HaloScan.com - Comments

firedoglake comments

Turdy!
Mahir | Homepage | 10.29.05 - 1:32 pm | #

Another awesome pictutre! You really know what guys like, Jane.
Riesz Fischer | 10.29.05 - 1:33 pm | #

It was either that or yet another photo of Rove looking like the pie taster at the Pillsbury bake-off.
jane hamsher | Homepage | 10.29.05 - 1:34 pm | #

It's been suggested Fitz's visit to Sharp was merely a courtesy call. Wouldn't that have been made to Harriet Miers, Bush's WH counsel? Why would Fitz visit with Bush's private, criminal defense trial lawyer?

I still say it means there's more coming from Fitz. This ain't over, not by a long shot.
TheOtherWA | 10.29.05 - 1:40 pm | #

http://www.latimes.com/news/opin...omment- opinions

Text of article:

Our 27 months of hell
By Joseph C. Wilson IV, JOSEPH C. WILSON IV was acting ambassador in Baghdad when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990. He is the author of "The Politics of Truth" (Carroll & Graff, 2004). He was a diplomat for 23 years.

AFTER THE two-year smear campaign orchestrated by senior officials in the Bush White House against my wife and me, it is tempting to feel vindicated by Friday's indictment of the vice president's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

Between us, Valerie and I have served the United States for nearly 43 years. I was President George H.W. Bush's acting ambassador to Iraq in the run-up to the Persian Gulf War, and I served as ambassador to two African nations for him and President Clinton. Valerie worked undercover for the CIA in several overseas assignments and in areas related to terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.

ADVERTISEMENT
But on July 14, 2003, our lives were irrevocably changed. That was the day columnist Robert Novak identified Valerie as an operative, divulging a secret that had been known only to me, her parents and her brother.

Valerie told me later that it was like being hit in the stomach. Twenty years of service had gone down the drain. She immediately started jotting down a checklist of things she needed to do to limit the damage to people she knew and to projects she was working on. She wondered how her friends would feel when they learned that what they thought they knew about her was a lie.

It was payback — cheap political payback by the administration for an article I had written contradicting an assertion President Bush made in his 2003 State of the Union address. Payback not just to punish me but to intimidate other critics as well.

Why did I write the article? Because I believe that citizens in a democracy are responsible for what government does and says in their name. I knew that the statement in Bush's speech — that Iraq had attempted to purchase significant quantities of uranium in Africa — was not true. I knew it was false from my own investigative trip to Africa (at the request of the CIA) and from two other similar intelligence reports. And I knew that the White House knew it.

Going public was what was required to make them come clean. The day after I shared my conclusions in a New York Times opinion piece, the White House finally acknowledged that the now-infamous 16 words "did not rise to the level of inclusion in the State of the Union address."

That should have been the end. But instead, the president's men — allegedly including Libby and at least one other (known only as "Official A") — were determined to defame and discredit Valerie and me.

They used eager allies in Congress and the conservative media, beginning with Novak. Perhaps the most egregious of the attacks was New York GOP Rep. Peter King's odious suggestion that Valerie "got what she deserved."

Valerie was an innocent in this whole affair. Although there were suggestions that she was behind the decision to send me to Niger, the CIA told Newsday just a week after the Novak article appeared that "she did not recommend her husband to undertake the Niger assignment." The CIA repeated the same statement to every reporter thereafter.

The grand jury has now concluded that at least one of the president's men committed crimes. We are heartened that our system of justice is working and appreciative of the work done by our fellow citizens who devoted two years of their lives to grand jury duty.

The attacks on Valerie and me were upsetting, disruptive and vicious. They amounted to character assassination. Senior administration officials used the power of the White House to make our lives hell for the last 27 months.

But more important, they did it as part of a clear effort to cover up the lies and disinformation used to justify the invasion of Iraq. That is the ultimate crime.

The war in Iraq has claimed more than 17,000 dead and wounded American soldiers, many times more Iraqi casualties and close to $200 billion.

It has left our international reputation in tatters and our military broken. It has weakened the United States, increased hatred of us and made terrorist attacks against our interests more likely in the future.

It has been, as Gen. William Odom suggested, the greatest strategic blunder in the history of our country.

We anticipate no mea culpa from the president for what his senior aides have done to us. But he owes the nation both an explanation and an apology
dubhaltach | 10.29.05 - 1:40 pm | #

Agreed, TheOtherWA. That explanation is absolutely unsatisfactory on so many levels.
jane hamsher | Homepage | 10.29.05 - 1:44 pm | #

I'm carrying over several posts from the last thread, since I only started responding to some questions very late in the thread.
JohnGabriel | 10.29.05 - 1:44 pm | #

BTW, the indictment confirms for the first time something that, as far as I know, hadn't previously been confirmed: that Valerie Plame fits the definition for a covert operative in the Intelligence Identies Protection Act.

On Page 9, Section 27 we get:

Beginning in or about January 2004, and continuing until the date of this indictment, Grand Jury 03-3 sitting in the District of Columbia conducted an investigation ... into possible violations of federal criminal laws, including: Title 50, United States Code, Section 421 (disclosure of the identity of covert intelligence personnel)..."

Also, Page 3, Section 1f tells us:

At all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003, Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified.

From the conjuction of these two statements we can determine the Valerie Wilson was working as a covert operative and that she had done so, travelling abroad in the time frame of Jan. 1, 2002 - July 30, 2003.

We know this because if Valerie Wilson didn't fit the IIPA's requirements, Fitz's office and the grand jury wouldn't be investigating a violation of that statute (instead, they would only be investigating violations of the Espionage Act). And if Valerie Wilson hadn't travelled in the Jan 2002 - July 2003 time frame, Fitz wouldn't have restricted himself to defining the dates of her employment that way.

This also tells us that Valerie Wilson was a pretty active agent. While the IIPA requires that the agent travelled abroad within the previous 5 years, the CIA wanted Fitz to restrict the investigation to the last year and a half.

That tells us that Wilson's *last* covert trip was in that time frame, and that the CIA doesn't want to reveal information about her activities in the three and a half years prior.

.
JohnGabriel | 10.29.05 - 1:45 pm | #

John Casper "Isn't it possible that [Valerie Plame] was classified, but not covert, but Fitz went ahead anyway per the metaphor above?"

No, John, it's not. Fitz had the cooperation of the CIA, and they wouldn't waste his time with investigating IIPA unless they knew Wilson fit the IIPA requirements.

Fitz worked closely with the CIA in this investigation. There is no doubt in my mind that Fitz knew exactly what Wilson's CIA status and activities were, at least for the period Jan. 2002 - July 2003.

.
JohnGabriel | 10.29.05 - 1:45 pm | #

Anastasia: "I saw a discussion on TV yesterday in which a reporter said that the problem with charging these guys with outing a covert CIA agent is that according to the law, the agent has to have been operating abroad no fewer than 5 years ago, and apparently, even though Valerie Plame was a covert agent, she has been working stateside for seven years."

Anastasia, those guys are either wrong or spinning RNC talking points.

There is no way Fitz would be investigating violations of the IIPA if Valerie Wilson did not travel abroad on covert operations during the year and a half for which he confirmed her employment.

I'll take the words of Fitz's indictment over pundits and journalists of television.

.
JohnGabriel | 10.29.05 - 1:46 pm | #

Not all guys, Riesz.

Some of us proudly bat for the other team.

Heh.
Pachacutec | 10.29.05 - 1:47 pm | #

Maggie: "John Gabriel, read Josh Marshall's explanation for how Libby and Cheney knew Plame was covert. It's airtight."

Oddly enough, I made the same point in an earlier thread here at FDL, before reading Josh's work.

The indictment clearly shows that Libby knew Wilson worked for CPD, which is largely covert, and that Libby refused at one point to talk about the situation on a non-secure phone line, further confirming that he knew Valerie Wilson's status was classified -- a point which Josh didn't address.

Maggie: "[Fitz] said yesterday and in his legal briefs that his investigation was done in Oct 2004, but for Miller and Cooper. I thought he wanted that testimony to try to prove violation of the Identities Act. It turns out he wanted it to prove Libby (and Karl) lied. That can only mean that he concluded last October that he couldn't prove a violation of the Identities act. ... So what is missing from Fitz's evidence to charge Libby?"

