The Man I Love after a few
Sweet Bad Mamas, lemme tell you."
.
NY Daily News:
"While White House staffers were tense, Fitzgerald's team relaxed from their stoic, all-business demeanor. The cheery prosecutors shared an elevator ride with a News reporter and cracked up over a private joke." Roger:
"Must be the one that starts, "Libby, Rove and Dick Cheney go into a cell....". And
IBD is reporting that an announcement of indictments tomorrow could trigger a sell-off of the dollar, Treasurys and stocks. For all the robber barons who put these crooks in office -- don't say we didn't warn you. Everything they touch turns to shit.
|
Q. What's the worst thing that will happen to BushCo. today?
A. Well it ain't Harriet Miers
Murray Waas:
Vice President Cheney and his chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, overruling advice from some White House political staffers and lawyers, decided to withhold crucial documents from the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2004 when the panel was investigating the use of pre-war intelligence that erroneously concluded Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, according to Bush administration and congressional sources.
Among the White House materials withheld from the committee were Libby-authored passages in drafts of a speech that then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell delivered to the United Nations in February 2003 to argue the Bush administration's case for war with Iraq, according to congressional and administration sources. The withheld documents also included intelligence data that Cheney's office -- and Libby in particular -- pushed to be included in Powell's speech, the sources said.
The new information that Cheney and Libby blocked information to the Senate Intelligence Committee further underscores the central role played by the vice president's office in trying to blunt criticism that the Bush administration exaggerated intelligence data to make the case to go to war.
Boy when it comes to treason these clowns make Aldrich Ames look like a piker.
|
The latest spate of news reports (or non-news reports, as the case may be) keep stirring up the same series of questions. Thought it might be helpful for a few legal knots to be undone, at least to the extent that I can do so with basic explanations. I previously addressed some issues on Grand Juries a while ago, but some additional questions and facts have arisen that needed further explanation, so here goes.Figured no one was really interested in a law review treatise on any of this, so I'm going to skip the arcane and just hit the essential bits. As with anything in the legal world, there are always all sorts of tangentially related matters, directly related exceptions and all sorts of other legal bits that may apply. This is, by no means, an exhaustive or comprehensive treatment of the subjects -- just a quick primer for the non-legal folks among us, or for the legal folks who never delve into criminal matters (it's a whole world unto its own, believe me).Is this a Grand Jury or a Special Grand Jury? What is the difference?
After everyone working for weeks under the assumption that this was a special grand jury, based on media reports, yesterday's article in the WaPo revived that question for me. Since there has been no sourcing in any of the articles thus far, I decided to take matters into my own hands and called the Federal District Court Clerk's Office for the DC Circuit this morning. Amazing how such a little thing as the telephone can prove so useful, isn't it?As it turns out, this is a regular old Grand Jury. The Clerk with whom I spoke told me that "no special Grand Jury is seated at this point" in the DC Circuit. (Am trying to not read into tea leaves that perhaps one could be seated shortly, and just take that as a no special grand jury at present, thanks.)
What this means in terms of the term of the grand jury is this: a regular grand jury has a normal term of 18 months. A special grand jury has a normal term of up to 36 months, if all extensions are requested.
However, and this is a big however for this case, a regular grand jury may also be extended for up to 6 months at the approval of the presiding judge. Rule 6(g) Discharging the Grand Jury. A grand jury must serve until the court discharges it, but it may serve more than 18 months only if the court, having determined that an extension is in the public interest, extends the grand jury’s service. An extension may be granted for no more than 6 months, except as otherwise provided by statute.
So, perhaps, Friday isn't the end of this particular jury after all. The determining factor is that the extension be in the "public's best interest," which in this case arguably would be based on the late-disclosed information due to refusals to testify (*cough*Judy*cough), obstruction issues, and the late-breaking "come to Jesus" moments that Jeralyn has so aptly described.
I have a call out to determine the exact date of empanelling, the term that has been served (because some extension had previously been granted I believe, and other details -- but I'm waiting for specifics on this), so I will update as I get them.
As this is a matter of national security, and as the Special Prosecutor has had to deal with obstruction and perjury issues from witnesses, I would think that an extension would be granted under those circumstances, should it be requested at, say, lunchtime meetings and so forth, if that is possible under the rules. But I know nothing at all concrete on this, so be warned that this is simply a legal possibility.
_____________________
UPDATE: Am inserting the update here to be sure everyone sees this. Thanks to reader Sebastian for the heads up -- I missed this in my quick re-read of the legal filings this morning. (No more posting without adequate coffee!)
...the grand jury's term (which was to expire in May 2005) was extended untile late October 2005, when it will finally expire....(from the Government's Memorandum in Opposition to "Joint Motion for Scheduling Conference"
So that means that the end of the 6 month extension would be it for this particular seated jury. This does not, however, in any way preclude the seating of a new G/J, nor does it preclude the voting of numerous indictments up or down today or tomorrow. (I, personally, have presented and had voted 47 individual, multi-count indictments in a single day for vote from a G/J, so it is certainly possible that a lot will happen tomorrow...or not. Hold onto your hats. Looks like a bumpy ride.)
___________________
Additionally, should the current grand jury term expire on Friday without an extension, a new grand jury could be convened to continue the investigation, if necessary, until a conclusion is reached on criminal culpibility for indictment.
Fitz would make that call and request to the presiding Judge, who would then approve or deny the request based on the stage reached in the investigation, the alleged criminal activity and its impact on the public, and a number of other factors. One would assume that a national security matter would rise to the level of deserving an extension or empanelling a new grand jury, but those decisions are best left to judges who know all the facts. We'll soon know which scenario is applicable -- as soon as tomorrow.
What's all the hubub about indictments? Can someone plead to a criminal charge without being indicted? What is a sealed indictment? What is an indictment anyway?
Defendants can be indicted by the grand jury as a means of being charged criminally -- but they do not have to be charged in order to enter a guilty plea. A prosecutor also has what is called an "information" in his arsenal as a means of charging a defendant with a criminal charge outside of the grand jury process.
An information allows the prosecutor to work out a plea deal with a potential defendant, often in exchange for that defendant "flipping" or giving substantial cooperation and testimony against others in a criminal enterprise, before the grand jury has ceased examining the case. (This happens a lot in drug and mafia prosecutions where you have interconnected conspiracies and defendants with differing levels of culpibility in the criminal enterprise. Prosecutors start at the bottom and work their way up in these situations.)
An indictment is a statement by the grand jury that says that they feel that it is more likely than not that a person has been involved in the commission of a crime and that a criminal trial is warranted based on the evidence they have seen. This isn't to say that a person is determined likely to be guilty, but that it is more likely than not that they might be found guilty. (I know, splitting hairs, but there you are. A grand jury works at a far lower standard than a criminal trial jury -- a "more likely than not" versus a "beyond a reasonable doubt" sort of difference.)
Prosecutors have a lot of leeway in how they structure the indictment proffered to the grand jury members for voting. They can be broken down by each individual involved in a particular criminal enterprise -- say, if you have 5 people involved in a conspiracy, there can be 5 separate indictments, one for each person. Each individual indictment can contain a single count -- or it contain many, many counts -- depending on the conduct alleged.
Or a prosecutor may seek a single indictment for a particular criminal enterprise that is a large conspiracy, but it will detail the various people alleged to have participated in this scheme and who are implicated by this indictment. So every time you hear some rumor that there is only one indictment -- well, that doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot, unless you know what kind of indictment it is, now does it?
A sealed indictment is one which is kept from being publicly disclosed for a time, until the defendant has been arrested and arraigned before a Federal Magistrate Judge. Sealed indictments are often used in cases where there is an ongoing investigation (Such as drug cases, where you work up the chain from the small dealers to the bigger ones, but you don't want to tip anyone off that you are investigating their network if, say, you've flipped a few low level people and are using them to do controlled buys up the chain.) and/or you have defendants that you are afraid will flee your jurisdiction before they are apprehended. But they may also be used for other reasons, including security and other considerations, if approved by the presiding judge.
What is a "creative prosecutor?"
In my experience, the people who complain about a prosecutor being creative are criminal defense attorneys and family members of the people indicted. In this case, it's GOP strategists, who haven't complained at all about the "creative" use of detaining people of interest for terrorism cases without any hearing, any legal representation or any due process for months. Ahem.
Prosecutors are limited by the laws as written by Congress. However, if someone has broken a law, and is charged with that particular conduct, the prosecutor should not be castigated for charging the violation simply because other prosecutors are either too lazy, too uneducated, or too busy to use prosecutions for that law themselves -- even prosecutors sometimes get into a rut in terms of what they do and don't charge. A good prosecutor avails herself of all the laws, not just a select few.
No matter how you label a prosecutor, that does not change the fact that the underlying conduct may have violated a law on the books. And since Congress makes the federal laws, hearing Congressional members complain about "creative prosecutions" is really kind of amusing. Those darn perjury technicalities and all.
What's with all the late gumshoe work and sending out the FBI guys this week to talk with neighbors and stuff? Does that mean the prosecutor has been sloppy about details like some talking head person said on TV or what?
Well, no. What it likely means is that some witness with whom investigators spoke recently made some very specific factual claim about something that was or was not said or done that involved the Wilson's neighbors. Like any good prosecutor, Fitz would have investigators check and double check any factual representation made to him.
For example, the WaPo article that Jane talks about below indicated that Adam Levine (a former Rove aide) had been re-interviewed and that he spoke about talking with some of the Wilson's neighbors. Well, there's a fact they might want to double-check right there, isn't it? (UPDATE: Per PollyUSA's comment, I re-read the WaPo paragraph and I'm not certain that it indicates that Levine talked with neighbors. But I'm not ruling it out. Maybe they will clarify-- I sent an e-mail asking for clarification and will report back if I get it.) And if Rove or some other witness made other statements of fact, they'd be out checking those as well. I mean, honestly, would you take any of these people at their word at this point? Yeah, I thought not.
Some great resource pages on grand juries, indictments, etc.:
* University of Dayton Federal Grand Jury Resource Page
* ABA Grand Jury Resource Page
* Law Info Grand Jury Resource Page
Also, some great information always on TalkLeft, Mark Kleiman, and a whole lotta other blogger pages that deal with legal issues.
(Graphics love to Physics News Graphics for the intriguing map of "A sequence of photos showing how a model polymer, made of tiny balls connected by rods, can untie itself when being shaken. Science. So infinitely cool.)
UPDATE: Still waiting on a call back on verfication on jury information. Something tells me that no one will be answering any questions until tomorrow. Sorry gang -- wish I could be more precise on the extension/non-extension possibilities question.
I'm also adding this from the comments. OtisIsHungry's practice is a much more Federal-centric one than mine was -- I was a State prosecutor and when in private practice did some, but not exclusively, Federal criminal appointments. This is useful information and I wanted to be sure that it didn't get missed in the comments. Otis said:
Couple piddlin' picky points:
RH wrote: but they do not have to be charged in order to enter a guilty plea. A prosecutor also has what is called an "information" in his arsenal as a means of charging a defendant with a criminal charge outside of the grand jury process. (RH: That's what I get for trying to shorthand this information too much for everyone.)
Otis responds: The 5th Amendment requires no one can be put to trial for a federal felony unless they've been charged by Indictment, however, a defendant may waive that right in Federal court and plead to a felony charged by prosecutor's Information. So, unless there is already a deal-- a signed, sealed and delivered deal-- anyone charged in this case will first be in an Indictment, which may later be dismissed in favor of a plea to a reduced charge in an Information, or, more likely, a flipper will be allowed to plead to a lesser liabilty count originally included in the indictment, and the rest will be dismissed. Salient point-it is always possible that there are deals (plea agreements) struck and signed and filed under seal. Cooperators or flippers can be useful at trial against anyone who still hasn't caved and is going to trial, not just for testimony in the GJ. After the GJ is finished, there will still be flippers getting deals.
RH said: say, if you have 5 people involved in a conspiracy, there can be 5 separate indictments, one for each person. (This is where my State experience and the Federal rules differ and I failed to differentiate that in my post. Sorry!)
Otis responds: Federal rules for joinder (FRCrP 8)say ,"no." One conspiracy= one indictment, no matter how many defendants; however, defedants or substantive counts in the indictment may get severed for trial for various & particular reasons not relevant now.
RH said: In my experience, the people who complain about a prosecutor being creative are criminal defense attorneys and family members of the people indicted.
Otis says: In my experience, a conservative is a liberal who hasn't been indicted yet! ;-)
UPDATE #2: For those looking for some great information on Plea Agreements/Deals, Jeralyn has a great post on the subject on TalkLeft here. Here's to many plea agreements -- for that will mean many defendants. Get your deals while they still exist.
|
"The spokesman for Mr. Fitzgerald, Randall Sanborn, refused to comment." I can't tell you how many times I've read that line. Every time I open a paper, it seems. And I'm always thinking, I want this guy's job -- he could be phoning it in from the high Himalayas for all we know.
So when I called him up the other day I expected the same thing. Since I'm working on a post on Fitzgerald, I had to do the obligatory request for an interview, which I knew he'd turn down, which he did.
"One more thing," I said. "I'd like to know if you could confirm the Viagra pen story."
There was a long silence on the other end of the phone.
"Refresh my memory," he said.
I said I was told that Mr. Fitzgerald likes to wave a pen around in his press conferences, and that someone planted a Viagra pen in the green room prior to one of them. He picked it up and spent the entire press conference waving it around like -- well, like a Viagra pen.
Silence.
"I will confirm that Pat has been seen on occasion holding a pen."
"Okay," I said. "I've also heard that you now regularly sweep the green room for pens."
More silence. Then finally:
"I'm tempted to say something sarcastic..."