Honestly, I don't know why Fitz didn't charge Libby with, at least, mishandling of classified information. I agree that the evidence that Libby "knew" Wilson was a covert agent is iffy enough that prosecuting under the IIPA might have been tricky. But from my reading Fitz had Libby solid on the Espionage Act (which is the statue that covers mishandling classified information).

Jane has argued that Fitz is holding IIPA or Espionage over Libby's head to squeeze him on Cheney. Maybe she's right, I hope so. But I am somewhat skeptical because the imprisonment terms for IIPA/Espionage really aren't any greater than those for obstruction of justice, perjury, and false statements.

.
JohnGabriel | 10.29.05 - 1:47 pm | #

Pachutec: "I saw live, and read from the transcript of Fitzy's press conference, that he was making no claims about Plame/Wilson's "covert" status. He seemed to go out of his way in the Q&A to distance himself from describing her status as "covert." Why, then, do you think the indictment lays the foundation for establishing her status as covert?

That was odd, wasn't it. Especially since, as I've argued here, the indictment itself indirectly confirms that that Valerie Wilson was covert.

I'm speculating here, but maybe there are national security concerns. Perhaps the CIA asked Fitz to go easy on IIPA/Espionage if the could get indictments on other counts, so they could minimize the amount of information they release during the trials?

.
JohnGabriel | 10.29.05 - 1:47 pm | #

So Rove's conversation with Cooper was so trivial he didn't bother to mention it with Levine - yet, so important memorialized it in an email to Hadley?
blythetdm | 10.29.05 - 1:48 pm | #

Thanks Jane,

LMAO

"Hey Ari! Long time no speak. No, no, not mad at all. Say, what exactly did you say to the big Irish dude?"
John Casper | 10.29.05 - 1:49 pm | #

JG: that explanation does not make sense to me. If that were the case, then they would not have referred the matter to Justice in the first place.
Pachacutec | 10.29.05 - 1:50 pm | #

Jane, you and Redd have been, to be blunt, "absolutely fucking killing it" on the Plame story. Every post blows my mind - on the leaks especially. Keep up the fantastic work. As a budding journalist, I'm reading firedoglake closely to follow this important story...and pick up some tips on writing, as well.
Ted Sawchuck | Homepage | 10.29.05 - 1:51 pm | #

John Gabriel:

Thank you very much for the response.
John Casper | 10.29.05 - 1:51 pm | #

where was/is Adam Levine on the WH food chain?
puzzled | 10.29.05 - 1:52 pm | #

There has been chatter about optimism v. pessimism. With all due respect, being pessimistic that Fitz can be the instrument of enlightenment about the origins of the Iraq War is not the same as being pessimistic generally.

It is just a suggestion to try to attack the problem by other means.

IMHO, we are suffering from Tunnel Vision. The whole world was not outing Plame to discredit Wilson. Indeed, why would it discredit him that his wife arranged the trip. Doesn't that sound lame?

Two other possibilities seem more likely. 1. A desire to blow up Plame and her organization. 2. A desire to convince the media that CIA was trying to shift blame away from itself (where neo-cons were targeting the blame), and Wilson was their pawn.

Whatever. The "boondoggle" excuse has never seemed credible to me.

We can never figure out the case simply by learning the minutiae of who outed Plame how. We need a broader view of all that was happening in those months. I do not know how we can easily get it. Are there any British blogs covering this scandal?

As I posted earlier, there was a negative vibe at that press conference. Fitz is being overwhelmed somehow. Also, as I posted in agreement with others, Libby is unlikely to flip. So maybe the court case has gone as far as it can go.

Do not lose hope! There are other avenues. The point is to convince the country that we went to war for a lie, and this administration is deeply corrupt. Many targets of opportunity. In fact, we risk wasting other avenues if we only obsess about this case.

One string that I would like to see pulled even harder is Judy Miller. Maybe that will happen.

And somehow we have to convince mainstream Dems to get some decency, and demand an end to our participation in the Iraq War.

two cents worth
jwp | 10.29.05 - 1:53 pm | #

It was false. He was at the beginning of the chain of phone calls, the first official to disclose this information outside the government to a reporter. And then he lied about it afterwards, under oath and repeatedly.

That's Fitzgerald talking.

It can be interpreted in two ways.

The "bad" way is that everything is over. And frankly I believe that's how he wants it interpreted.

The good way is that he was the "first" of several, all of whom were members of a conspiracy.

That I believe is the correct way.

I see a conspiracy indictment coming down the pike like a good old freight train.
arbogast | 10.29.05 - 1:54 pm | #

Computer experts? Programmers? - Can anyone tell us if old e-mails can be altered or created from scratch in a manner that would be undetectable?

And am I correct in recalling that it was Rove who "stumbled across" this old e-mail?
percy | 10.29.05 - 1:55 pm | #

jwp: I agree that the legal and the political are two different fronts.

Before the indictment, I had been arguing for political fighting and engagement, and that any indictments would only represent a beginning.

The legal process feeds the political process, to be sure, but one is not the other.
Pachacutec | 10.29.05 - 1:56 pm | #

abrogast: It has been my considered hunch that a conspiracy case is coming for a long time now. . . like, 24 hours!

Okay, it seems like a long time.

But the way Fitzy played it yesterday made me feel more, rather than less, inclined to expect a conspiracy case down the road.
Pachacutec | 10.29.05 - 1:58 pm | #

"Adam Levine on the WH food chain?"

He was in the WH propaganda office in charge of television. He was the one who coordinated appearances by Rummy, Condi, Cheney etc. on the major broadcast networks up to and just after the war. He basically set the coverage up so that no matter what channel you turned to, one of the WH heavies was pressing the case against Saddam.
Me | Homepage | 10.29.05 - 1:59 pm | #

TheOtherWa: that is really the tantalizing detail, isn't it.

Rank speculation alert:

The conversation with W's criminal attorney was related to a possible pending conspiracy indictment, which would name Bush as an unindicted co-conspirator.
Pachacutec | 10.29.05 - 2:00 pm | #

Jane and ReddHedd - I have an off-topic question here about your site. I was looking through your archives and noticed that only your original posts are archived and not the comments section. Are all of these comments going to be lost at the end of this month? If so, is there any way to preserve them?
Pacifica | 10.29.05 - 2:01 pm | #

Jesus Jane, you've almost got me feeling sorry for Turdy! I didn't think that was possible. ;->

Keep up the good work, and save the fdl archives, and you better be working on a book, 'cause it'll kick some serious butt!
.
Bob Adams | Homepage | 10.29.05 - 2:02 pm | #

"But the way Fitzy played it yesterday made me feel more, rather than less, inclined to expect a conspiracy case down the road."

If you want to play poker with Fitz... Bring _LOTS_ of money... And he's a nice guy, he will lend you cab fare to get home on.
Me | Homepage | 10.29.05 - 2:03 pm | #

re rank speculation alert

Fitz strikes me as an extremely careful, conservative prosecutor. Not conservative in the political sense, but in the sense of striking only from a well prepared position. Not a "riverboat gambler" prone ot taking risky, 'out there' positions. So he immediately goes from his first strike (careful, well founded) to a wide open, risky, shotgun formation, all flankers out conspiracy charge against the Pres...maybe and hopefully, but not very likely IMO.
puzzled | 10.29.05 - 2:07 pm | #

The umpire has sand in his eyes. Fitz indicated that he couldn't fully develop any of the underlying crimes because they have been hidden by obstruction of justice and perjury. Libby and his lawyers now know what is contained in the indictment, and it doesn't look good. Therefore, they may be more willing to play ball at this point.

Rove and the WH came up with new evidence at the last minute for two reasons. First, by doing so they have forced Fitz to make a decision about expanding his probe at the 11th hour. Second, The WH may have strategized that it was politically better to just have Libby indicted now so the media and their shills could spread the idea that that it is not as bad as everyone thought. Of course, the downside for them is that the whole thing may drag on.
-
d | 10.29.05 - 2:08 pm | #

Love that image Jane! Ride 'em Cowgirl!

On the theory that deep pessimism brings about positive results (how many of us have gotten what we wanted, just as we gave up on it?) I'm a bit cautious about Rove getting indicted.