Come on, Randall, you can do it, come on...I know you've got it in you...all those pent up comments from all those years of "no comment"..."...but I'm a non-speaking spokesman. I've got to stick to my reputation," he laughed.
Damn!"I will confirm that it's been a while since I've seen him with a pen or any other sharp object."
Okay, Randall. Well, that's more than anyone else has gotten out of you in two years.
We may be hearing more soon. I spoke with a veteran Washington insider last night (at 12:30 in the morning, no less) who indicated that even if there are no indictments coming down this week, we'll probably see some sort of statement from Fitzgerald. The nation is all wound up for a Friday deadline, and the source speculated that the good will Fitzgerald had engendered would be compromised if
nothing was forthcoming.
The source indicated we might see Fitzgerald on the courthouse lawn, giving a careful, general explanation of what is going on. "Prosecutors need legitimacy," said the source, who says that Fitzgerald might explain that since the testimony of the New York Times reporter was only recently forthcoming, and more information about what happened is coming down every day, his office needed time to follow it all up.
"I would hope that Fitzgerald would have just enough sensitivity to realize that he's got to be really careful and shouldn't piss people off," said the source, who indicated that a vacuum of silence would be likely to bring down a flurry of half-angry editorials that have heretofore been scant.
But let's be clear -- Fitzgerald has
not been silent. His actions have spoken volumes. Showing up at
Karl Rove's attorney's office was meant to publicly telegraph that Rove was still on the hook and keep the pressure up on him, and keep him from shifting all the public scrutiny onto Libby. Signing a
new office lease was a big -- well, Viagra pen to those who have been chirping in the media that he might just fold up his tent and go home. It was a clear indication that indictments will most certainly be coming down and he is digging in for the long haul.
I have a feeling Mr. Sanborn's single-sentence job is about to get a lot more complex. And that we will speak again.
|
Seems like falling on your sword to protect your boss is a habit at the White House these days. Harriet Miers withdrew her name from consideration for the Supreme court this morning, according to the WaPo. Harriet Miers withdrew her nomination to be a Supreme Court justice Thursday in the face of stiff opposition and mounting criticism about her qualifications.
Bushie released a statement blaming the meanies in Congress for wanting actual information about his nominee. (Looks like the Krauthammer face-saving out idea came just in time.) ...He blamed her withdrawal on calls in the Senate for the release of internal White House documents that the administration has insisted were protected by executive privilege.
"It is clear that senators would not be satisfied until they gained access to internal documents concerning advice provided during her tenure at the White House -- disclosures that would undermine a president's ability to receive candid counsel," Bush said...
Thank goodness for Harriet's commitment to separation of powers issues and...well, and for the Republican leadership in the Senate clearly communicating to the WH that this was going to get more and more embarassing if they kept going. Oh, and that the votes were not there. Wow, thank goodness for that adherence to principles...thingy.Good day to sink the nomination, what with all the Fitzgerald speculation occupying the media. Except, there weren't any indictments announced yesterday to eat up the spotlight...maybe they know something we don't in terms of what will be announced today?
Tweety was just on MSNBC saying essentially that this is an embarassment mainly for the "B-Team," and that no one knows who is really in charge at the White House right now in terms of the top decisions in the wake of the Traitorgate investigation and all the turmoil that has gone on for months with the Administration -- Katrina, Iraq, Miers, potential indictments, etc.Okay, now I feel safer.Ted Olson, Michael McConnell, and the other usual suspects have their names already floating around. Again. The one thing we can be certain of is that this time, some vetting my actually be done. Beyond that, all bets are off. More as we get it on this.UPDATE: Miers' letter to the President is up here. The Preznit's full statement is up here.
MSNBC (via Chip Reid) is reporting that a Republican Senator on the Judiciary Committee phoned the President and told him that the nomination had to be withdrawn and that the votes were not there. The call occurred last night, according to the reporting. No word on the particular Senator, but they then flashed up information on Sam Brownback. Hmmmmmm.....UPDATE #2: Some questions for this morning. Is this the point where Senators push themselves forward to fill the perceived void that Rove may be leaving in his legal distractions? Senators are not used to being told what to do, by the WH or anyone else, and the behind the scenes and public chafing at being given marching orders by Rove has been interesting to watch. Once that bit has been removed from their mouths -- as it seemed to be in all of the Republican opposition to Miers -- it is awfully hard to get them back in the bridle.But which faction of Senators will win the wrestling match? The more moderate Specter judicial wing, the Christian Conservative Brownback group, or the maverick competence-touting McCain and Hegel crew? It's going to be an interesting tea-leaf reading experience over the next few weeks as the next phase of judicial nominee contemplation occurs.And does this mean that Rove re-asserts himself as indespensable, using the problems with this nomination to wedge himself back through the crack in the door that had widened through all the Traitorgate mess? Does he stay in place, whether or not he gets indicted, because Bush is now too afraid to make decisions without him again? Or has Rove already overplayed his hand by putting himself out in the press as the "Bush's brain" kind of guy and the Preznit has had enough? This dynamic will be interesting to watch as well.Finally, Ed Gillespie and a lot of other GOP operatives have been much more visible over the last few days. Has the beauty pageant started already to select the Rove replacement, regardless of what happens with the legal case, because Rove has become so radioactive? Or does this mean that Andy Card should be watching his back? Interesting stuff to watch over the next few days, boys and girls.
|
New article in the
WaPo, who are still smarting after having their
asses handed to them when the NYT scooped them earlier this week:
But after grand jurors left the federal courthouse before noon Wednesday, it was unclear whether Fitzgerald had spelled out the criminal charges he might ask them to consider, or whether he had asked them to vote on any proposed indictments. Fitzgerald's legal team did not present the results of a grand jury vote to the court Wednesday, which he is required to do within days of such a vote.
Doesn't sound like anybody needs to be setting their alarm clocks early tomorrow morning.
Wednesday's three-hour grand jury session came after agents and prosecutors this week conducted last-minute interviews with Adam Levine, a member of the White House communications team at the time of the leak, about his conversations with Rove, and with Plame's neighbors in Washington D.C.
Who is Adam Levine? Well, he worked in the White House as a Communications Aide from 2001-2003. According to the
NYT, "Levine left the Bush administration in December after working as the principal liaison between the White House and television networks." And according to
CNN, he was "one of the few press officials at the White House to answer reporters’ calls [during the Africa trip].”
Laura Rozen wrote in Feb. 2004:
The White House press aide interviewed this week by FBI officials in relation to the Plame leak investigation, Adam Levine, apparently left the White House in December. Which is when John Aschroft recused himself from the investigation. Now several news organizations report that Levine's job was to serve as a link between the White House press office and television networks. An old Knight Ridder story refers to "Adam Levine, the assistant press secretary at the White House who coordinates the Sunday appearances."
(snip)
It's kind of interesting -- that Adam Levine's job was to book White House officials on TV news and talk shows. He doesn't sound like he's the kind of senior official or has the job description to have likely known in intimate detail who's who at the CIA. He would have no reason to know about Plame's role, except had he been told by his superiors to try to get his contacts say at NBC to follow this other side of the Wilson story. (my emphasis)
"Kind of interesting" -- well now that you mention it, yes it is.
But not wanting the big boys to feel left out, our Mr. Fitzgerald is sweating them, too:
People close to Rove said he fears a perjury charge because he did not initially tell the grand jury that he had spoken with Time reporter Matthew Cooper about Plame before her name was publicly disclosed. Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, declined to comment yesterday.
A lawyer other than Luskin who is familiar with Rove's legal strategy said the aide testified that he believed he was trading on publicly available information in discussing Plame with reporters.
Yeah, now if he could just remember who it was publicly available
to.
And in other news that should be heartening to those who feel themselves in a protracted state of
coitus interruptus,
Steve Clemons reports:
Patrick Fitzgerald is expanding not only into a new website -- but also into more office space.
Fitzgerald's office is at 1400 New York Avenue, NW, 9th Floor in Washington.
What I have learned is that the Office of the Special Counsel has signed a lease this week for expanded office space across the street at 1401 New York Avenue, NW.
Another coincidence? More office space needed to shut down the operation?
My knowledge of architecture is sketchy, but I would say this building has an inner beauty that totally mitigates its ugly factor.
|
When I was an 18 years old, I worked as a lackey at the San Francisco Bay Guardian. I had to do the stuff nobody else wanted to do -- consigned to writing about the Half Moon Bay pumpkin festival or spending the afternoon at City Hall looking through microfiche and counting the number of radio waves in the air because some wack job had wandered in off the street and convinced Editor-in-Chief Bruce B. Bruggman (or "B3" as we knew him) that they were giving everyone brain cancer, More often than not, my efforts turned up fruitless, to which B3 would always respond: "there is no story --
that's a story!"
Proving once again to my eternal vindication that this is not always true,
Salon Magazine runs a filler piece on Fitzgerald today:
It can also be recorded in these pages that rumors had already been making the rounds through the courthouse for nearly an hour about the substance of the first "off-the-record" utterance, a major event by the man who holds the nation's political future in his briefcase. Apparently, he had said, "I'm leaving," according to several secondhand accounts. In other words, Fitzgerald appears to have told reporters, "off-the-record," that his session behind closed doors with the grand jury was done for the day. There would not be, at least immediately, a press conference at the courthouse steps. No frog marching of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby or Karl Rove. No relief to the weeks of building speculation over the fate of the Bush White House.
For the nearly two dozen print reporters and television producers who had spent the day scrambling through the corridors of the courthouse like fevered rats sniffing for cheese, this was a bit of a letdown. The pack had proved itself particularly inept Wednesday, always standing on the wrong side of the grand jury door or in the hallways, rustling papers and thumbing BlackBerrys, as confused as everyone else. Reporters nodded and smiled in unison at members of the grand jury as they filed in and out of the elevator, cradling coffee or walking on canes, wearing winter coats or shouldering large purses. But that was it. Hardly a word was exchanged. To pass the time, reporters traded theories about what was going on. One cable news producer cradled a walkie-talkie and could be heard at one point saying to an associate at another position in or around the courthouse, "Red dog, this is Grey Fox." Another reporter, betraying some frustration, mused about her own profession, "We sound like such losers, and that's because we are."
The morning had certainly started on a somewhat more optimistic note. Fitzgerald, upon entering the courthouse, had stayed firmly "on-the-record."
"Today the day?" one reporter asked him after he had passed through the metal detector. "I've got no comment, sorry," he said, striking a sympathetic tone.
Another reporter tried a less direct tack. Referring to the swarm of cameramen outside the courtroom who had all but assaulted him with their lenses when he arrived at the courthouse, she said, "They are getting some good shots of you."
Fitzgerald, who knows the whole world is waiting for him to speak, took the bait. "Oh," he said, in an admirably self-deprecating tone. "There is no good shot of me."
Well, they got one thing right -- the future of the nation
is riding on the shoulders of the big man in the rumpled suit. All in all, I have to say that compared to the deeply furrowed brows and haggard grimaces worn by those he is pursuing, he seems to be holding up remarkably well.
Which goes to show that nothing does wonders for the complexion like a clean conscience. Maybe there
is a story after all.
|
Okay, watched Hardball & Countdown, several points:
1. Somebody needs to press Fitzgerald's suit, pronto.
2. Since when are Tucker Carlson and Bob Shrum experts on anything but world-class wankery?
3. Mike Allen (Time Magazine) sez if Fitzgerald got indictments today, he can go back to the targets and say "plead to this or have a few more on Friday."
4. Allen says of Fitzgerald's appearance on Tuesday at Rove's attorneys -- "he
knew he'd be seen." Can we say we appreciate that kind of flair for the dramatic?
5. On Countdown, Jim Vandehei (WaPo) went on the line -- no GJ extension, everything will definitely be over by Friday. You're on the line now, Jim. With so much activity still going on, it's really remarkable of you to stick your neck out like that. We'll all see how good your crystal ball is.
5. For
TraitorGate: The Movie,
Atrios was the first one to suggest Harriet Sansom Harris for Judy Miller (above). Agreed. And Philip Seymour Hoffman as anyone.
|
Just got off the phone with a source who has appeared before Fitzgerald's grand jury who thinks that the Special Counsel is going to "go wide" with indictments -- i.e., a lot of people are going to get nailed. And from what I'm hearing, I agree. Which is why I put so little stock in anyone who's running around saying
"oooh, this just in -- Rove and Libby are going to be indicted! Announcement tomorrow!" That just lights my bullshit meter up like a pinball machine. Man, you are really out on a limb with that prediction, aren't ya?
Also, a grand juror was overheard waving to a reporter and saying "see you Friday" when they left today. So we may not be quite
there yet.
The bottom line in all this is that at this point, I think nobody knows what's going to happen, so take all predictions with a grain of salt, even this one. I hate to throw cold water on everyone's expectations for tomorrow, but even amidst the hearty speculation we like to engage in around here we also like to ground things in reality. And the reality is if Fitzgerald is still pursuing an investigation, he's probably going to want some time to use that info in his "come to Jesus" talks with the perps.
So in the mean time relax, have yourself a chocolate milk and pay our new friend Ron Rosenbaum a visit, he admitted to being a "firedoglake-aholic" today in the
New York Observer (he's got a crush on Redd).
You gotta love him for that.