That said, Fitz kept his cards awfully close to the chest about Rove so I think there is still hope. If there is a way, I'm sure Fitz will do it.

Whatever happens I think we're really lucky that Fitz got appointed to this gig. There might any number of JD attorneys out there who are either less able, or who could be corrupted by the Bushies, either through greed or blackmail.

It's just my intutition, but I feel that BushCo is in the kind of trouble that for once, will not easy to get out of.
Anastasia | 10.29.05 - 2:08 pm | #

JohnGabriel: "Perhaps the CIA asked Fitz to go easy on IIPA/Espionage if he could get indictments on other counts, so they could minimize the amount of information they release during the trials?"

Pachutec: "... that explanation does not make sense to me. If that were the case, then they would not have referred the matter to Justice in the first place."

Pachutec, that's a good point. All I can say is the original request to justice from the CIA, or at least Fitz's mandate from Justice was to investigate the leak and outing of Valerie Wilson.

The mandate didn't specify IIPA at the time.

And I think it does make sense that CIA would *want* the leak investigated, but would also want to minimize exposure of Wilson's covert activities at trial. For example, we all know that Valerie Wilson has been working for the CIA since the 80's, yet Fitz and the indictment would only confirm her employment for Jan. 2002 - July 2003. That must have come at the CIA's request, so we can see right there that they are trying to minimize exposure even though they were the ones that asked for the investigation.

.
JohnGabriel | 10.29.05 - 2:08 pm | #

"Computer experts? Programmers? - Can anyone tell us if old e-mails can be altered or created from scratch in a manner that would be undetectable?"

It _can_ be done, but it's not easy... Especially on secured servers. You have to shut the server down, reset the time back to the point where you want to forge the email... But they altered/forged emails still show up out of sequence... And so you would need to involve a software technician to do the work.

"And am I correct in recalling that it was Rove who "stumbled across" this old e-mail?"

I heard it was Rove's attorney who discovered the email and handed it over to Fitz... Which to me means Fitz found some "negligence". Otherwise I can't see they would have ever just come out and admitted it. It was "after the fact", just like Judy's second notebook.
Me | Homepage | 10.29.05 - 2:12 pm | #

Pacifica - the reason there are no comments attached to the archived posts is because there were no comments for a long time.

This blog is only 11 months old. Six months ago I was only getting 150 people a day, and when I put up Fitzgerald/Traitorgate posts NOBODY commented on them. So I'd do a few incident-du-jour posts just to keep what few commenters I had happy (the loyal Wanda, Bob Adams, the Alternate Brain guys and TBogg amongst them -- and don't think I didn't appreciate it.)

HaloScan does keep an archive of comments attached to old posts. All your good works are most certianly not going to waste, I get my best tips from the comments.
jane hamsher | Homepage | 10.29.05 - 2:15 pm | #

puzzled - so well put.

However, I've heard on the tube from the atty types that usually what a prosecutor would do if they had a solid conspiracy case, would be to charge conspiracy first. Don't remember why.

I think the most we can hope for is an indcitment or two for Rove. If that happens, (and he's convicted) I'll die happy.
Anastasia | 10.29.05 - 2:15 pm | #

JohnGabriel: I doubt it came from the CIA's request, but rather from Fitzy's natural incliniation to reveal as little as possible regarding any intelligence or intelligence related information.

He's been around this block, with the prosecution of Shiek Abdel Rachman and Osama bin Laden. He knows the security beat.

I don't think he needs to be told to keep things close to the vest in this area.
Pachacutec | 10.29.05 - 2:17 pm | #

Ok I must run for food... Stomach settled enough to eat I think ;)

Jane, I love the rodeo girl :)))) ;)
Me | Homepage | 10.29.05 - 2:18 pm | #

Eh - Jane, throw us some beefcake, maybe, sometime.

Heh.
Pachacutec | 10.29.05 - 2:19 pm | #

re: changing or inventing old e-mails.

So it takes an in-house systems tech to do the dirty work, but it can be done? Now, if I though Rove were capable of really dirty tricks I might wonder about the veracity of the e-mail his lawyer presented.

But of course, Karl isn't that kindofa guy...
percy | 10.29.05 - 2:19 pm | #

percy - maybe there was someone available from Diebold?

Heh. Real tinfoil territory.
Pachacutec | 10.29.05 - 2:22 pm | #

i am puzzled (and heartened) by the LA TImes article re the Levine email exchange being the reason for Fitz backing off. That obviously came from Rovists (think the article even said that). The old Rove could have come up with something a lot better, but this is weak as dishwater. Plus, Paul Weyrich had a warning in the article for all wingers who think the worst has passed. Score two for the optimists!
puzzled | 10.29.05 - 2:23 pm | #

back to being obsessed

on first page of the indictment, it says GJ was impaneled on Oct 31, 2003

inside, it says GJ began its investigation in Jan 2004. 60 days later.

Is that usual?
jwp | 10.29.05 - 2:24 pm | #

Pachacutec -- will try to put up more Fitz photos :)
jane hamsher | Homepage | 10.29.05 - 2:24 pm | #

Jane,

Per your 2:15 to Pacifica, you and ReddHedd have probably already figured this out, but I think there is a market for this beyond traitorgate. Everyday people read the National dailies, WaPo, NYT, LAT, WSJ, and others.... without a context. You and ReddHedd provide a funny, thoughtful, "liberal" commentary that is imo a companion, not a replacement for the national dailies.
John Casper | 10.29.05 - 2:25 pm | #

jwp: maybe the GJ was working on other matters before it took on this case?
Pachacutec | 10.29.05 - 2:25 pm | #

jane: lol. David Ehrenstein will love it! Fitzy is more his type than mine.

But hey, I won't complain!
Pachacutec | 10.29.05 - 2:26 pm | #

If you look at the entire timeline for the case, it likely started in Jan 2002, when the CIA first responded to Cheney's request. Wilson went to Niger in Feb. 2002, so that's a safe assumption. Jan '02-July '03 would be the date range involving Valerie Wilson.
TheOtherWA | 10.29.05 - 2:27 pm | #

My place looks like a bomb went off in it. So it's time to unglue myself from the computer and whip my place into shape.

Thanks Jane, for the best blog West of the Pecos.
Anastasia | 10.29.05 - 2:28 pm | #

Pachacutec, that's my guess. This GJ was already there, so no need to impanel a new one. Saves time and removes accusations of bias, I believe, since they didn't know when starting that they'd have anything to do with THIS investigation. IMHO.
TheOtherWA | 10.29.05 - 2:30 pm | #

I'm feeling more dense than usual today, so can someone explain the significance of Josh Marshall's latest post?
Susan S | 10.29.05 - 2:30 pm | #

Regarding the empaneling of a new grand jury, I came across this article late last night:

http://www.wtkr.com/global/ story...tType=Printable

Here's the relevant piece:

Fitzgerald's spokesman, Randall Samborn, said the investigation will continue but with a new grand jury. The term of the current grand jury cannot be extended beyond today.

I didn't post it then because I googled around looking for confirmation in another source and couldn't find it. The bottom of the page indicates that AP "contributed" to the report, but I couldn't find an AP source containing reference to a new grand jury.

Make of it what you will.

What struck me at the press conference was Fitzgerald being deliberately fuzzy on questions about what happens grand-jury-wise from here on in.

What does he gain by being deliberately vague?

Oh, and Jane? Thanks for your good wishes for my physical therapy. It's recovery from injuries that happened a good few years ago, and I'm just now reaching the point where my hopes of walking without a cane seem like they may not be only a pipe dream.

Thanks once again to you and ReddHedd for all you do. The chance to participate in this conversation is wonderful, and your forum for doing so is perfect. I'm also developing a real fondness for the other participants. This helps keep me sane through scary times.
Mrs. K8 | 10.29.05 - 2:31 pm | #

Not all guys, Riesz.

Some of us proudly bat for the other team.

Heh.
Pachacutec

No problem. Maybe she'll put up a picture of Jimmy Jeff for you other guys.

Hey, BTW, what ever happened to ol' Jimmy Jeff? Did he ever get a subpoena?
.
Riesz Fischer | 10.29.05 - 2:31 pm | #

re: changing or inventing old e-mails.