Update: Lawrence O'Donnell agrees: "Experienced federal prosecutors are saying today that they expect Fitzgerald to extend the term of the grand jury even if he obtains indictments this week."
|
Building on Swopa's "empty suit" theory, I've been contemplating a lot of the issues that need to be addressed, the questions that need to be asked in light of the latest series of leaks and revelations in Traitorgate (and, frankly, with a lot of the other things we've seen the last few years).While I'm thinking about this post, I'm sitting in my kitchen with the TV on MSNBC, waiting for my tea kettle to heat and for my toddler to fall asleep, and Chris Matthews comes on with a mini-update and addresses the same exact points I've been contemplating. And more succinctly. Man, Tweety has been on fire lately.Matthews raised a number of issues, and I've got a few of my own, so I'm going to paraphrase and add to them here. This ought to be something we are all asking ourselves and talking about around the country.It goes something like this:*Did Cheney know that the Niger documents were fake, and told the President, and then that information was still included in the run-up to war?*Did Cheney know the information that the Niger documents were fake, chose not to tell the President, and allowed him to make those claims in the State of the Union, knowing that it was false?*And if he chose not to tell the Preznit but allowed him to go out in front of Congress and the American people and perpetuate a lie, what does that say about Cheney? *What does that say about the Preznit? Is the "empty suit" theory really the truth?*Why would Cheney ask about this Niger information from the CIA, and then never bother to follow-up with them to see if he got an answer? (Matthews said that he had asked Tenet about this and his response was "Ask Cheney what he knew." Matthews then said he'd like to have both of them in a room under oath together to find out what had happened with this, and so would I. Would that Congress was actually doing some oversight, but I'm not going to hold my breath. Maybe I can add this to my Fitzmas list.)*If Cheney was involved in looking into Wilson's background for a political hit (and I think it's pretty clear that he was, based on everything we know from leaks and information in the public domain), what did he tell the President about all of this?*If he told him nothing, again what does this say about the Preznit and his empty suit-ness?*What does it say that, if Cheney didn't say anything to the Preznit, that he thought he could just get away with this kind of political payback? Was this so routine that they didn't even bother discussing something like this? I mean, we know that this was Rove's MO and that they never really got out of campaign mode, but was there a concerted effort to keep the Preznit out of the loop to insulate him from political or criminal blowback if there was a problem? Or did they just not even think about adding him in because he wouldn't have added anything to the thought process -- or because he routinely is left out of the loop? And if so, why would that be?*What sort of odd dynamic is there between the Preznit and the VP -- who actually runs the show? How much of the foreign policy and defense decision-making has been the VPs portfolio this whole time? I am reminded of the whole question of Cheney supposedly directing defense decisions from the bunker under the WH while Junior was flying around in the midwest in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. Is that something that has been a lot more usual than we all know publicly? And how much does the press know about this, and haven't reported it? Or if they don't know, why hasn't that been something more explored in this current mess?And that's just a start to the list of questions. There are so many more, and the only answers that I can come up with are so co-dependent and screwed up in terms of how things have been potentially operating, that it makes my brain spin.But that's a good start for conversation on this. Will add more if I get another burst of inspiration.In the meantime, Froomkin is again excellent today. Definitely worth a read.And Richard Sale has updated his report that was being discussed in comments earlier. Thought everyone would like a heads up for the update. (Ooops -- forgot to link. The update is on Booman and also on Sic Semper.)
Will post more news as we get it.UPDATE: Via Atrios, CNN is reporting that Fitz met with the presiding judge for 45 minutes after the jury adjourned for the day.
|
Atrios points us to the
WSJ:
New York Times reporter Judith Miller has begun discussing her future employment options with the newspaper, including the possibility of a severance package, a lawyer familiar with the matter, said yesterday.
Known in the vernacular as THE BOOT.
Mr. Sulzberger and New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller both indicated they wished they had known more about the circumstances that led Ms. Miller to go to jail rather than reveal who told her the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson.
Which is why it strikes us as odd that they never bothered to
ask. I mean, how hard could it have been to roll over and say "hey baby, as long as you're up can you grab me a piece of pie, and by the way that WMD stuff...was it all just bullshit?"
Ms. Miller's attorney has said the reporter isn't a target of the investigation, but she could be called as a witness if Mr. Fitzgerald obtains indictments in the case. New York Times Co. has been paying Ms. Miller's legal bills, but it isn't clear whether they would continue to do so if she is no longer employed by the company.
Well if Judy's going to be footing her own legal bills, I guess a $1.2 million book deal would sure come in helpful, huh? Well, I spoke yesterday with someone directly involved with the negotiation of that book deal, who says -- there is no book deal.
Let's print her up a sign and plunk her down in front of the Times building -- "Will shill for legal bills."
(graphics love to Valley Girl)
|
CNN is reporting that there will be no announcements today in the Traitorgate case. Still working on determining their sourcing on this -- and trying to figure out what it might mean.
Do not panic. (For the record, my money is still on indictments. Note the plural.)The federal grand jury investigating the leak of a CIA operative's identity could hand up charges as early as today, but Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald is not expected to make any public announcements Wednesday, one source with knowledge of the probe told CNN.
This isn't saying that there won't be votes on indictments or that an extension is looming, just that no official announcement will be forthcoming today.
Several experts told CNN it is possible the grand jury on Wednesday still could consider the question of indictments and if it votes to return one or more, the indictments could remain under seal and made public later.
These experts also said it is possible the grand jury could consider indictments later this week, or that no charges will be brought.
It is also possible Fitzgerald will let this grand jury term end and take his case to a new panel.
In other words, it's a non-story story just to let us know that it's likely we won't know anything for sure today. Unless, of course, Fitz changes his mind. UPDATE: And while we wait, eRiposte has some great analysis up at LeftCoaster on the whole Niger/Italian/Hadley/etc. interconnection. It's a great read -- highly recommended. HUGE hat tip to reader Pachacutec for dubbing this "Fitzmas Interruptus." That's hilarious, and a much needed giggle.UPDATE #2: Bloomberg also updating that there will be no news announcement today. Fitz met with G/J for a little over 3 hours, and left the courthouse. No report that the jury left, which says there may be deliberations ongoing to me. Will update when we get some news.UPDATE#3: Bob Kerr on MSNBC just reported that Luskin was the one who arranged the last-minute meeting with Fitz (and possibly Rove) yesterday at Luskin's offices. Also, Kerr reports that investigators spoke with Rove associateS (plural) yesterday following up on leads. Reporting that the anxiety level at the WH is very high, despite McClellan's public statements to the contrary. (Well, no news there, but the Luskin arranging a meeting bit smacks of deal-making, cooperation and other possibilities. Jeralyn covered this well -- take a peek here.)
|
Patrick Fitzgerald has been in Washington since Monday, according to the latest report from Newsday. He's been dispatching FBI agents to finish up last-minute loose ends, including talking with the Wilson's neighbors on whether anyone knew Valerie Plame Wilson's status as a CIA NOC prior to the Novak column (Answer according to Newsday? Nope. One GOP talking point DOA.) The LA Times had this to say about the follow-ups:
Critics of the leak investigation have said it was an open secret that Plame worked for the CIA; if many people knew that she worked for the agency, it would make prosecution under the 1982 law protecting covert agents nearly impossible.
But neighbors contacted by The Times said they told the FBI agents that they had no idea of her agency life, and that they knew her as a mother of twins who worked as an energy consultant.
The LA Times also added a bit at the end of the article on the Italian reporting on the Niger documents. It's hit the MSM. Let the investigative reporting begin.
Looks like the FBI was also interviewing a former Rove associate yesterday. It appears, according to the NYTimes, that Fitz doesn't take Rove at his word. Smart boy. Sounds like a meticulous review of Karl's fourth round of testimony to me -- sure hope he didn't tell any whoppers. Ahem.CBS is reporting that the stories on Cheney's role (broken by the Times) contradict not just his public statements, but also his testimony. More on this as we get more details. FWIW, CBS is also reporting that Cheney was questioned under oath by Fitzgerald. Guess we'll see as indictments move forward whether this is correct, and whether he was completely cooperative and truthful, depending on any charges filed.
If the vice president made an untruthful statement in public, it may look bad, but it doesn't amount to a crime, Roberts reports.
True, it isn't a crime. But it does make him a liar. See Arianna's latest on Huffington Post for more on the liar, liar, pants on fire angle.
Speaking of the Times, Jehl has put together a review of how difficult it has been in the past to track down leakers -- and how well Fitz has done in this case of pinning down some of the most powerful people in Washington for their role in the mess, and also in penetrating the journalist's role in how planted leaks play out for political gain around the city.
Exchanges between reporters and government officials have always been a central part of how Washington really works. They have served as shortcuts, ways to trade information beyond the glare of television lights and outside of bureaucratic barriers. But Mr. Fitzgerald, who obtained federal subpoenas to compel reporters to testify in the case, is not the only one in Washington who is trying to train a new kind of spotlight on the transactions.
It's a tough balance between the public's right to know information from whistleblowers and the manipulation of public perceptions by using the Press as a shortcut. But it's certainly a topic that deserves a lot more public discussion, given the implications of the WHIG and Judy show just as one example.
Have some hope for news, though, both the Financial Times and the Washington Post are reporting that indictments could be forthcoming today. Buried in the middle of the WaPo article is this juicy tidbit:
Fitzgerald has looked closely not only at the possible crimes, but also the context in which they would have been committed. This search, say lawyers in the case, has provided him a rare, glimpse into the White House effort to justify the Iraq war and rebut its critics.
Could be a very interesting day, indeed. Let's hope, for all our sakes, that the dam breaks soon.
UPDATE: Reuters puts Fitz and the Grand Jury members in the building together for sure. AP has Fitz and the Jury entering at 9 am this morning. Not exactly news, but at least we have an exact time. Ahem.
|
Bill Frist (R-TN): To not remove President Clinton for grand jury perjury lowers uniquely the Constitution's removal standard, and thus requires less of the man who appoints all federal judges than we require of those judges themselves.
I will have no part in the creation of a constitutional double-standard to benefit the President. He is not above the law.
If an ordinary citizen committed these crimes, he would go to jail.Lindsey Graham: Should he be impeached? Very quickly; the hardest decision I think I will ever make. Learning that the president lied to the grand jury about sex, I still believe that every president of the United States,
regardless of the matter they called to testify about before a grand jury should testify truthfully and if they don't they should be subject to losing their job.I believe that about Bill Clinton and I'll believe that about the next president. If it had been a Republican, I would have still believed that and
I would hope that if a Republican person had done all this that some of us would've went (sic) over and told him, You need to leave office. Henry Hyde (R-ILL, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee): But when circumstances require you to participate in a formal court proceeding and under oath mislead the parties and the court by lying,
that is a public act and deserves public sanction. Perjury is a crime with a five-year penalty.James Sensenbrenner: (R-WI): What is on trial here is the truth and the rule of law. Our failure to bring President Clinton to account for his lying under oath and preventing the courts from administering equal justice under law, will cause a cancer to be present in our society for generations. I want those parents who ask me the questions, to be able to tell their children that even if you are president of the United States,
if you lie when sworn "to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth," you will face the consequences of that action, even when you don't accept the responsibility for them.Chuck Hagel (R-NB): There can be no shading of right and wrong. The complicated currents that have coursed through this impeachment process are many. But after stripping away the underbrush of legal technicalities and nuance, I find that the President abused his sacred power by lying and obstructing justice.
How can parents instill values and morality in their children? How can educators teach our children? How can the rule of law for every American be applied equally if we have two standards of justice in America--one for the powerful and the other for the rest of us?Mitch McConnell (R-KY): Perjury and obstruction hammer away at the twin pillars of our legal system: truth and justice. Every witness in every deposition is required to raise his or her right hand and swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help them God. Every witness in every grand jury proceeding and in every trial is required to raise his or her right hand and swear to tell the truth. Every official declaration filed with the court is stamped with the express affirmation that the declaration is true. In the words of our nation's first Supreme Court Chief Justice, John Jay:
`if oaths should cease to be held sacred, our dearest and most valuable rights would become insecure.'
|
New
LA Times article out that says Fitzgerald is still questioning people, this time Rove associates about contact he had with reporters in the days leading up to his outing of Valerie Plame. We can only imagine he is cross-checking Rove's recent four-hour testimony, thus giving Unka Karl a case of prickly heat. Sounds like his command performance did not impress Mr. Fitzgerald with its bravura.
Fitzgerald has also got FBI agents combing the Wilson's neighborhood, asking neighbors whether they were aware Mrs. Wilson worked for the CIA before she was outed by Robert Novak. Again, it sounds like an attempt to head off a defense that claims "no foul" because her place of employment was common knowledge, and something that is going to be a lot easier to establish now than after the whole thing turns into a bigger media circus than it already is.
It's an impressive attention to detail. And then there's this delightful stocking stuffer:
Some of the questioning indicated that Fitzgerald may still be considering indictments on charges that some have viewed as too difficult to pursue, including a prosecution under a federal law that makes it a felony to reveal the name of a covert agent.
(snip)
But neighbors contacted by The Times said they told the FBI agents that they had no idea of her agency life, and that they knew her only as a mother of twins who worked as an energy consultant.
Critics of the leak investigation have argued that it was an open secret that Plame worked for the CIA; if many people knew that she worked for the agency, it would make prosecution under the 1982 law protecting covert agents impossible. (my emphasis)
Oh please, let it be true. If only to send Victoria Toensing into inchoate rage.Some people familiar with national security investigations said they found this week's questioning to be curious at a time when Fitzgerald appeared to be wrapping up his investigation. They said establishing her covert status should have been a priority at the outset of the case; if her employer was already well known, the prosecutor would not have a case to bring under the agent-protection law.
Or maybe the claim is just so specious and absurd nobody bothered to try and disprove it until someone raised it like it actually made sense.
As a bonus stocking stuffer, stop by World o'Crap and read the
Rovegate Talking Points for Dummies. Something they should distribute to all the
Hardball guests prior to air time, IMHO. And yeah I'm talking to
you, Andrea Mitchell.