Wouldn't this process need to occur at both the server on the sending side AND the server on the receiving side?
Pacifica | 10.29.05 - 2:31 pm | #

The already impaneled is NOT new. Fitzy said he could use one of the other GJ's currently impaneled (and working on other cases) in the press conference if necessary. GJ's don't just work on one case, they can work on multiple cases and he said right in the PC he would use one of the other ones if necessary as the old one's term expired. Not new at all.

GDoyle
GDoyle | 10.29.05 - 2:31 pm | #

That email does not help Rove at all. He knew that what he was doing was wrong, so of course he didn't go telling everyone in the WH about it.
Semblance | 10.29.05 - 2:33 pm | #

Drop the changing e-mails storyline. It doesn't matter. The e-mail does not help Rove.
Semblance | 10.29.05 - 2:34 pm | #

The fact that Fitzgerald made reference to an "already empaneled" grand jury isn't odd or newsworthy. Federal grand juries are not case-dependent; they sit around for 18-24 months and hear whatever evidence a federal prosecutor wants to bring them. Fitzgerald is just saying that, if the need arises, he can present his case for further indictments to an existing grand jury. There's always one available.
Simbaud | Homepage | 10.29.05 - 2:41 pm | #

yuck. NOT Jimmy/Jeff.
Pachacutec | 10.29.05 - 2:41 pm | #

What does he gain by being deliberately vague?

Compliance with the law. He's not supposed to talk about the GJ.
Pachacutec | 10.29.05 - 2:42 pm | #

Good point, Pacifica.

You're right, Semblance, it's probably a red herring in this instance, but in a matter where "who/what can we trust?" is a constantly recurring question, it's worth understanding how things work - including technical things.

I've just learned that e-mails can be doctored, with tech assistance, but that, as Pacifica points out, you'd have to doctor at both the sending and receiving ends.

That's one less piece of clutter in the data pile.
percy | 10.29.05 - 2:46 pm | #

Susan S: I think Josh is inferring what many of us have been speculating: Fitzy has more evidence than he has shown, that this evidence involves Cheney, and that this further evidence may suggest charges of conspiracy (the conscious involvement of more than one person to leak the information in a planned, knowledgeable way), or, at the least, violation of the Espionage Act.
Pachacutec | 10.29.05 - 2:48 pm | #

I can think of a reason for visiting Sharp which is not SO bad.
Could Fitzgerald have been passing word that Bush himself might have to testify in any case against Libby?
marky | 10.29.05 - 2:49 pm | #

The article I referenced specifically states "new grand jury."

Now, of course that could simply be sloppy language, it's not like we haven't seen incompetent journalism before.

That's one of things I hate about studying this case. You have to read an article with more than one extra filter attached. The first filter is caused by anonymous sourcing: who's really saying this, whom does it benefit, etc.

The second is: who WROTE the damn article, is this writer competent, does the journo's editor have an axe to grind, is the media entity's entire reputation shot to shit (NYT, I'm talking to YOU).

That's a lot of filtering. No wonder I get headaches.
Mrs. K8 | 10.29.05 - 2:49 pm | #

another one for the optimists
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/10...8/coulter-leak/
puzzled | 10.29.05 - 2:50 pm | #

Mrs. K8

Good luck with your goal to walk without the cane.

"What struck me at the press conference was Fitzgerald being deliberately fuzzy on questions about what happens grand-jury-wise from here on in.

What does he gain by being deliberately vague?"

IMO I think Fitz felt those questions were a back door way of getting him to say something that would shed light on how much longer his investigation will go. Anything he said, no matter how inocuous might tip his hand, however, slightly to WHIG and their army of lawyers.
John Casper | 10.29.05 - 2:50 pm | #

Karl Rove gets an 11th hour reprieve from an indictment, and the next morning Fitzgerald is spotted talking to Bush's lawyer? I think the two events are related, and Rove gave up some dirt on George W.
TrueBlue | 10.29.05 - 2:50 pm | #

marky: Why would such a message need to be delivered in person?
Pachacutec | 10.29.05 - 2:51 pm | #

here's some rank speculation too:

I think there's a chance that one or more sealed indictments were issued yesterday.

Libby, an extremely bright and experienced attorney, has everyone asking, "how could he be so stupid, crossing himself up the way he did?"

I don't think he simply decided to take the fall. They could have found someone less important to do that. It's possible Libby has evaded conspiracy thus far, and Fitzgerald could be trying to bring him into a ring.

Same goes for Rove, as far as legal dexterity goes. We're to believe that the two sharpest guys in the group are the only one's who have slipped up? Seems odd.

It's a stretch but not totally off-base.

1) The only one holding an indictment (publicly) is the brightest guy in the group.
2) Blatant reference to Cheney in the indictment as the source.
3) Hadley bullhorning all week that he'd be indicted.
4) Fitzgerald meeting Bush's lawyer.
5) Rumors (not reputable) claiming sealed indictments were issued.

It would be an effective way for Fitzgerald to trip this group up, watching them try to manage public indictments alongside sealed indictment(s). They'd be catatonic... kinda like they are now.
bottleCap | 10.29.05 - 2:52 pm | #

TrueBlue: Interesting angle. Could the meeting have been part of Fitzy's checking out of Rove's proffered testimony/evidence?
Pachacutec | 10.29.05 - 2:52 pm | #

pach, there is the cowboy on the fence, seems she's already covered the bases :)
puzzled | 10.29.05 - 2:53 pm | #

Regarding Levine and his spot on the food chain: Hoping for scraps

From this TNR article:

Finally, there is a small faction of minor league ex-staffers who might sometimes claim to be close to the White House but who really aren't. "These are people who have to dine out for months on a single phone call. They are not in the real loop, but they once were," says the same reporter. In this group, White House reporters place former press aide Adam Levine,

The Levine feint is just that--a feint, and a pathetic one at that. Ol' Turd Blossom may have lost his magic.
emptywheel | Homepage | 10.29.05 - 2:54 pm | #

bottleCap: does your scenario imply that Fitzy is using purposefully leaks from his own shop to prompt bedwetting among prominent Washingtonians?

That's what Starr tried to do, but if that is your implication, I doubt Fitzy operates that way.
Pachacutec | 10.29.05 - 2:54 pm | #

jwp: "The whole world was not outing Plame to discredit Wilson. ... Two other possibilities seem more likely. 1. A desire to blow up Plame and her organization. 2. A desire to convince the media that CIA was trying to shift blame away from itself (where neo-cons were targeting the blame), and Wilson was their pawn."

Well, of course, though it's probably a little more complicated and psychological than that.

I'm going to address this from Scooter's point of view, since he seems to be at or close to the center of this mess.

First, Wilson goes to Kristof with his refuting of the Iraq/Niger claim.

Scooter reads this, and he's furious. He wants to know who this motherfucker is, and wants to discredit him, because Scooter thinks anyone who would go public with a claim based on a trip he made for the CIA is a motherfuckin' asshole out to discredit the administration. A partisan. An Enemy.

So he investigates, finds out it's Joe Wilson, orders a workup on Joe, and finds out his *wife* is at the CIA. Cheney's furious too, same reasons, and finds out that Joe Wilson's wife is a goddam covert operative with the Counterproliferation Division (CPD). Those fuckers! Cheney shares this info with Scoots.

Over the next month, Joe Wilson just won't shut up. He's already been cited as a source by Krisof in the NYT, now he's speaking to WaPo and The New Republic.

Scooter thinks, it's CIA. They're out to get us. Those fuckers! They're trying to blame the manipulated intelligence on Us. This is war, we'll show them. He talks to Rove, Cathy Martin, Ari Fleischer... and so on.

Scooter starts trying to get the press to play the story down.

He talks to Walter Pincus, trying to make light of the story, maybe suggesting Wilson is unreliable.

He talks to old fuckbuddy Judy Miller, letting her know that Wilson's wife is CIA. Judy doesn't use it.

He complains to Tim Russert, maybe about the Wilson story, maybe about some other story or stories, it's all bullshit he tells Tim.

It's all CIA, Scooter thinks. All these stories coming out criticizing the administration, it's gotta be.

Joe Wilson goes public in a New York times editorial. That fucker!

Right. This isn't just war, this is nuclear.