Update: Jeralyn says the
Raw Story post about Fitzgerald having been seen at the offices of Rove's attorney today means that he was probably interviewing the "cooperative Rove" once again.
|
It looks like Cheney is bloodied if not out of the game entirely. Junior sits on the sidelines like a dispirited waterboy watching one fallen warrior after another carried off the field. But are we really to believe that he is nothing more than a thick-witted victim of his compatriots' malfeasance? What are the odds?
Pretty fucking low, if you ask me.
This week saw the nick-of-time release of the
New Yorker article where Poppy's best friend, Brent Scowcroft, rushes in to save Junior by hanging all his cronies out to dry. "Poor Dubya, he just doesn't know how to pick his friends." But Scowcroft is a player in a much larger and much more telling drama with regard to Junior that is only hinted at in the New Yorker piece.
As
Digby writes:
The underlying narrative... is the subconscious rivalry between the father and the son, Scowcroft becoming the stand-in for 43's resentment toward 41. You wonder how many of the tragic blunders of the last five years are the result of crafty neocons playing into Junior's desire to gainsay his father.
Although the Bush family junta will pull together when it's time to collect their checks from the Carslyle group and preserve family hegemony, I think Digby is right in observing that there is a keen competition going on between the ne'er-do-well son and his patriarchal father that is positively Shakespearean.
Which has everything to do with why I'll never be convinced that Junior was not in on the attempt to smear Joe Wilson from the get-go, despite the desperate efforts of GOP playmakers to keep the focus away from him even as they offer up the head of the much-hated Cheney on a plate.
But let's dial it back a bit.
Bush's rush to war was a clear indictment of everything his father stood for. Where Bush 41's war with Iraq was a carefully measured campaign that sought to build alliances, share internationally the responsibility and expense and carefully court the world of public opinion, Bush 43's war resembled a pack of drunken cowboys riding into town and recklessly shooting up the saloon.
Junior's war was a mockery of his father's efforts, and he didn't want to waste time on things like National Intelligence Estimates, an analysis of all the pre-war intelligence regarding Iraq which might have caught many of the specious claims that were waved through by partisan yahoos playing spy. Dick Durbin had to make a special request for an NIE to even be done prior to a declaration of war (p. 12 of the SSCI). National Intelligence Officers say that "ideally they would like about three months to produce an NIE;" this one was produced in less than twenty days, and its findings
were never sent out for peer review or to a panel of outside experts because BushCo. said there wasn't time. (p. 13, SSCI)
Ergo, Curveball. And 2000 dead Americans.
I remember when Bubba Clinton and Bush Sr. were doing their tsunami tour and good son
Bubba slept on the floor so Poppy could have the bed. Ouch. That had to rankle Junior. Then Poppy invited Bubba up to Kennebunkport (site of Junior's DUI). When I read that, my back went straight up. There is
no way that a loadie like Junior didn't take that as an implicit criticism of everything he was and everything he'd done.
So when Joe Wilson appeared on the BushCo. radar as an administration critic, I'll believe Bush didn't register it when I'll believe Cheney came clean during his first tete-a-tete with Fitzgerald.
Wingnutia may want to impugn Wilson shamelessly, but Poppy called him a "
true American hero" and raised him to the rank of Ambassador for the skillful way he handled himself in the midst of a very delicate and dangerous situation during the first Iraq war.
Moreover -- Scowcroft
loved him.
Scowcroft and Wilson were chummy. They both sat on the American Turkish Council. As Wilson said in his book:
We fell into an easy relationship and would banter back and forth about the new administration and its predecessors. After board meetings or other events, we'd often Metro back across town together. As the obsession with Iraq overtook many influential members of the Bush administration, our conversations turned frequently to the emerging debate on Iraq and the merits of the approach being advanced by the prowar crowd.
Hallo! Wilson would pal around with Poppy's best friend and trash Junior. Then Scowcroft publicly called Junior out:
Brent Scowcroft was becoming increasingly concerned that perhaps his earlier optimism had been misplaced. No longer certain that the administration would shun the neoconservative path, he wrote a piece that appeared in the Wall Street Journal. on August 15, 2002. He warned of potential disaster if we tried to deal with Saddam militarily.
Before Wilson published his
October 13, 2002 article for the
San Jose Mercury News in which he was openly critical of BushCo.'s ramp up to war, he sent it to Scowcroft and Baker for review, as well as Poppy. Catch this:
Brent called me when he received the article. He kindly asked if he could "take it over to the White House," only about two blocks from his downtown office. He said that he thought senior officials ought to read the views of somebody who actually had experience in Iraq and with Saddam's government. (p. 296, my emphasis)
So Poppys best friend Scowcroft (who's already on record for publicly calling Junior a fuckup) carries Wilson's article down to the White House and swats Junior over the head with it like a dog that had peed on the rug. Acting as a stand-in for his war veteran dad, holding Wilson up as a model of patriotism and bravery while laughing at Nintendo boy for launching a foolish war from the comfort of his Barcalounger.
Jesus tapdancing Christ. You think THAT didn't raise every hair on the back of Junior's neck?
The day after Joe Wilson's July 6, 2003 op-ed piece in the NYT was published, Bush and his entourage were on their way to what they hoped would be a
historic tour of Africa. Bush was hoping to trump Bubba by arranging for a longer and more extensive trip than any American president had thus far undertaken.
Yet from the moment the plane took off, all Ari Fleischer seemed to want to talk about was Joe Wilson. I mentioned it yesterday, but I'll quote it here again, from Wilson's book:
Within a day, Fleischer was putting a different spin on the situation and downplaying the importance of my report. At one briefing after another, he had something to say about me, and by doing so gave the journalists another news cycle to talk about the sixteen words rather than about the president's trip. Instead of containing the burgeoning press frenzy, Fleischer kept giving the story legs, so much so that it soon overwhelmed the president's agenda in Africa.
If Bush wasn't in on the "smear Wilson" campaign and didn't care about it, I have to believe he would've told Ari to put a sock in it and focus instead on all the great photo ops this current trip was affording him. It was his big chance to con Tony Blair into believing he actually gave a shit about Africa, and pretend his medieval policies on contraception weren't responsible for wiping out large swaths of the population.
Why would he allow Joe Wilson to have the limelight and shit all over his big PR campaign? 'Cos Wilson was Poppy's guy, that's why, Bush is his mama's boy -- as
Arianna noted, he's a guy born on third base who thinks he's hit a triple. He can't talk back to Poppy. Hell, he can't even talk back to Scowcroft. But he sure could grind Joe Wilson into the ground with a faux-cowboy boot heel.
They've tried to argue that this was all Cheney's doing, but I don't buy it. This wasn't the kind of thing Rove needed to "protect" Junior from. It's the kind of dirty, junior high politics that Junior delights in.
May it come back to haunt him.
|
According to the NYT, they made a mistake,
Cheney was not under oath when he answered questions for Fitzgerald in June of 2004. However, as
Jeralyn noted
in the comments:
I don't think the oath matters. If he wasn't under oath, it's a false statement charge. If he was, it's a perjury charge. But both have the same penalty - 5 years.
Perjury in this kind of case, if it does not occur before the grand jury, requires two witnesses. Perjury before the grand jury, or a false statement charge, does not have that requirement.
Also, a putative defendant may be able to cure a perjurious statement before the grand jury by going back and 'fessing up, if it was not particularly material to the crime, as Rove may have done with his Matthew Cooper conversation, but that option does not appear in the false statement or general perjury statute.
We also hear that more is going to emerge on the Cheney front...Fitzgerald probably wasn't interested in the Italian report on the Niger documents for more than just background...and don't get "too far out" on Tenet's denial that he was the source of Cheney's info.
Additional amusement: Reader Zack points out that Cheney's questioning by Fitzgerald would've been right around the same time he
dropped the "f" bomb on Patrick Leahy for having the unmitigated gall to question Halliburton's no-bid contracts in Iraq.
Evidently the Veep thinks he is above quite a bit, no?
Wonkette: "Word on the rainy streets of Washington is that Patrick Fitzgerald will be recalling some witnesses soon. Conflicting word is that he will announce indictments Thursday. Whatever the case, things are ugly and it's not just the weather....According to a reporter intimately familiar with White House operations, 'these slimy thugs are turning on each other like runner-up beauty queens.'"
Steve Clemons: "An uber-insider source has just reported the following to TWN:
1. 1-5 indictments are being issued. The source feels that it will be towards the higher end.
2. The targets of indictment have already received their letters.
3. The indictments will be sealed indictments and "filed" tomorrow.
4. A press conference is being scheduled for Thursday."
Steve is also reporting the rumor that McCain has been approached to replace Cheney if "health problems" force him to step down.
|
There is a reason that outing a CIA NOC is a crime. I talked about some of the implications of that in a previous post here, but Gary Hart has an eloquent take on the issue in today's HuffPo that is certainly worth a read. Whatever your feelings about the CIA, it is a dangerous job and not one for which most Americans are lining up these days. I am well aware that there have been numerous episodes of problems, to put it very mildly, with particular agents or missions, but that does not mean that every person at the CIA is tainted as a result, any more than some of the members of the Bush Administration can be held as a taint to every single person doing public service work today. Some members of the CIA, and other intelligence agencies do the work that helps to keep us safe: through information analysis, information gathering through a network of hard-earned assets in foreign countries or groups hostile to our safety, and by putting their lives directly on the line as deep cover agents pretending to be terrorists or criminals in order to gather the necessary information to stop a future attack on our soil or our interests before it ever happens.Hart addresses this particular issue with a story that has an ironic twist. Unfortunately, he sources the information incorrectly to Phillip Agee as being the person who outed the agent in question -- on this occasion that wasn't correct, it was someone else. But that doesn't negate the overarching story told of the agent's outing and subsequent murder at the hands of the very people he was trying to monitor.
Richard Welch, a brilliant Harvard-educated classicist, had been stationed in Greece as CIA station chief only a few months before he was murdered, by a radical Greek terrorist organization called the 17th of November, in the doorway of his house in Athens on Dec. 23, 1975.
In this world of intrigue and shadows, there are very real consequences for actions that expose agents. Very real.
No matter how many times some apologist sits in front of the camera or hides behind the anonymity of "Administration ally" in print, it does not change the fact that taking any action which exposes any part of a covert network weakens our national defense. No matter what motive. No matter how accidental. No matter how much they may regret it now.
And those assets and agents working alongside or under the exposed agent face the same exposure if they can be traced back to each other in any way.
To have this done by someone accidentally (or even on purpose for motives that they think, however misguided, are pure ones), is bad enough. These CIA agents are human beings with families, and often with a very patriotic and difficult history of working for this country without falling into any of the darker conduct which is so rightly criticised.
When the person who outs you is a member of your own government, and it is done for political payback purposes -- then what does that do? The political irony of all this is that conservative elements in America have always proclaimed themselves more concerned than anyone else with national security, the sanctity of classified information, protection of sources, support for our intelligence and military services, and so on. At radical times in our past, irresponsible leftist groups thought it was their duty to try to reveal the names of CIA agents. Now, under a conservative administration, it is these conservative national security champions who are saying, with regard to the "outing" of a CIA undercover officer, "Where's the crime?"
There is further irony in the fact that now the premier intelligence agency of the United States, the CIA, is in utter disarray. Morale is desperately low. Many of the best career officers are leaving. As the source of unbiased professional intelligence, the CIA has been diminished and pushed aside by the Department of Defense. This at a time when it is critical to national security to have the best possible intelligence to protect us from terrorism....
So, there's the crime. To casually and willfully endanger the life of an undercover CIA agent is a felony. You either believe in taking the laws of the United States seriously or you do not. Citizens - even highly placed ones - do not get to pick and choose which laws they will obey and which they will not. Miller and her publisher may think she's a hero, but I don't. It is well established that there is no First Amendment protection for a journalist or anyone else to withhold evidence of a crime.
Well said. But the twist in this story? I did promise there was a twist. There is one final irony to this story. On Christmas Eve in 1975, I got a call at my home from the director of the CIA, William Colby. He asked if I would intervene with the White House to obtain presidential approval to have Welch buried at Arlington National Cemetery, a hero fallen in service to his country. I quickly called President Ford's chief of staff on Colby's behalf and made the request. Within two hours, the president had agreed to sign the order permitting Welch to be buried at Arlington.
The chief of staff's name was Richard Cheney.
|
Don't think it's time to start the Fitzmas celebration just yet, but Raw Story is reporting that Fitz has decided to seek indictments.
More news as we get it.
Discuss. UPDATE: Not a good day to be Scott McClellan.UPDATE #2: Froomkin's White House Briefing has a fantastic wrap-up of the news again today. It includes the following questions, for which we would all like some answers.
* Who told Cheney, and under what circumstances?
* Did Cheney acknowledge his own role when he spoke to prosecutors last summer? If not, could he be indicted himself?
* Did Cheney encourage Libby not to disclose their conversation?
* Did President Bush know about Cheney's role?
* Who leaked this latest development -- and what was their motivation?
* Does this mean the White House will stop blaming reporters for everything? (That one was rhetorical: The answer is no.)
Hopefully, we will get some answers soon on all of these. In the meantime, it's good to think about them and see what we can piece together, since the odds of McClellan walking up to the mike and answering any of those is nil. (And Jane gets a link and a mention.)
UPDATE #3: And the weaseling continues. My favorite quote: A senior Senate Democratic aide said, "When it's about perjury and obstruction and it deals with sex, Republicans think it's worthy of impeachment. When it's about perjury and obstruction dealing with national security, they don't take it seriously."
Looks like the Dems had their strategy meeting, too.
|
That moment when that piece clicks into place in your brain -- had one of those this morning while unloading my dishwasher. Judy Miller went to jail because Fitz had a hunch -- or some third hand information -- that she knew something that was an interlocking piece to the entire conspiracy puzzle. And Fitz wasn't going to rest until he got it.Why bother with Judy if he might have this information about Cheney, Libby, Rove and whomever else was involved in the "plot against Wilson" (Judge Tatel's words, not mine)? Because in a criminal trial, third party testimony is inadmissable. It's considered "hearsay," and can't be used to prove any material fact of a particular charge. Why bother with Judy, then, since she was a journalist who never wrote an article about the whole Plame/Wilson situation and the WH efforts to discredit Joe Wilson after his NYTimes Op-ed? Because she was leverage.In a criminal case, especially one where you suspect a criminal conspiracy -- either to do an act that is criminal or to obstruct the investigation after the fact, which is also a criminal act -- a prosecutor or investigator often works the case from the bottom up. You see this a lot in drug or mafia cases, where you have small fish doing the scut work in the streets, and you move up the food chain from the little fish to the next bigger ones to the sharks at the top, flipping people up the line as you go with the threat of criminal jeopardy hanging over their heads as incentive to work something out with the government. Why would this apply in this case? Because Judy and Scooter Libby were awfully chummy. The two hour St. Regis breakfast meeting? Not really the usual actions of a reporter and source -- most reporters get a few minutes outside a Starbucks, if not a furtive phone call, as the usual mode of passing information back and forth.Fitz knew that Judy went to the Executive Office Building on June 23, 2003. He may have known that she met with Libby based on the log entry, but those logs don't always record a name of the person being met -- sometimes only reason for visit (as in "interview with official"). But maybe there was someone else who set up the meeting, or who knew that the meeting was to take place, or was in the meeting for a portion of the time and then left Judy and Scooter alone to talk shop. Wurmser? Hannah? And that person told Fitz that he had heard about the meeting and what may have been said to Judy Miller. And what was likely said to Judy Miller related directly to the crime he was investigating.Fitz can't use that testimony at trial (he could use it for inference purposes for the grand jury, however, because the rules of evidence are relaxed in that context). But to really get any traction in the case, he would have to have testimony from a principle involved -- you can't just go to trial on a hunch.And to get that testimony, he needed leverage. He needed Judy Miller -- either through her direct testimony, or something he believed would be contained in her notes. You know, those notes that she's steadfastly refused to show to her colleagues at the NYTimes.I re-read the Special Counsel's Memorandum in Opposition to Ms. Miller's motions again this morning. In the light of the latest NYTimes revelations last night, it reads as a much more calculated move on Fitz's part. He knew what he thought he would get from Judy Miller.On page 15 of that memorandum, Fitzgerald labels Judy Miller "an eyewitness." We won't know to what until and if indictments are filed and this informations starts seeping out during trial motions. But if her source was Scooter Libby, and his source was his boss, Dick Cheney, what exactly did Judy Miller know? Whatever it was, I would bet that it made for some awfully good leverage.David Shuster reported this morning on MSNBC that Fitz got Libby's notes directly from Libby. All indications are that this was a recent turnover -- perhaps right after Judy testified. Or perhaps, as Wolcott was speculating earlier, Libby realized just how much his loyalty was worth to this crowd -- which was about as much as it would take to save their own hides if they had to cast him aside to do it.UPDATE: From the comments:
My bit from above: "Fitz knew that Judy went to the Executive Office Building on June 23, 2003. He may have known that she met with Libby based on the log entry, but those logs don't always record a name of the person being met -- sometimes only reason for visit (as in "interview with official")"
Billmon's comment: "This is not true, based on my experience. When a reporter has an appointment with someone in the White House or the OEO, they must wait for someone (usually a secretary or an intern) to come down and escort them to the right office. My best recollection is that the escort would have to sign for the visitor, and while I never actually looked at the log, I'm pretty sure the office, if not the name of the official being visited, is written down there.However, I never had a permanent White House press pass, which I believe Miller did. The procedure may be different for permanent pass holders, but I don't think it is."
My response: "Interesting, Billmon. My experience was going in as an attorney. Guess they have different regs for different types of visitors. Who knew they could be so efficient? ;-) Thanks much for the heads up on that." (And I might add, it wasn't like I was ever going to see the VP or someone who worked for him either. Should have thought about tighter security arrangements. That's what i get for blogging without proper coffee ingestion. But I still say Judy was leverage.)
|
Looks like the VP has unleashed the weasels. The attempt at sliming Patrick Fitzgerald has begun in earnest. And they are saying that he is...
...too moral! Too ethical!
*snerk*
And...*snerk*...that he is serious about his job, and feels that punishing criminals is an important part of being a...*giggle*...United States Attorney.
*MWAHAHAHAHAHA*
Okay, their language isn't as tidy as my version, but that's pretty much what they are saying. My goodness, that's just pathetic, isn't it? So much for "We haven't attacked this prosecutor." as the current Administration meme. And what do they really think?
"He's a vile, detestable, moralistic person with no heart and no conscience who believes he's been tapped by God to do very important things," one White House ally said, referring to special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald.
Hmmm, not-so-subtle is right. (And doesn't this sound an awful lot like a cross between Mary Matalin and Victoria Toensing, with a dash of Lynn Cheney?) Guess whoever came up with the "make Scooter look crazy" leak to the LA Times is working their magic with the NYDaily News.
The two-faced White House is putting the Presidential puppet out on television to say that Fitzgerald is conducting a dignified investigation, while the weasels stay anonymous and the press allows them to do so.
But tell us what you really think.
But now friends of the White House have started whispering that the Brooklyn-raised prosecutor is overzealous after it became clear that Bush political mastermind Karl Rove and Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis (Scooter) Libby, are in Fitzgerald's cross hairs.
Such hints surfaced publicly for the first time yesterday when Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.), armed with comments that sources said were "shaped" by the White House, suggested Fitzgerald might nail someone on a "technicality" because they forgot something or misspoke.
You recall Kay Bailey Hypocrite, don't you? Whew, hope all that doubletalk doesn't give her whiplash.
That Fitz. What a crazy guy. He wants people who serve this nation in its government, the people we elect to office and entrust with the day to day decisions for our national security and domestic policies, to hold themselves to the same laws that every other citizen has to follow -- or face the same criminal consequences that any other citizen would face if they broke the law. What a crazy guy! *snerk*
There were several reports yesterday that Fitzgerald could warn people they've been indicted as soon as today, and that the grand jury could be called in for an unusual session tomorrow, but his office declined to comment.
Couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch of weasels. Law and order party my ass.
UPDATE: And on the question of having two faces, is anyone else utterly disgusted by a group of people who would so actively, openly and cravenly court religious leaders to obtain power, and then make a backhanded remark about a Prosecutor for his faith in God and his adherence to religious teachings? No shame at all. UPDATE #2: This is hilarious. Man, I needed a laugh this morning.UPDATE #3: And yet more.
|
A lot of people are saying that the
NYT article does not indicate that Dick Cheney committed a crime, it simply says he was aware of the Valerie Plame/Joe Wilson situation. I beg to differ.
Here is the key paragraph:
Mr. Cheney was interviewed under oath by Mr. Fitzgerald last year. It is not known what the vice president told Mr. Fitzgerald about the conversation with Mr. Libby or when Mr. Fitzgerald first learned of it.
Cheney was interviewed by Fitzgerald last year
under oath. That would make it perjury to tell a lie. Although Republican logic tells us that perjury is only a crime if you're getting a blow job in the bargain, a legitimate US attorney might not see it that way.
What indication do we have that Cheney lied? Well, if Cheney he had told the truth when he was interviewed
last year, i.e., that he was Scooter Libby's source, Fitzgerald would not have needed to threaten Judy Miller and Matt Cooper with jail in order to counter Scooter Libby's testimony that he first heard about Valerie Plame's identity from journalists.
Also from the Times article:
It also explains why Mr. Fitzgerald waged a long legal battle to obtain the testimony of reporters who were known to have talked with Mr. Libby.
The reporters involved have said that they did not supply Mr. Libby with details about Mr. Wilson and his wife.
In other words: the testimonies of Cooper and Miller were necessary to bust Libby in a lie.
The decision of
Judges Tatel, Henderson and Sentelle against Judy Miller was decided on February 15, 2005 and reissued April 4, 2005. Without getting into elaborate quotes, basically they agreed that there was
no other way to get the information they needed other than from these journalists. They did not resort to jailing Miller or Cooper lightly without first having exhausted all other possibilities.
Which means Fitzgerald was not sitting on some big cathartic confession from Dick Cheney at the time.
Cheney lied. Under oath. Put any Republican (and a few DINOs) in the wayback machine, and they will tell you -- this is an impeachable offense.
Update: Everyone seems to be concerned that the Times may have gotten the "under oath" thing wrong. My inclination is to believe the Times is being VERY CAREFUL about this shit at this point in the game, but I promise to check it out tomorrow and report back. Regardless of whether Cheney was under oath or not, lying to Fitzgerald would still be a crime.
Update 2: Swopa, from the comments: "If Cheney goes down with Scooter and Karl, I'm not sure how Dubya survives -- it would be tantamount to admitting he's just an empty suit they send out to read the teleprompter while other folks run the country. Granted, they'd need the jaws of life to pry him out of the Oval Office, but Republicans in Congress might realize that he's going to drag them down with him."
CORRECTION: According to the Times this morning, Cheney was not under oath at the time he was interviewed by Fitzgerald.
Sorry, Dick.
|
According to the
NYT, somebody got ahold of notes from a "previously undisclosed conversation" between Scooter and the Veep on June 12, 2003 that "appear to differ from Mr. Libby’s testimony to a federal grand jury that he initially learned about the C.I.A. officer, Valerie Wilson, from journalists, the lawyers said."
The notes, taken by Mr. Libby during the conversation, for the first time place Mr. Cheney in the middle of an effort by the White House to learn about Ms. Wilson’s husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, who was questioning the administration’s handling of intelligence about Iraq’s nuclear program to justify the war.
Lawyers said the notes show that Mr. Cheney knew that Ms. Wilson worked at the C.I.A. more than a month before her identity was made public and her undercover status was disclosed in a syndicated column by Robert D. Novak on July 14, 2003.
(snip)
It would not be illegal for either Mr. Cheney or Mr. Libby, both of whom are presumably cleared to know the government’s deepest secrets, to discuss a C.I.A. officer or her link to a critic of the administration. But any effort by Mr. Libby to steer investigators away from his conversation with Mr. Cheney could be considered by Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special counsel in the case, to be an illegal effort to impede the inquiry.
(snip)
But the notes, now in Mr. Fitzgerald’s possession, also indicate that Mr. Libby first heard about Ms. Wilson — who is also known by her maiden name, Valerie Plame — from Mr. Cheney. That apparent discrepancy in his testimony suggests why prosecutors are weighing false statement charges against him in what they interpret as an effort by Mr. Libby to protect Mr. Cheney from scrutiny, the lawyers said. (my emphasis)
(snip)
Mr. Cheney was interviewed under oath by Mr. Fitzgerald last year. It is not known what the vice president told Mr. Fitzgerald about the conversation with Mr. Libby or when Mr. Fitzgerald first learned of it.
I'm thinking he went in, spilled his guts and gave Fitzgerald everything he's using to blast holes in Scooter right now.
Naaaaaaahhhh.The note written by Mr. Libby will be a key piece of evidence in a false statement case against Mr. Libby if Mr. Fitzgerald decides to pursue it, according to lawyers in the case. It also explains why Mr. Fitzgerald waged a long legal battle to obtain the testimony of reporters who were known to have talked with Mr. Libby.
The reporters involved have said that they did not supply Mr. Libby with details about Mr. Wilson and his wife.
Okay, let me get this straight. Fitzgerald needs the reporters' testimonies to prove that Libby is lying about where he first heard about Valerie Wilson or whatever the hell they were calling her at the point. So fine, he gets verification from both Miller an Cooper that Scooter boy is telling fibs.
Presumably at that point Fitzgerald did not have Scooter's notes which indicate that Cheney told
him, but now Fitz has them. So those must've materialized recently. Where did they come? And when? Is Scooter trying to play "Let's Make a Deal?" And is the fact that they were leaked to the press -- with all their damning implications for Cheney -- an indication that Scooter is no longer willing to fall on a sword for his boss?
Then there's this bit:
Mr. Russert, in a statement, has declined to say exactly what he discussed with Mr. Libby, but said he first learned the identity of Mr. Wilson’s wife in the column by Mr. Novak, which appeared on July 14, 2003.
G.E. Pumkinhead needs to come clean real fast or be consigned with Judy Miller to lecturing at the Barbezon school for disgraced reporters.
Comments are open for freelance tea leaf reading.
Update: Steve Clemons: "According to Scooter Libby's notes, George Tenet was the source for the information about Valerie Wilson lining up the trip -- so to speak -- for her husband, but did not necessarily include the information that she was a covert operative. This is where things get interesting. Although Fitzgerald may not need to establish this connection, it seems increasingly plausible to TWN that Tenet and Cheney had some kind of exchange regarding Joe and Valerie Wilson. Cheney then passed off the information to Libby along with a few expletives about Wilson, implying that the @#$%@%er should be done in."
Update II: Lisa in the comments reminds us of Big Dick's September 14, 2003
Press the Meat appearance :
VICE PRES. CHENEY: I don’t know Mr. Wilson. I probably shouldn’t judge him. I have no idea who hired him and it never came...
MR. RUSSERT: The CIA did.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Who in the CIA, I don’t know.
One would imagine that Dick will be stepping down soon.