Scooter talks to Judy again about Wilson's wife. And again. He really wants the Times on board for this smear campaign.

He probably talks to some other reporters, tv pundits, and various wingers. We're gonna get CIA, we're gonna get Wilson.

Rove talks to Cooper and let's Steve Hadley know. Rove talks to Novak, and reports back to Scooter: Novak's gonna publish it, he's gonna out Valerie Plame, make it look like Joe Wilson's CIA trip to Niger was a nepotistic boondoggle.

Goddamit, we GOT them. That'll show Joe Wilson. That'll show Valerie Wilson.

That'll show the whole fucking CIA.

Don't fuck with us.

Or we'll fight back. With everything we got. Doesn't matter how dirty, we will get you fuckers. We will slime you. We will fuck you up the ass like you've never been fucked up the ass before.

And then it all went down hill.

You see, it wasn't just to blow up Plame, and shift blame to the CIA. It was also about discrediting Joe Wilson. And it was also about the anger, the arrogant "Don't fuck with us, we are powerful, and we will make you pay" mentality of this administration

It's about the anger, the arrogance, and the paranoia. You've got to include that in any thorough explanation of why the White House did this. Because that anger and arrogance is what ultimately explains the irrationality, stupidity, destructiveness, self-destructiveness, and corruption that is at the heart of this whole matter and at the heart of the Bush White House.

.
JohnGabriel | 10.29.05 - 2:54 pm | #

Jane wrote: the reason there are no comments attached to the archived posts is because there were no comments for a long time.

Jane, that might be somewhat true, but just for fun I went back and checked some posts I replied to back in February and March, and found that my comments were indeed missing.

Case in point: when you posted about the military bases wanting to lower the drinking age to 18 to attract kids to the Army, I replied something to the effect that "...you won't encourage enlistment by turning our bases into Animal House."...well, that comment is gone.

I just want to make sure that you have some way of saving this stuff for your future book; please don't trust Haloscan to be reliable for old data.

And thanks for the nice mention.
Bob Adams | Homepage | 10.29.05 - 2:57 pm | #

"These are people who have to dine out for months on a single phone call. They are not in the real loop, but they once were," says the same reporter. In this group, White House reporters place former press aide Adam Levine,

The Levine feint is just that--a feint, and a pathetic one at that. Ol' Turd Blossom may have lost his magic"

that's what i take away from it...IF the LA Times article is accurate (and that part is coming from Rove) what does it say about Rove's wiggle room if he's reduced that that sort of dodge with Fitz? Of course, the Levine deal may only be a public dodge having nothing to do with Fitz, but in that case what does it say about the lingering 'magic' skills if that is the best public dodge he can come up with. Either way, it's pretty lame.
puzzled | 10.29.05 - 2:58 pm | #

JohnGabriel: I think the general outline there is pretty plausible. Might quibble on the central role you give Libby versus Libby/Cheney (and others? W?). But as far as the psychology goes, in the context of the rage at the CIA and its desigantion as an administration enemy. . . well, let me just say this doctor of psychology finds that scenario quite plausible.
Pachacutec | 10.29.05 - 2:59 pm | #

well put JohnGabriel, i like that
puzzled | 10.29.05 - 3:01 pm | #

Libby is in a box -- no way out. I expect him to stick with his original bogus story unto the bitter end.
He's not protecting Cheney so much as Israel. He has little choice but to be a kamikaze for his noble cause, for his aspen "roots."
Alongside Wolfowitz, Libby was a key player in converting the 9/11 response from pursuit of Bin Laden to pursuit of fragmentalizing the Middle East.
If Libby were to turn on Cheney, America's political elite would more formally realize it's bad business to get too close to the neocons. It is Libby's job to show that his cluster is capable of total loyalty to their patrons. Else, the noble cause shall ultimately suffer.
The deeper the understanding of the neoconservative movement, the broader the grasp of what makes them tick, the more things make sense.
One of the problems with the neocons in leadership roles is their tendency to hate too much. Obsessive haters are less capable of balanced leadership, and when occupying the highest levels of government, can be extremely dangerous.
Libby hated Saddam, and he came to hate Joe Wilson. Serious misjudgements in action were to follow. Thus the present predicament.
Given that Fitzgerald is up to his ears in the Conrad Black/David Radler/Richard Perle case, he probably has a well-cultivated grasp of the neocon mindset. Which could be very good news for America, as Phase II approaches.
Smokestack | 10.29.05 - 3:03 pm | #

If the LAT piece is accurate, the idea seems so lame that I cannot but think the Rove team was stalling for time, for reasons they felt might be in their strategic interests.

There are some criminal lawyers who feel anything they can do to forestall an indictment is a good thing, no matter how lame. You never know what tomorrow will bring.

This might fall in that category.

On the other hand, the LAT piece might just be a cover story for the possible real reason for the delay: Rove proferred some potentially valuable information to Fitzy and Fitzy wanted tim to check it our before making a deal.

The later scenarios has always been my theory. I'm inclined to treat the LAT narrative as Rove team misinformation.
Pachacutec | 10.29.05 - 3:03 pm | #

percy: "Computer experts? Programmers? - Can anyone tell us if old e-mails can be altered or created from scratch in a manner that would be undetectable?"

They can. But it would be very difficult, tedious, and time-consuming. And there's a lot of mistakes that could be made.

I think it's unlikely that any of Rove's or anyother e-mails were faked and inserted into the e-mail database. Too much could go wrong, in particular corruption of the database, and with time-stamps both within the e-mail header and the database. And too many people would know about it. It's not possible to get the kind of expertise to pull it off without a lot of people being involved.

So. Not impossible. But about as likely as a broken plate fixing itself.

.
JohnGabriel | 10.29.05 - 3:05 pm | #

pachacutec: no, I'm not implying Fitzgerald purposefully leak.

I'm saying indictments could be sealed to protect classified information, or for national security reasons. Any information about Plame's actual classified work at the CIA, for instance. Or how the national security interests of the U.S. were harmed by the leak, which happens to be a requirement of a crime under the Espionage Act.
bottleCap | 10.29.05 - 3:08 pm | #

JG--that about captures the tone...
NYBri | Homepage | 10.29.05 - 3:09 pm | #

I'm no legal expert but:

Isn't it possible that in classic "mob busting" fashion, Fitzgerald is setting them up for the big fall?

Consider this:

1. The nasty underpinnings of all of this, the motives, the as yet unnamed "guilty" parties have been hidden from the eyes of the public due to the laws governing grand juries but not from Fitzgerald. He just knows he can't prove anything…yet.

2. It appears what he is doing is getting leverage. Much like grabbing an underling in the Gambino family and forcing him to flip, he can now say to Scooter, you may die in prison. Scooter may be loyal, but as a guy who wants to retire in Greece and write novels, is he THAT loyal?

3. While #2 may be obvious the trial may in fact be leverage. Obviously the trial itself regardless of the outcome could be devastating for the White House, possibly leading to new charges and at the least some very embarrassing facts. Facts that while sealed in a grand jury case, I believe, would be public record in a criminal trial.

So maybe Fitzgerald is holding Scooter's feet to the fire but also the administrations by saying, come clean or watch your dirty laundry flap in the breeze for the next 2 years.
Randy McGowan | 10.29.05 - 3:12 pm | #

The LA Times/Levine thing could also be an incomplete rendition of the 'new defense' evidence from Rove. Rove's defense team may be (probably is) throwing out eveerything but the kitchen sink in an attempt to give Fitz pause (eg, the Plame neighbors all knew about her, rove didn't talk to levine, and more we don't know about).

As for whether he instead or also offered damaging evidence as a sop to Fitz,I have a hard time imagining Rove throwing over any of the White house gang at this stage. Unless, it's Cheney. He might (emphasis might) toss Cheney with the connivance of GW if it got Fitz to go away while opening up a new VP appointment.
puzzled | 10.29.05 - 3:12 pm | #

One thing we aren't looking at re: Fitz's vague discussion about where he is and how long it will go on and the new GJ is:

We weren't the only audience for his Press COnference. THe perps were watching as well. I'd like to start us tlaking aobut what Fitz was telling them and what they heard.