Update 3: Larry Johnson: "Although the NY Times story reports that Libby's notes indicate that George Tenet told Cheney about Plame, there are some intriguing unanswered questions. For starters it is highly unlikely that George Tenet showed up at the White House and just happened to know the name of Valerie Plame.
Someone at the White House asked for it first. Tenet clearly came prepared to respond to a White House request. I'm sure the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, knows who called CIA to ask the question."
|
It was another doozy of a Hardball this evening. It may be a ratings bonanza driven spate of real reporting, but it was an interesting show nonetheless with a few nifty bits. Matthews was actually mostly well-informed this evening -- I think David Schuster has been doing his crib notes for show interviews.The show started with a comparison between the "two wars," as Tweety put it: the war in Iraq and the war against Joe Wilson, and how the two were "entangled." According to Matthews, today both seem to be going badly for the WH.David Shuster did another good summary, saying straight out that both Rove and Libby -- and others -- have now been advised that they are in legal jeopardy. I think by that statement that some notification letters or phone calls went out today to some attorneys around town. He sourced this to the NY Times as originally reporting on it, but was confident in the information, which leads me to believe he may have a few sources confirming this on his own. It was a straight out statement, no mincing words.They had an attorney on whose name I missed, but who said something to the effect of "I can think of no good reason to out a covert agent of your own country," in talking about the latest WH and GOP spin attempts on potential charges. Shuster followed-up with a smack down of Kay Bailey Hypocrite, using her own words. It was lovely.Shuster said the SGJ met last Friday with attorneys from Fitz' office who carried in large briefcases full of documents. Sources close to the case believe that may have been the beginning of a summation for indictments for the jury members.Tom DeFrank, from the NYDaily News, and Andrea Mitchell were on next. Andrea Mitchell was edgy and nervous. (Maybe because of the fed announcement, but maybe because she can't summer in Maryland with her Cheney pals if one of them is in the pokey.) DeFrank re-iterated that the President's mood is not good at all. He said that that President has indicated concerns that the VP may have pushed the intelligence too far on Iraq. Was being very careful on wording to protect his sources from the WH, as well -- guess they haven't learned that payback lesson very well. Mitchell saying this is the first sign of daylight between Prez and VP who have been "so close" (her words) through this administration.Mitchell said that the WH and attorneys for potential defendants trying to spin or minimize things in advance of any bad news. And that the "blame game" that the WH has complained about has now moved inside the WH with some of the stories on Libby and Rove and others and the fingerpointing going on in the press.David Gregory reported from the WH that the mood is extremely tense and nervous, despite the outward attempt at a facade or patina that says otherwise. Gregory (who has been great on this story for months) says that you cannot overstate the importance of Rove to this WH in terms of what it would mean if he has to resign. He also said that staffers in the WH are saying that the Preznit has outbursts of temper all the time, trying to downplay the DeFrank article from today. (Lousy spin if you ask me.)Mike Isikoff of Newsweek was also on and mapped out a basic timeline on the Cheney/Wilson feuding. Not a lot new, but a good repeat for people just tuning in to the story.Gregory then said that the WH got into "campaign mode" in dealing with Wilson questioning them. That there was no question that the effort was an aggresive attempt to beat Wilson back.Matt Cooper's attorney, Dick Sauber, was on as well and lined out some of the potential steps toward and after indictments. He said that he feels that this is an extremely serious matter, and that the public has barely scratched the surface in terms of what Fitz has been looking at along with the media. Every judge looking at the sealed information in this matter, across the political spectrum, has has been impressed by the "serious and significant" evidence. Sauber also indicated that, if indictments are not forthcoming, Fitz may wish to issue a summary report. To do that, according to Sauber, he would need to get approval from the presiding judges, since it would involve a matter of grand jury secrecy being exposed, but that a report was certainly possible if need be.Sauber says that trials in these cases, if indictments are forthcoming in this matter, would occur no earlier than late winter, early spring, due to the court docket in DC and preparation issues for attorneys representing defendants.Then came Tucker Carlson, Ron Reagan, and Tony Blankley. Tucker was his usual uninformed, glib, and moronic self. Ron Reagan and Tony Blankley both agreed that trying to minimize perjury was a stupid strategy for spin. And Reagan got off the best line of the night, saying that "If you say perjury now is no big deal, then you have to say that the impeachment of Bill Clinton was a farce. And I don't think those people are going to be willing to say that."I missed the bit in the middle with the New Yorker writer on the Scowcroft article (sorry -- naptime ended and I had to run and be a mommy for a few minutes). All in all, definitely worth a watch today in one of its many showings.Will update this a bit when they get the transcript up.
|
So far today...no news is no news on indictments. But the fish are getting jumpy, here on the internets, in the media and, I'm sure, awaiting a call from their attorney as to whether or not a target letter or some other notification has been received. While we wait, a bit of other news, because the rest of the world isn't sitting back and holding its breath along with the rest of us.Dan Froomkin's always excellent White House Briefing contains some great links and a round-up of the set-up stories that have hit the wires the last couple of days. One thing that Froomkin included was aome analysis on how cost-effective Fitzgerald's investigation has been compared to prior special counsel's. Very interesting stuff -- and more fodder for the Fitz is a responsible grown-up argument as opposed to the partisan hack crap that was floated over the weekend. According to Reuters, the Preznit called the Fitzgerald investigation a "very serious matter," with Rove and Libby sitting right there in the cabinet room with him while he said it. That must have been a little awkward for everyone. Ahem.
Maybe he should let Kay Bailey Hypocrite know he thinks that lying to a federal investigator is serious? Sure wish these people would pick a page and stay on it, instead of trying to let the President play good cop to the moronic Senator's bad cop in the media. And I sure wish the MSM would start calling all of them on this, because it's incredibly dishonest. (And on that note, as I was typing this, Chris Matthews from MSNBC just called her on the carpet for her statements past and present. Thank goodness someone has found a spine, whether its ratings induced or not.)
One amusing quote from the Reuters article:
Lawyers said one possibility was a "split decision" in which Libby is indicted and Rove is spared.
Hmmmmm....shouldn't Luskin stop before he gilds the lilly (or Libby) right into fingering his client?
An amusing piece of mail seems to have been recieved by the Witlist.
On other fronts, looks like Sen. Bill Frist is a big liar. At least, according to the WaPo -- he's been telling everyone that he had a completely "blind" trust with his stocks, and it turns out that he's been getting regular stock updates. Oooops! Guess the SEC will be expanding its look-see. There goes that 2008 rubber chicken circuit plan.
Condaleeza Rice may be picking up that 2008 plan from Frist. Don't really buy her comparison of Iraqi democracy attempts being analogous to the civil rights movement here in the US, but hey! Those sure were purty shoes she was wearing with those cute little school girls, weren't they? WHo cares if her portfolio is nowhere near domestic policy. Or that she was using Britain's Foreign Minister as a prop.
Or that she hadn't been back to her hometown since she was in the sixth grade, and was using all of these folks as photo props. Her staff even brought along an American flag to use as a backdrape for pictures and film shots just in case things weren't photogenic enough. Nope. Not a planned photo op at all. I mean, it's a whole week filled with hypocrisy already for the GOP, what's a little more?
And then there was this:
The FBI has conducted clandestine surveillance on some U.S. residents for as long as 18 months at a time without proper paperwork or oversight, according to previously classified documents to be released today.
Well, that's a bit chilling, isn't it? Having been a prosecutor, and a criminal defense attorney at different points in my legal career, I have a broad understanding of the need for surveillance in a lot of cases. And for the need for proper procedures being followed to prevent abusing that power.
This article is a fascinating, and frightening, glimpse into how things have expanded under the Patriot Act. It's a must read. And a good argument for why oversight in Congress is a necessary function, as well as having competent and dedicated people in oversight executive branch jobs as opposed to political cronies.
UPDATE: Don't know how I missed this in my review. There was a substantial attack in the heart of Baghdad today on a hotel used by a large number of foreign journalists, and calculated as a strike that would be filmed for news reports around the globe. At least 16 casualties being reported at this point. Further casualties of US military personnel as well, bring the number to 1998 as of the last hour.
Thoughts go out to folks in the path of Hurricane Wilma, or folks with friends and family dealing with its aftermath.CNN broadcasting a bit on the Traitorgate investigation. No news, other than reporting on both sides of spin management while we wait for a yay or nay on indictments. Will update as I hear more. (And, unfortunately, no toddler and dachshund yogurt photo. Was trying to minimize the mess and didn't even think about grabbing the camera. Wish I had now, because it was hilarious -- had to run off the phone with Jane.)UPDATE #2: Raw Story is reporting that David Wurmser was Libby and Rove's source on Plame Wilson's CIA connection. Wonder who Wurmser's source was? Isn't it funny how all these people hang out with Dick Cheney? Hmmmmm...it just gets curiouser and curiouser. If Fitzmas doesn't come soon, I may explode.UPDATE #3: Arianna is on fire today. This is a must read column, if I ever saw one. My only quibble, there is nothing wrong with STNG. Ahem.
|
Last week, Justin Raimondo at AntiWarcom ran a story that said Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation had expanded to include looking into the Niger forgeries. From
October 19, 2005:
Even as the FBI was following the trail of the forgers, the Italians were looking into the matter from their end. A parliamentary committee was charged with investigating, and they issued a heavily redacted report: now, I am told by a former CIA operations officer, the report has aroused some interest on this side of the Atlantic. According to a source in the Italian embassy, Patrick J. "Bulldog" Fitzgerald asked for and "has finally been given a full copy of the Italian parliamentary oversight report on the forged Niger uranium document," the former CIA officer tells me:"Previous versions of the report were redacted and had all the names removed, though it was possible to guess who was involved. This version names Michael Ledeen as the conduit for the report and indicates that former CIA officers Duane Clarridge and Alan Wolf were the principal forgers. All three had business interests with Chalabi."
Now UPI seems to be
backing up Raimondo's claims in a story that ran this morning:
NATO sources have confirmed to United Press International that Fitzgerald's team of investigators has sought and obtained documentation on the forgeries from the Italian government.
Fitzgerald's team has been given the full, and as yet unpublished report of the Italian parliamentary inquiry into the affair, which started when an Italian journalist obtained documents that appeared to show officials of the government of Niger helping to supply the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein with Yellowcake uranium. This claim, which made its way into President Bush's State of the Union address in January, 2003, was based on falsified documents from Niger and was later withdrawn by the White House.
If true, as UPI notes, this "opens the door to what has always been the most serious implication of the CIA leak case, that the Bush administration could face a brutally damaging and public inquiry into the case for war against Iraq being false or artificially exaggerated."
Emptywheel has long believed that the Niger uranium forgeries were something Fitzgerald had in his sights, and has argued that Judy Miller might have been involved in them somehow. You'll remember that Judy's subpoena contained this language:
seeking documents and testimony related to conversations between her and a specified government official “occurring from on or about July 6, 2003, to on or about July 13, 2003, . . . concerning Valerie Plame Wilson (whether referred to by name or by description as the wife of Ambassador Wilson) or concerning Iraqi efforts to obtain uranium. (my emphasis)
This differed from Matt Cooper's subpoena, which contained no language about uranium. While Miller maintains she successfully got Fitzgerald to exclude testimony on this matter, this NATO information indicates that he might well have got what he needed elsewhere.
Every day I wake up and this thing gets bigger and Fitzgerald's inquiry appears to be more bold and audacious than even I imagined.
Quite possibly the worst moment leading up to the 2004 election happened when
60 Minutes pulled their piece on the Niger forgeries and replaced it with (*shudder* -- yeah, you remember) their story on Bush in the Air National Guard and
the TANG documents. Will CBS now locate its testicles and run the piece?
And maybe now we'll finally get the inquiry that corrupt old Pat Roberts has successfully stonewalled by the
Senate Select Intelligence Committee's "Phase II" investigation into intelligencee prior to the Iraq war. In the mean time, if you'd like to have a look at an excellent and succinct rundown of what is known about the Niger forgeries, see eRiposte's piece at the Left Coaster
here.
Haloscan Working Now: I know everyone with HaloScan is having a problem. If you go into Haloscan settings, click on the Beta Features, and turn off Enable Redirect in Spam Filters it should fix it. Appears to be a glitch in HaloScan but some techie posted a fix-it on the message boards. Seems to be working fine for me now.
Update Mark Kleiman: "If you're holding your breath anticipating
that Fitzgerald is going to walk down the Yellowcake Road, exhale. He's going to charge people with exposing Valerie Plame Wilson's connection to the CIA and with trying to cover up that act of exposure, or he's going to charge the coverup but not the original act, or (least likely in my view) he's going to fold up his tent and go home. "
Josh Marshall: "It's been variously reported and rumored that Patrick Fitzgerald has either cooperated with, received critical information from or even taken over
Paul McNulty's Franklin/AIPAC investigation in Northern Virginia. My reporting and intuition tells me there's real reason for skepticism on each of those counts. Yet I hear versions of these claims and allegations from more and more seemingly knowledgable sources. So I'm trying to keep an open mind."
Billmon: "For the Bushaviks, McNulty's appointment may be too little, too late. By the time he takes office, Fitzgerald will have either handed down indictments or gone home. On the other hand, if charges are brought, a long, drawn-out prosecution presumably will present plenty of opportunities for the Justice Department to make its influence felt. And, if worse comes to worse, I suspect McNulty would be perfectly willing to play the role of
Robert Bork in the new Saturday Night Massacre, and fire Fitzgerald -- and probably with more alacrity than Bork, who had to be talked out of resigning by Elliot Richardson."
|
Looks like all those stories about the Preznit losing his cool may have a little more substance than just rumor and innuendo. The NY Daily News has a story today that quotes friends of the Preznit saying he's been a bit...erm...angry, bitter and loud with the staffers. Well, and why not? The Iraq War is going badly, with the 2000th military death approaching and lot of questions being raised about just how incompetently this war is being run, especially about the lack of any real plan for post-invasion strategy. The whole Hurricane Katrina/Brownie thing was a horrible embarrassment, not to mention the fact that he was vacationing for days while people were drowning in their homes. Harriet Miers...um, not going so well. And his brain may be facing indictment. Erm....Brain, meant to capitalize that.
Bush usually reserves his celebrated temper for senior aides because he knows they can take it. Lately, however, some junior staffers have also faced the boss' wrath.
"This is not some manager at McDonald's chewing out the help," said a source with close ties to the White House when told about these outbursts. "This is the President of the United States, and it's not a pleasant sight."
Well, isn't that interesting? Probably just one disgruntled former screamee giving the paper a quote, right? Erm....no.
Presidential advisers and friends say Bush is a mass of contradictions: cheerful and serene, peevish and melancholy, occasionally lapsing into what he once derided as the "blame game." They describe him as beset but unbowed, convinced that history will vindicate the major decisions of his presidency even if they damage him and his party in the 2006 and 2008 elections.
At the same time, these sources say Bush, who has a long history of keeping staffers in their place, has lashed out at aides as his political woes have mounted.
"The President is just unhappy in general and casting blame all about," said one Bush insider. "Andy [Card, the chief of staff] gets his share. Karl gets his share. Even Cheney gets his share. And the press gets a big share."
What's that you say? Cheney is getting his share? Do tell.
The vice president remains Bush's most trusted political confidant. Even so, the Daily News has learned Bush has told associates Cheney was overly involved in intelligence issues in the runup to the Iraq war that have been seized on by Bush critics.
Hmmmm...the President must really be examining his own decisions to be certain he doesn't make the same errors in the future, right?
Bush is so dismayed that "the only person escaping blame is the President himself," said a sympathetic official, who delicately termed such self-exoneration "illogical."
Well, maybe not so much.
Thomas deFrank has some close ties to James Baker, the former advisor to the former President Bush, so I have to wonder who he has gotten to talk for this article? Is Poppy giving permission for his pals to take Junior to the woodshed?
Guess this is one explanation for all the weird jaw clenching lately. Sucks to be in a pressure cooker of your own making. UPDATE: Still having Haloscan issues. Sorry it is causing comments problems, but we're working on it.UPDATE #2: Preznit is set to announce a replacement for Fed. Chairman Alan Greenspan at 1 pm today. Someone check and see where the Preznit's personal accountant is. After the Miers nomination, I'm not leaving any stone unturned. Sorta makes you wonder what else might be going on at 1pm today, doesn't it? UPDATE #3: The NYTimes is reporting that it will be Ben Bernancke, his top economic advisor. Sure looks like it's a good time to have an office just down the hall from the Preznit, doesn't it? Doesn't exactly leave the building to find his nominees these days...
|
Although it is raining, windy and cold here this morning, it still feels like that calm before the storm. No new news in terms of whether there will be indictments. Or not. Or something else like an extension. Or not. But my gut is telling me this morning that it will be indictments.Unfortunately, I have no idea when. And the suspense is killing me.Apparently, it's not doing much for Karl Rove, either. Mr. Rove was not with the president last Friday in California, where Mr. Bush attended a $1 million Republican fund-raiser in Bel Air and spoke at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley. Mr. Rove helped plan for the event a year ago, when it seemed a natural trip for the person in the White House who has worked hardest to tie Mr. Reagan's legacy to Mr. Bush.
Mr. Rove also canceled plans to attend a Republican Party fund-raiser in Greenwich, Conn., last Monday, a Virginian Republican Party fund-raiser on Oct. 15 and a speech to the conservative Hudson Institute on Oct. 11.
Sounds like someone may be a little radioactive these days, along with feeling down in the dumps about that pesky e-mail he sent to Hadley about talking to Cooper...ooops. Sucks when you screw up your cover story with your own e-mail. ("I said hit delete, not copy.")
Elizabeth Bumiller has an atmosphere story up at the NY Times that paints the entire WH as being a bit...um...on the edge of their seats, despite public attempts by Nicole Wallace and Ken Mehlman to make it seem like everyone is hanging out in the political equivalent of Disneyworld this week. At the domestic policy meeting last week, Nicolle Wallace, the White House communications director, said that Mr. Rove "went from asking probing questions to checking his BlackBerry to taking notes to popping out to take important calls." Mr. Mehlman said that the White House "is focused on the people's agenda" and that a staff that has faced huge challenges, like a terrorist attack and two wars, can handle this one.
Allies of the administration who talk regularly to top West Wing officials paint a less happy picture. "The general mood is one of grim determination to conduct business as usual, even though it's clearly not possible," said a Republican close to Mr. Rove who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he did not want to antagonize the White House by talking about internal thinking. "It colors the mood, it colors everything that people do, say and think about."
Are they saying that these WH spokespeople are lying? I'm shocked. Truly I am.
But clearly, there is a silver lining for Republicans in all of this mess. They can dump Rove over the side of the boat! Another Republican close to White House said that some in the party were viewing a possible departure by Mr. Rove as a potential positive. "He is a political genius, but he controls too much, and the cabinet is irrelevant," said the Republican, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he did not want to alienate Mr. Rove. "And maybe there will have to be some other policy people in there, and maybe that will help the president."
The consensus among some Republicans in Washington was that Mr. Mehlman was a logical replacement for Mr. Rove, should he depart, because Mr. Mehlman, a former White House political director, managed Mr. Bush's 2004 campaign with guidance from Mr. Rove. Mr. Mehlman, who was with Mr. Bush in California, a trip he might have taken regardless of Mr. Rove's legal distractions, declined to respond to any questions about the speculation.
Why, Ken Mehlman is a Republican close to the WH, isn't he? Guess he learned quite well from his master just how to twist that knife.
The NYTimes also has an article summing up the fact that we don't know what Fitz is going to do, that we're all waiting to see, and that Republicans think we are morons. The new strategy in minimizing this mess is to pretend that perjury and obstruction of justice aren't really crimes. (See my discussion on this here.)
Well, I have two words for Republicans. Bill Clinton. If perjury was a big enough crime to trigger the impeachment of the President of the United States in 1999, then I seriously doubt it's a completely meaningless charge now. In fact, I know that it is a very effective prosecutorial tool -- because it is a serious incentive against people lying to police when they are trying to solve a crime.
Oh, and if I may, to try and say that it is a "technicality" is insulting -- to the intelligence of the American public, to the integrity of the system of laws of our nation, and to the hard work that criminal investigators and prosecutors do every single day in trying to keep our communities safe. Shame on you people for choosing poltical expediency over decency and ethics and integrity. Shame. Shame. Shame.
(Major graphics love to Hail Dubyas.)
UPDATE: Looks like everyone around the blogosphere is having Haloscan problems. Sorry if you have difficulty in posting a comment -- but we're working on it.UPDATE #2: Mark Kleiman has great analysis on the two NY Times pieces. This is a must read.
|
The question that clogs my inbox more than any other is "who is Robert Novak's source?" It remains one of the great enigmas of Traitorgate. Now this tantalizing bit in today's
WaPo:
A critical early success for Fitzgerald was winning the cooperation of Robert D. Novak, the Chicago Sun-Times columnist who named Plame in a July 2003 story and attributed key information to "two senior administration officials." Legal sources said Novak avoided a fight and quietly helped the special counsel's inquiry, although neither the columnist nor his attorney have said so publicly.
Assuming the "two senior administration officials" thing is true, that narrows it down. Let's look back at
Time Magazine from July of this year:
Another character in the drama remains unnamed: the original source for columnist Robert Novak, who wrote the first piece naming Plame. Fitzgerald, says a lawyer who's involved in the case, "knows who it is—and it's not someone at the White House."
So.
Was a "senior administration official" but is no longer. Who might that be?
New York Daily News, July 15, 2005:
Along with Bush political guru Karl Rove, the grand jury is investigating what role, if any, ex-White House mouthpiece Ari Fleischer may have played in the revelation that the former covert operative Plame was married to former Ambassador Joe Wilson. "Ari's name keeps popping up," said one source familiar with special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's probe. Another source close to the probe added there is renewed interest in Fleischer, "based on Fitzgerald's questions."
And why would Ari's name keep popping up? Well, according to
Bloomberg:
On the same day the memo was prepared, White House phone logs show Novak placed a call to White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, according to lawyers familiar with the case and a witness who has testified before the grand jury. Those people say it isn't clear whether Fleischer returned the call, and Fleischer has refused to comment.
Wow. Doesn't look good for Ari. Especially considering that according to
Colin Powell anonymous sources:
On the flight to Africa, Fleischer was seen perusing the State Department memo on Wilson and his wife, according to a former administration official who was also on the trip.
Except -- according to the
New York Times, that
may not have been what Ari told the grand jury:
Mr. Fleischer told the grand jury that he never saw the document, a person familiar with the testimony said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the prosecutor’s admonitions about not disclosing what is said to the grand jury.
Then there's the fact that Fitzgerald subpoenaed Ari's 7/12/2003 press conference transcript from Nigeria, and the White House scrubbed it from the website (but later
restored it).
That Ari played a big role in the "smear Joe Wilson" campaign was never in doubt. From Wilson's book:
Within a day, Fleischer was putting a different spin on the situation and downplaying the importance of my report. At one briefing after another, he had something to say about me, and by doing so gave the journalists another news cycle to talk about the sixteen words rather than about the president's trip. Instead of containing the burgeoning press frenzy, Fleischer kept giving the story legs, so much so that it soon overwhelmed the president's agenda in Africa.
Do people still really want to argue that Bush himself had no knowledge of this campaign? If it wasn't important to him, don't you think he would've pulled Ari aside and told him to shut the fuck up and stop overshadowing his "historic" Africa trip?
It may all just be idle speculation, and within days if not hours we could know the truth. But the truly exasperating thing is that you KNOW about a zillion reporters who cover DC know who Novak's source is -- the mysterious
third man -- and just aren't saying. A commitment to informing the public obviously doesn't come at the price of a fat paycheck.
BTW -- I should note that I seriously doubt Novak was all that helpful right out of the gate. I've always given a great deal of credence to
Murray Waas's claim that Bobby cooked up some whopper with Rove early on:
But federal investigators have been highly skeptical of Novak's account -- as they have been of Rove's -- and were concerned that the key participants might have devised a cover story in the days shortly after it became known that a criminal investigation had been commenced.
If I had to guess I'd say that Fitzgerald gave Novak a dose of the same magical memory helper he gave to Judy Miller, probably around the same time Novak had his meltdown on Crossfire. Just a hunch. But a strong one.
Update: Haloscan went all wonky. Hopefully back soon.
|
It looks to be a bumpy week for Darth Cheney. First, as
Atrios noted, David Gergen -- who only days ago on Hardball was ready to defend his good friend Dick Cheney with his dying breath -- totally shanked him. Now if
Newsweek is any indication, Scooter and the Veep will be the main course as the MSM prepare to dine at Patrick Fitzgerald's all-you-can-eat-indictment-buffet:
Cheney had long distrusted the apparatchiks who sat in offices at the CIA, FBI and Pentagon. He regarded them as dim, timid timeservers who would always choose inaction over action...
...and deny him his feast of virgin's blood, for which he did battle with Darth Novak. (...sorry...)
An intense former litigator, [Libby] acted as a conduit for Cheney's obsessions. Soon after 9/11, Libby began routinely calling intelligence officials, high and low, to pump them for any scraps of information on Iraq. He would read obscure, unvetted intelligence reports and grill analysts about them, but always in a courtly manner. The intel officials were often more than a little surprised. It was unusual for the vice president's office to step so far outside of channels and make personal appeals to mere analysts. "He was deep into the raw intel," says one government official who didn't want to be named for fear of retribution....
Behind their backs, their detractors dubbed Cheney and his minions "the commissars." The vice president and Libby made three or four trips to CIA headquarters, where they questioned analysts about their findings.
You get the image of these professional intelligence people rolling their eyes and wishing these jokers would go play spy someplace else, maybe write some
Thunderball fan fic and just leave them alone.
Behind the scenes, no one pushed the terror link harder than Libby. He urged Colin Powell's staff to include the [Mohammed Atta/Iraq] Prague meeting in the secretary of State's speech to the United Nations. But Powell wanted no part of it. After one long session debating the evidence before the speech, Libby turned to a Powell aide. "Don't worry about any of this," he said, according to someone who was in the room. "We'll get back in what you take out." They didn't. Powell refused to use the line, but Libby's audacity stunned everyone at the table.
"Someone who was in the room." Wonder who that could be? (*cough* Colin Powell *cough*).
Cheney's office declined to comment on specific questions for this story, beyond saying that the vice president and his staff are cooperating with Fitzgerald's probe...
If "cooperating with Fitzgerald's probe" means waving a dead chicken above one's head while screaming some weird Santeria death hex, then I guess so.
|
It's the night before Fitzmas, and all through the house...okay, seriously, no counting chickens and all, I keep telling myself. And then, this hits the wires.Reuters and the AP have competing stories on the Traitorgate investigation today. And according to Adam Entous at Reuters, the notifications on prosecutorial intention will be going out to defense counsel tomorrow, with indictments to be presented as early as Tuesday. (Cue the completely early celebratory toddler dancing.)
Okay, back to the serious online persona. Ahem.
According to Reuters:
Federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald appears to be laying the groundwork for indictments this week over the outing of a covert CIA operative, including possible charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, lawyers involved in case said on Sunday.