I think the indictment itself is total outline of a conspiracy charge and I'm wondering what he needs to execute indictments for that.
NYBri | Homepage | 10.29.05 - 3:13 pm | #

it cannot be lost on the GOPers that having a new VP gives them a leg up on the 2008 presidential race..of course, someone is going to have to break the news to Cheney and then there will be a knife fight over who gets the nod...still, as long as we're speculating recall the trial balloon for a Condi Rice appointment (could that have come from the WH) and Pappa Bush has met with Cheney recently
puzzled | 10.29.05 - 3:15 pm | #

puzzled--

Rove's defense team may be (probably is) throwing out eveerything but the kitchen sink in an attempt to give Fitz pause (eg, the Plame neighbors all knew about her, rove didn't talk to levine, and more we don't know about).

Gotta be careful what you throw out there. One could get a nice fat OoJ charge tossed at them.
NYBri | Homepage | 10.29.05 - 3:15 pm | #

BottleCap: thanks for the clarification.

NYBri: I had a similar question earlier today, but Redd has been too busy to address it.

puzzled: I presume that any Rove proffer, if it exists, dumps Cheney and protects W.
Pachacutec | 10.29.05 - 3:16 pm | #

I have to agree--if they were going to go to all that trouble of creating a fake email, shouldn't they have thought of something a little better? Something like, "Scooter, leaking the name of a covert CIA operative is a CRIME and you should NEVER EVER do that"
Oscar | 10.29.05 - 3:17 pm | #

You go away from these threads for a couple of hours and it takes forever to catch up...I've been reading for 40 minutes just to get to the end...
NYBri | Homepage | 10.29.05 - 3:18 pm | #

Randy: that is the general thinking of those among us who tend to think Fitzy is not done yet. Fitzy's experience is with organized crime investigations/prosecutions.
Pachacutec | 10.29.05 - 3:18 pm | #

Jane, please be more considerate toward your readers. For example, just speaking hypothetically, suppose I'm reading FDL in a café and come across the line, "Fucking hell, I'll be your alibi, Turdy. I didn't talk with you about it, either."

And now everyone's staring at me because I just started laughing out loud for no apparent reason. I mean, it's embarrassing, and it's all your fault! Umm, hypothetically speaking, that is ...
Swopa | Homepage | 10.29.05 - 3:19 pm | #

I don't find the fake email or email erasure theories plausible.
Pachacutec | 10.29.05 - 3:19 pm | #

NYBri, nice point, but what I had in mind was the sit down that Fitz had with Luster last week...two lawyers negotiating a deal (oh, my case is awfully strong,,,hogwash, you can't get a conviction...etc, etc). Negotiations between lawyers is unlikely to trigger this problem. Fitz doesn't get a deal, but trudges back realizing he must send out the FBI guys again to check out all these new defenses
puzzled | 10.29.05 - 3:19 pm | #

Pachutec: "I doubt it came from the CIA's request, but rather from Fitzy's natural incliniation to reveal as little as possible regarding any intelligence or intelligence related information. He's been around this block, with the prosecution of Shiek Abdel Rachman and Osama bin Laden. He knows the security beat. I don't think he needs to be told to keep things close to the vest in this area."

Pachutec, you may be right. But then you have to explain the specificity of only relying on the last year and a half of Valerie Plame's employment.

The IIPA covers the last 5 years of an agent's covert activity. I would think that a prosecutor likes to bring as much evidence to the tableto make his/her case, but Fitz restricts himself to the last 1 1/2 years of Plame's employment.

Now I suppose he could have decided that on his own, but I think it makes more sense that the CIA either asked him to restrict his investigation to that time period, or, more likely, said something like "She made a covert trip in the last 1 1/2 years. That's all you need to make your case for IIPA. Right? So we won't need to share with you any more data than that."

To which Fitz would probably have replied, "Yep, that's ok with us."

.
JohnGabriel | 10.29.05 - 3:21 pm | #

"puzzled: I presume that any Rove proffer, if it exists, dumps Cheney and protects W.
Pachacutec "

and I'm thinking about Redd or Jane's column a few days ago about the turmoiled relationship between George I and George II and how that would fit into a dump Cheney move (as well as the Scowcroft blast). having to save his hiney by offering up Cheney and effectively having to call in daddy for help might account for a heavy load of G II's angst.
puzzled | 10.29.05 - 3:24 pm | #

puzzled: I presume that any Rove proffer, if it exists, dumps Cheney and protects W.
Pachacutec | 10.29.05 - 3:16 pm | #

I think you might be right. And perhaps that was the focus of Fitz's conversation with W's lawyer?
dab | 10.29.05 - 3:25 pm | #

anybody here read wayne madsen's annotated copy on the indictments and have any thoughts about it.

http:// www.waynemadsenreport.com...yindictment.htm
bkny | 10.29.05 - 3:30 pm | #

And, jwp, just to add to GJ discussion -- the GJ that Fitz used was simply empaneled the previous October and he started using it in Jan 2004.

I think he was "fuzzy" about the current GJ because he probably didn't know when one was last empaneled or exactly how he would get access to one. The rules are probably slightly different by district and he is most familiar with NY and Chicago.

John Gabriel -- I think you are reading a bit much into the dates Fitz referenced in the indictment related to Valerie. Those are simply the dates relevant to the investigation. Wilson went to Niger in Feb 2002 and she was outed in July 2003. Those are the outside parameter dates of significance.

"Whatever happens I think we're really lucky that Fitz got appointed to this gig."

Sorry, not to rain on anyone's parade, but the more I think about this case and the press conference and Fitzgerald's points, the less impressed I become. No doubt he is an exceptionally talented lawyer, but his results are rather mundane and probably obtainable by any run-of-the-mill US attorney. Hell, Ken Starr could have produced lying and obstruction charges. Any mother on the planet is experienced enough in the ways of lyin' kids to see through Libby's lies. And I remain convinced that he wanted Miller and Cooper to expose lies, not to expose that Valerie had been illegally exposed.

The great irony of his leak-proof investigation is that we might have all been better off if he had let it leak that he wasn't even going to answer the question of who Novak's second source was nor pursue a conviction of the Identities Act.

Color me unimpressed.
Maggie | Homepage | 10.29.05 - 3:32 pm | #

would this deal fly with Fitz"

1. Cheney resigns for health reasons and is pardoned
2. Scoot pleads to the lowest felony accepting a couple of years in jail with an agreement that GW won't pardon him until a later date (so Scoot serves a short period then gets his pardon),
3. Rove isn't indicted, but resigns to spend more time at whatever else he spends time at (the GOP 2006 election committee).
4. maybe some more small fry cop to small charges
5. Fitz declares victory and goes home?
puzzled | 10.29.05 - 3:34 pm | #

I'd like to start us tlaking aobut what Fitz was telling them and what they heard.

NYBri | Homepage | 10.29.05 - 3:13 pm | #

Exactly! Certainly he was answering questions posed by the media - but I think he was most definitely very aware of what he was communicating to those still on the hook (and their lawyers)
dab | 10.29.05 - 3:34 pm | #

FWIT, Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo reminds us of an Oct. 1st article in the NYT that may answer the question of whether Cheney participated in the discussion referred to in paragraph 22 of the indictment.

22. On or about July 12, 2003, LIBBY flew with the Vice President and others to and from Norfolk, Virginia, on Air Force Two. On his return trip, LIBBY discussed with other officials aboard the plane what Libby should say in response to certain pending media inquiries, including questions from Time reporter Matthew Cooper.

According to the article, a lawyer who knew Libby’s account claimed:
Mr. Libby said he told Mr. Cheney that reporters had been pressing the vice president's office for more details about who sent Mr. Wilson to Africa. The two men spoke when Mr. Cheney was on a trip to Norfolk, Va., for the commissioning of the carrier Ronald Reagan.
blythetdm | 10.29.05 - 3:35 pm | #

You go away from these threads for a couple of hours and it takes forever to catch up...I've been reading for 40 minutes just to get to the end...
NYBri | Homepage | 10.29.05 - 3:36 pm | #

JG-I think that about covers it. That's also why Libby won't flip. His anger and hatred is so overpowering, he can't see the folly of his actions. Now, or in the past.