Top administration officials are expected to learn from Fitzgerald as early as Monday whether they will face charges as the prosecutor winds up his nearly two-year investigation, the lawyers said.
Fitzgerald could convene the grand jury as early as Tuesday to lay out a final summary of the case and ask for approval of possible indictments, legal sources said. The grand jury hearing the CIA leak case normally meets on Wednesdays and is scheduled to expire on Friday unless Fitzgerald extends it.
Well, we knew that something was likely to happen this week, due to the end date on the Special Grand Jury (absent a request for extension) and all. But to see it in print in the MSM just makes it seem...well, it sure is less ethereal somehow, isn't it?
The AP story contains some good background information on the case -- a good catch-up piece, if you will, for folks who haven't been paying attention all along to this case.
It began with a clumsy forgery, led the president to backtrack on his own State of the Union address, already has sent one person to jail and has ruined another's career as a covert operative.
The cast of characters in this latest tale of Washington intrigue - the CIA leak investigation - keeps growing as a federal prosecutor tries to sort out who told what to whom and whether any of it was a crime.
Those caught up in the maelstrom include a power couple with a big secret, a duo of no-longer-anonymous Bush administration officials and a constellation of media heavyweights with secrets, too. It runs the spectrum from the biggest of big fish, President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, to the merest of minnows, White House functionaries.
And that's just the first bit. Definitely worth a read -- and a useful forward to relatives who ask you "What's all this about, anyway?" The AP story describes our boy Fitz as follows:
When Fitzgerald was tapped in December 2003 to lead the leak investigation, he was introduced at the Justice Department as "Eliot Ness with a Harvard law degree and a sense of humor." All humor aside, Fitzgerald, 45, is known as an aggressive prosecutor used to making people nervous. He also is known to be scrupulously fair.
You gotta love it as a prosecutor when you're described as "scrupulously fair." Just brings a tear to my eye, that does. (Stop counting chickens. Stop counting chickens. Ahem.)
And what of our intrepid pal, Luskin, who has been baring his legal soul to all and sundry throughout this matter on behalf of Karl Rove: Asked whether he was taking part in a final round of discussions with the prosecutor's office, Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, said: "I'm just not going to comment on any possible interactions with Fitzgerald."
Hmmmm...sounds like someone might be playing a little "Let's Make a Deal" to me.
Former independent counsel Robert Ray said on Fox News Sunday that Fitzgerald appeared to be "shoring up his mandate," and to focus on whether or not there were attempts to obstruct the investigation.
"People better be ready for charges," said Abbe Lowell, a prominent criminal defense lawyer.
If he's not, maybe he ought to think about making a deal. Ahem. UPDATE: Ouch. Andrew Sullivan piles on.
|
The perps are starting to sweat. Does Arthur Murray teach the frogmarch?
. Over at the BooMan Tribune,
Susan Hu lets us know that NSC chief Stephen Hadley -- whom
Larry Johnson says fully expects to be indicted -- is looking to get the heat off himself by engineering regime change in Syria. When in doubt, start a war.
. Howard Dean kicks it up a notch on
This Week with George S.: "If [Fitzgerald] finishes his investigation without bringing indictments and without issuing a final report, will you accept that as the end of the matter?"
"No," Dean shot back. "Because I fundamentally don't think these are honest people running the government."
. At the
WaPo, they speculate about why exactly Fitzgerald's
new web site threw up a letter from February 6, 2004 from his then-boss James Comey, re-asserting his authority to prosecute "crimes committed with intent to interfere with your investigation:"
"The fact that he [Fitzgerald] asked for authority that he probably already had, but wanted spelled out, makes it arguable that he had run into something rather quickly," Washington lawyer Plato Cacheris said yesterday.
You think this means BushCo. Bandits went in there and started lying right off the blocks? Wow, I would be shocked. Shocked I tell you. Can we hear another chorus from the "no indictments will be handed down" choir?
.
Newsmax offers us more of their unbiased reporting:
Born of working class immigrant parents and raised in heavily Democratic Brooklyn, New York, Fitzgerald was educated in liberal bastions like Amherst College and Harvard University.
Footnote to that newswire:
"Preferable for distribution in markets where residents have no idea what either Amherst College or Harvard University actually are.".
SF Chronicle has an article on Fitzgerald, where they allow Victoria Toensing to freely spin her own special brand of bullshit:
"Lots of witnesses want to put out their own spin'' after appearing before grand juries by talking to the media. "But Fitzgerald has been tougher, almost scaring the witnesses'' not to talk. "It's rare for a prosecutor."
Right. And she knows this how? Oh I forgot, she's been in on all grand jury testimony. She's that big, ugly spider handing from the ceiling.
.
Armando has a good rundown of
Press the Meat this morning, and says Pumpkinhead actually did his job for a moment on Traitorgate. Not in a "let me tell you what I myself did" kind of way, but in a "let me tell you what the other guy did" kind of way. Many amusing comments about Timmeh ensue.
. Lawrence O'Donnell at the
HuffPo brings up an excellent and oh-so-amusing point about Rove's odds at conning the grand jury:
A typical Washington, D.C. grand jury is about 75% African American. Fitzgerald’s is slightly more than that. This is not the kind of group Karl Rove feels at home with. He has no professional experience trying to appeal to a group like this. He has been so unsuccessful at it that his boss’s job approval rating with African Americans is now 2%, which, factoring in the margin of error, could actually be zero. To make matters statistically and demographically much worse for Rove and Scooter Libby, only 12 of the 23 grand jurors have to agree to indict them.
Zero. Think about it. You know Unka Karl did
.
Rep. Gerald Nadler is calling for Firzgerald to expand his investigation "to examine whether the President, the Vice President, and members of the White House Iraq Group conspired to deliberately deceive Congress into authorizing the war in Iraq." It would be lovely, but I think he may have his hands full right about now.
And I just don't think I could handle it if he took another year to start passing out indictments. As
John at AmericaBlog says, "It's like the
best-sex-ever going on a bit too long."
(graphics love to
2 political junkies via
Mark Kleiman)
|
Kay Bailey Hutchinson, the new poster girl for "laws only apply when they are convenient for the GOP," said on today's Meet the Press:
I certainly hope that if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn’t indict on the crime so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation were not a waste of time and dollars.
(Hat tip to ThinkProgress for the exact quote. I was sputtering too much to get it down on paper.)
May I call you, Kay?
Kay, dear, the law is the law whether or not it sends your cronies to jail. And I didn't see you making the rounds on all the talk shows during the Clinton Impeachment proceedings disagreeing with the notion that perjury and obstruction of justice were serious crimes against the rule of law.
In fact, one of your colleagues, Henry Hyde, had this to say at that time: "The question before this House is rather simple," said Hyde, an Illinois Republican. "It's not about sex ... The matter before the House is lying under oath. This is called perjury."
Hyde said perjury and obstruction of justice "cannot be reconciled with the office of the president of the United States ... The people's trust has been betrayed."
He accused Clinton of a "premeditated, deliberate corruption of the nation's system of justice."
It's amazing how a little thing like the internet can be so helpful in exposing hypocrisy, isn't it? Perjury was a corruption of nation's system of justice back then -- but an inconsequential technicality now? Wow, that was quick.
Oh, and Kay, apparently that "technicality" of lying to investigators, destroying evidence, obstructing the special prosecutor and just being an all-around bunch of skeezeballs when it came to telling the truth about this mess reared it's ugly head within a few weeks of Patrick Fitzgerald coming on the job.
Weeks after he took over the investigation 22 months ago into the unauthorized disclosure of a CIA operative's identity, special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald got authority from the Justice Department to expand his inquiry to include any criminal attempts to interfere with his probe, according to a letter posted Friday on Fitzgerald's new Web site.
Gosh, sure sounds like just a little technicality, doesn't it? I mean, federal investigators given the authority to look into a matter of violation of national security rules and the outing of a CIA NOC would have no real need for people to be honest with them when they asked their serious questions, now would they? And all those criminals currently serving penitentiary time for lying under oath or obstructing justice by, say, killing off a witness to their crime or threatening a juror, well they should just be released right out onto the streets again. By all means, let's just issue blanket pardons and big old apologies.
Are you daft?!?
But, what do people who are experts in dealing with these sorts of messes say. I mean, criminal defense attornies make a living calling prosecutors overzealous and stuff, don't they, and saying things like "my client is being overzealously pursued on a technicality by a vindictive prosecutor" (cue the DeLay attorneys) -- what would one of those sorts of attornies say, rather than just taking my former prosecutor word for things:
"The fact that he [Fitzgerald] asked for authority that he probably already had, but wanted spelled out, makes it arguable that he had run into something rather quickly," Washington lawyer Plato Cacheris said yesterday.
Hope you are prepared for your remarks that perjury is a technicality to appear in every habeas brief coming down the pike for the next coupla years, Kay. A Senator ought to know better.
Oh yeah. No big deal. Nothing to see here.
UPDATE: Kay, your Petard. Petard, Kay. In your own words, all the way back on Feb. 12, 1999: I was reminded as well, however, that the laws of our Country are applicable to us all, including the President, and they must be obeyed. The concept of equal justice under law and the importance of absolute truth in legal proceedings is the foundation of our justice system in the courts.
Whew, it must be painful, twisting yourself in all those ethical knots. Then, you said this: The Supreme Court of the United States has observed that there is an occasional misunderstanding to the effect that the crime of 'perjury' is somehow distinct from 'obstruction of justice.' United States v. Norris, 300 U.S. 564, 574 (1937). They are not. While different elements make up each crime, each is calculated to prevent a court and the public from discovering the truth and achieving justice in our judicial system. Moreover, it is obvious that 'witness tampering' is simply another means employed to obstruct justice.
Hmmmm...calculated to prevent the court and the public from discovering the truth, eh? Amazing how that doesn't sound so inconsequential coming from your own mouth, isn't it, Kay? Gee, then you said: Lying is a moral wrong. Perjury is a lie told under oath that is legally wrong....Willful, corrupt, and false sworn testimony before a Federal grand jury is a separate and distinct crime under applicable law and is material and perjurious if it is 'capable' of influencing the grand jury in any matter before it, including any collateral matters that it may consider. See, Title 18, Section 1623, U.S. Code, and Federal court cases interpreting that Section.
The President's testimony before the Federal grand jury was fully capable of influencing the grand jury's investigation and was clearly perjurious.
Interesting how perjury seemed so important to the rule of law back then, isn't it?
But my favorite part of your statement was your conclusion: A hundred years from now, when history looks back to this moment, we can hope for a conclusion that our Constitution has been applied fairly and survives, that we have come to principled judgments about matters of national importance, and that the rule of law in American has been sustained.
How proud are you of yourself today, Kay? I'm thinking putting party hack loyalty ahead of principle is an awfully bitter pill to swallow, unless you care only about maintaining power and nothing for the rule of law and the citizens who actually try to live by it in their daily lives. Shame on you, and every apologist out there trying to make a violation of the law look like nothing, after dancing on Bill Clinton's grave before you even had him buried.
Law and order party, my ass.
(Huge hat tip to reader Clonecone for this.)
UPDATE #2: Crooks and Liars has the video. Watch at your own blood pressure peril.
|
AP is reporting that Sen. Chuck Schumer has said that Harriet Miers lacks the votes to even get out of the Judiciary Committee. "If you held the vote today, she would not get a majority either in the Judiciary Committee or the floor," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York. On the 18-member GOP-controlled committee, "there are one or two who said they'd support her as of now."
Sen. Arlen Specter, Judiciary Chairman, countered with the pathetically weak notion that people are waiting for the hearings, and not with a substantial stand of support and assertion that the votes would even be there at all. This nomination is in serious trouble, boys and girls.
Further, questions have been raised stemming from Miers' meeting with Sen. Dianne Feinstein regarding whether or not Miers would even voluntarily recuse herself from any matters that touched directly on work she had done for the Preznit as his counsel. A second committee Democrat, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, said she needs to hear more evidence that Miers can rule independently of the president, including administration decisions involving executive power, the fight against terrorism and the role of international law.
"I asked her whether she would recuse herself. She wouldn't answer that question. For me, that has to be yes," Feinstein said. "I think because so little is known about her views, she has an obligation to discuss those views fully." She appeared with Specter on CBS' "Face the Nation."
Well, we've been saying this for quite a while, but it is worth saying again: how can the Senate justify installing a ringer on the Supreme Court, absent substantial constitutional scholarship qualifications and other highly regarded intellectual scholarship on the rule of law?Hell, that whole President's accountant for the head of the Federal Reserve isn't looking so implausible any more, is it?
I have to say, it is something of an accomplishment to make both the left and the right so uncomfortable with your nominee that they are united in dancing around the words "not qualified."
Brownback, a Judiciary Committee member, cited concerns he had about Miers' views on affirmative action following reports that she supported diversity and numerical set-asides when she was president of the State Bar of Texas.
"I do think we're going to have to see more information - not attorney-client privilege type information, but more information of the work product that she was involved with at the White House that was not of a legal nature but that's of a policy nature," Brownback told "Fox News Sunday."
When you've made both Dianne Feinstein and Sam Brownback edgy, you are seriously tanking.
Coming on the heels of yesterday's
Washington Times GOP tell-all on Miers, you have to think that a withdrawal is being seriously considered. Even for a stubborn, petulant, my-way-or-the-highway kind of guy like Dubya, the handwriting on the political wall has to start becoming legible. (If Rove weren't otherwise engaged this weekend, maybe he could take a moment to read it to him.)
The question is: how much longer will the Preznit make his friend and personal attorney suffer through this fiasco before he gives her leave to do the honorable thing and step aside? Will it be his ego over what reputation and dignity she can salvage at this point? Guess we'll see.
|