I was struck by another of Fitz's traits (at least on TV)-humility. Everything for him is about the Law. What is great about the United States is that it is a nation of laws-truly a majestic concept. And ALL are equal before the Law. What could be more humbling than that?
mc | 10.29.05 - 3:38 pm | #

puzzled: "I presume that any Rove proffer, if it exists, dumps Cheney and protects W."

Pachacutec: "I think you might be right. And perhaps that was the focus of Fitz's conversation with W's lawyer?"

But does Fitzgerald strike either of you as the kind of prosecutor who would agree to let the top guy go, even an unindictable top guy?
percy | 10.29.05 - 3:39 pm | #

dab--First off...I bet people like Hadley and a couple others who were told they were in jeopardy are very confused at the moment.
NYBri | Homepage | 10.29.05 - 3:40 pm | #

Maggie, take a deep breath. :->

In Texas Hold'em poker terms, all we see today is the flop.

Unlike on TV, we can't see Fitz's hand.

BuchCo broadcast their hand all over the media.

I'm handicapping Fitz's got pocket rockets, there's an Ace on the flop, and BuchCo (the whole rotten crew) have no outs.
Frisco Lefty | 10.29.05 - 3:41 pm | #

Maggie,

So the point of your 3:32 is that instead of indicting Scooter, Fitz should have given him a medal for lying and obstructing?
John Casper | 10.29.05 - 3:42 pm | #

I'm also noting a definite lack of gloating coming from any othe the players in this drama.

THe WH certainly isn't acting like it's out of the woods.

As a result, I'm wondering if the bulge in Fitz's top pocket was the result of some sealed papers.

Pach--note how I referenced the bulge in his TOP pocket. heh.
NYBri | Homepage | 10.29.05 - 3:42 pm | #

Lawrence Wilkerson on CSpan now lashing the Bush Crime Family
puzzled | 10.29.05 - 3:42 pm | #

Frisco--Now that you've brought it up...what's to be made of Fitz's:

"Everbody step back and take a deep breath."

He said that twice...at least.
NYBri | Homepage | 10.29.05 - 3:44 pm | #

I understand that a sealed indictment does not allow anyone to see the particulars of it. Can the court or anyone verify whether or not their are indictments that are sealed?
pb | 10.29.05 - 3:45 pm | #

"But does Fitzgerald strike either of you as the kind of prosecutor who would agree to let the top guy go, even an unindictable top guy?
percy"

I don't know, which is why I asked my last question. But, Fitz said he was looking forward to getting this over with. And, he's facing a potential Pres. pardon which is out of his power..in the face of that he might accept the pardon reality and get what he can get. And if can get jail time for Scoot and get the national security endangerers out of office, he might be able to leave town with head held high.
puzzled | 10.29.05 - 3:46 pm | #

Pachacutec: "Might quibble on the central role you give Libby versus Libby/Cheney (and others? W?). But as far as the psychology goes, in the context of the rage at the CIA and its desigantion as an administration enemy. . . well, let me just say this doctor of psychology finds that scenario quite plausible."

Thanks, Pachutec. I'm glad a psych expert agrees with my analysis.

BTW, I agree that Libby wasn't the only central player and that others were equally central, such as Rove and Cheney.

But for the purposes of illustrating the emotions involved, well, it's kind of hard to write a narrative from a group's point of view. So that's why I gave Libby the central role -- because the best way to show the anger involved was from a single character's narrative perspective and Libby, due to the indictment, is the one whose actions we know most completely.

.
JohnGabriel | 10.29.05 - 3:49 pm | #

percy - I made that statement about Fitz talking to W's lawyer about Cheney

I agree that it's not his MO to let the "top guy" off - however, doesn't it seem that Cheney was the one driving the train?

What was the phrase used a lot during Iran-Contra regarding what Reagan knew and when he knew it? Plausible deniability? Do you think they've made sure that pertains to W, as well?
dab | 10.29.05 - 3:49 pm | #

pocket rockets -- I like that Frisco!

get real, Casper.
Maggie | Homepage | 10.29.05 - 3:53 pm | #

Yeah, baby! Good wrapup, Jane.

I think Fitz has a good long lever and poor Libby is his fulcrum. Archimedes wanted to lift the earth, all Fitz wants to do is lift that White House and trap all the critters that come scrambling out.

And Libby is his fulcrum.
-
Dan Robinson | 10.29.05 - 3:58 pm | #

pb: a person on dkos just said they were listening to radio coverage and the lawyer commentators said that "sealed motions were handed up" with Libby's indictments and they remarked about how unsual that was. He was listening to ABC and thought one of the commentators was Jeffrey Toobin.
no-one in particular | 10.29.05 - 3:58 pm | #

Any other ppl think it weird that Libby walked with crutches Friday?
How did his foot get injured?
yepper | 10.29.05 - 4:00 pm | #

Jane,

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.

That's not new is it? Didn't Fitz say in the press conference that he would use an existing grand jury if he had any additional evidence?

I don't think the sentence means that the grand jury has already been impaneled, just that he would use one of the sitting 'already impaneled' grand juries rather than convening a new one specifically for this case.
formerly known as 'a' | 10.29.05 - 4:02 pm | #

NYBri --
"Everybody step back and take a deep breath."

I'm ever optimistic these days, so I'll oh-pine that Fitz has a very explosive
revelation and he's bracing us all for it.

Just because Fitz ain't partisan political, doesn't mean he doesn't have political
instincts.

Maybe this is a phased-in set of indictment announcements because Tenet fingered Dubya for some very serious crimes.

Keep hope alive.
Frisco Lefty | 10.29.05 - 4:05 pm | #

Puzzled - Whatever Fitz's politics, I truly don't think he sees it as his job to drive anyone from office. I think he sees his job strictly as prosecuting people who break the law, and I don't think he'll agree to any deals which require letting lawbreakers walk. As far as he's concerned, the punishment for outing a CIA agent, or perjuring yourself, or obstructing justice isn't losing your job - even if you're VP - it's facing the judge.

dab - I'm sure they want to give W deniability, though as Watergate taught us, it takes only one loose cannon to blow a hole in the ship of state.
percy | 10.29.05 - 4:08 pm | #

Whoa.. what's this about sealed indictments????
That totally changes the picture. Is this correct?
marky | 10.29.05 - 4:08 pm | #

My question exactly, marky -- where did that come from again? Link?

NYT pissed all over that idea when I brought it up, and believe me I asked.
jane hamsher | Homepage | 10.29.05 - 4:12 pm | #

Channel surfing a little while ago, I saw a shot of Karl Rove taken by the news crew that has set up shop outside of his house. Karl appeared at the door in "casual" clothes with a strained, angry smile. Not so much his usual smirky self. How come he's not at Camp David this weekend working on damage control? Even the problematic Harriet was invited to spend the weekend there . . .
Marysz | 10.29.05 - 4:12 pm | #

Maggie: I think a GOP prosecutor hack with possible ambitions would not have pushed the first amendment line with the press, and might have dropped the whole affair.

Fitzy is also very good on televison, likable, and unimpeachable. None of those things were true with Starr, and it gave Clinton considerable leverage to fight back.

In that sense, Fizty is good for the side of the angels.
Pachacutec | 10.29.05 - 4:12 pm | #

Whoa.. what's this about sealed indictments????

Not sealed indictments, sealed motions (which may be different).

Either way, I think ReddHedd needs to report for duty posthaste. :-)
Swopa | Homepage | 10.29.05 - 4:14 pm | #

pb - court will not verify. That's the point of sealed indictments.
Pachacutec | 10.29.05 - 4:14 pm | #

2 things I've been thinking about: Was sending the FBI out earlier this very week necessary for the revealed indictments? If not, for what?

Secondly, I read today on Billmon that Fitz might commandeer an already-empanelled jury - isn't there one sitting on the AIPAC case right now? Wouldn't that be convenient?
Gridlock | 10.29.05 - 4:15 pm | #

Maggie,

Is more than 2,000 dead U.S. soldiers "real" enough for you?
John Casper | 10.29.05 - 4:16 pm | #

(That's "sending the FBI out to question Plame's neighbours about their possible knowledge of her true job")
Gridlock | 10.29.05 - 4:16 pm | #

Thanks for the clarification, swopa. I'm going to the gym... I expect a new thread or two when I get back:P)
marky | 10.29.05 - 4:16 pm | #

percy: it depends on what you mean by "let go."

Fitzy want truthful, verifiable testimony if he is going to cut deals. He will go where the verifiable facts lead.

If that lets W skate, so be it.

Fitzy is sure to understand that Rove will have an agenda to protect his boss, even at Cheney's expense. He will factor his assessment of any proferred material accordingly.

His duty is to uphold the law. The politics are up to other people. That's what he meant yesterday when he told people not to look to his investigation to take a side on the merits of going into Iraq. That's a political question, and not one that falls within his mandate.
Pachacutec | 10.29.05 - 4:18 pm | #

NYBri: I'm not a sucker for just any old bulge.

Okay, that did not come out right.

Nevermind.
Pachacutec | 10.29.05 - 4:19 pm | #

For my part, I have seen no rumor of sealed indictments. I have conjectured, or offered as a hypothetical possibility, that some may exist. But I have seen no rumor reporting on the matter.
Pachacutec | 10.29.05 - 4:22 pm | #

JohnG: "And then it all went down hill. "

You left out the part where Scooter's anger flys off the hook, he rages about his house, kicks the stair riser and breaks his friggin foot.
Me | Homepage | 10.29.05 - 4:23 pm | #

Immediately after the news broke CNN mentioned they were hearing about motions - what were these? If these haven't been reported since, maybe there's sealed motions rather than indictments?
Gridlock | 10.29.05 - 4:24 pm | #

NYBri: "We weren't the only audience for [Fitz's] Press Conference. THe perps were watching as well. I'd like to start us talking about what Fitz was telling them and what they heard."

Hmm, I can think of several things:

1. If you're honest with me, I'll try to be lenient with the indictments and sentencing. I can't guarantee anything, but I'll tell you this: I'm a fair man, if you're honest, I won't indict you over trivial things, and if I have to indict you for something, I'll go for a lighter sentencing.

2. If you lie to me and the grand jury, if you obstruct justice, I will throw the fucking book at you. Those charges are serious, they are there to make sure people who lie to us get penalties equal to or worse than the penalties they would get from the underlying crime, to make sure they serve time even if they successfully throw sand in our eyes, and I will prosecute to the full extent of the law.

3. I know a lot more than you think. Read the indictment. See how many of you I already know were involved digging up and sharing information about Joe and Valerie Wilson. It's not illegal to share classified information amongst those with clearance. But I know which of you had the information, and if you shared it outside of the proper channels, if you lied to me about, or if you lied to me about knowing who leaked, I will come after you with obstruction, perjury, and conspiracy charges. So be honest with me. About everything.

4. I won't, I will not, out anyone unless it goes to trial. As long as you're honest, I will keep your secrets to the extent that they are not required for trial testimony.

5. The rules change once you're indicted. Then *we* decide what becomes public or not. Think about that very hard, and very carefully.

6. I am not an independent counsel, their will not be a report on the grand jury proceedings. More reason to come clean.

7. Libby is innocent until proven guilty. It is now my job to prove him guilty. I'm very good at my job. Don't make it my job to prove *you* guilty.

8. Yes, Rove is still on the hook. That's why I the indictment calls him 'Official A'.

9. I got a lot of cooperation from people and I got a lot of people to talk who weren't, to put it politely, initially willing. You still have time to come clean, but you better hurry up. I really, really, want to get back to my bed in Chicago.

I'll add more if I think of anything important.

.
JohnGabriel | 10.29.05 - 4:24 pm | #

Color me unimpressed.
Maggie | Homepage | 10.29.05 - 3:32 pm | #

Really? You have an interesting perspective.

Actually - how long did Ken Starr hound Clinton? And ended up indicting him for lieing about a BJ? Then published a lurid "report" that read like Fanny Hill?

___________________

I am going to repost an entry from the previous thread because I think it goes to the heart of some of the more pessimistic posting. Who started the big build up about 22 indictments? And why?

Furthermore, I'm sure Rove's minions are popping up on all the progressives blogs, trying to push the notion that Fitz somehow failed.
dab | 10.29.05 - 4:25 pm | #

Sigh.

There are us mortals, and then there is emptywheel.

Her latest of the day is up here:

http:// thenexthurrah.typepad.com..._sixt.html#more
Pachacutec | 10.29.05 - 4:26 pm | #

A repost from previous thread well worth reading:

I take my hat off to whomever was running the damage containment operation.

Most people are aware of "Bait and Switch" sales tactic. For those who don't: advertisment for an absurdly good deal is spread. This gets bodies in the door and - surprise! - the deal is not there. But because those bodies are in the door there is a strong chance sales will increase from impluse buying.

Damage control exists on two levels: one is the factual basis the other is the "frame" in which the factual information is intrepreted. Bait and Switch is not directed towards the facts but at the frame. Almost always the frame is the more important and where Damage Control can achieve the highest payback.

The tactic used over the last two weeks and especially the last week has been a concerted (?) effort at Bait and Switch by establishing a frame of expectation that things were worse than they were. The 22 counts, Rove being indicted, & etc etc.

Raising this expectation, both among the supporters and opponents, meant when the indictments were handed down the supporters were relieved, and opponents downcast, it wasn't worse.

Looking back we should ask, "Where did the framing information come from?" Or, "Where did the, as we now know, wrong information come from?"

Two places: (1) internal to the Fitzgerald office (2) defense attorney's, their clients, and the Bush administration, considered generally.

Looking at the patterns of communication we can say the first is highly unlikely. This is not a pattern Mr. Fitzgerald has a history of using nor is it easy to see how or why Mr. Fitzgerald benefits from Bait and Switch.

When we look at the second possibility it is readily seen this is a communicatory pattern practiced by the Bush administration and they certainly *do* have the potential and have gotten an actual gain by the Bait and Switch.

The ontological fact is a senior WH official has been indicted on extremely serious charges.
The epistemological "fact" - what this actually means - is unknown and will not be known for some time - years or even decades.

Stealing from the Logical Positivists for a moment, the immediate Emotive reaction is supporters have been enheartened and opponents disheartened. But this is a reaction to a Bait and Switch frame not the underlying reality. Ignoring the expectations given by the Bait and Switch operation ...

The Bush administration has had a politically disasterous week. The President didn't get him nominee to the SCOTUS even in front of the committee. Indictments from the Fitzgerald investigation has been handed down. The Fitzgerald investigation will continue. The President is politically isolated until he does some bridge-building to the various factions comprising the governing GOP coalition. The most vociferious supporters of the President just gave him the finger on his SCOTUS nominee. His poll numbers are down the tubes and he is loosing support within his own party. His vice-president and "brain" are under investigation. I submit, if you are disheartened, to ask yourself if you are disheartened by what has happened or by what *you expected/wanted* to happen.

If the latter I suggest, "Have a little patience. Have a little faith."

ATinNM | 10.29.05 - 11:55 am | #
dab | 10.29.05 - 4:27 pm | #

Pacha -- and isn't there even more irony in Fitzy's pursuit of the contempt citations? Remember the 8 secret pages of info? What was in that? Scooter's toilet training records?

Whatever it was, not one word counted in the end. He might have used them to persuade the judges, but he didn't use that info to indict.

If you look at the lying and the obstruction and ask what would have been different about this case if Scooter had told the whole truth, what WOULD have been different? If you pretend that Scooter said he told Miller and Cooper exactly what Miller and Cooper said he said, what would Fitz have done then? Charge Scooter with outing Valerie Wilson? If he would have done that, then he certainly could have done it yesterday, because the lies and the truth were exposed in the indictment. But he didn't.
Maggie | Homepage | 10.29.05 - 4:28 pm | #

As I recall the 22 rumor, it was that there were "22 files" open on the case, and each file represented a person if interest.

This morphed on the Internets to become a rumor of 22 pending indictments.

I don't remember where I first encountered the rumor.

It is possible this rumor was begun by the Rove camp to overplay expectations, so that any indictments handed down could be spun/framed as less severe than expected, and thus, in a perverse way, as indicitave of 1)prosecutorial incompetence and 2) less there than meets the eye, after 22 months and 3) good news for the white house.
Pachacutec | 10.29.05 - 4:29 pm | #

Pach: " For my part, I have seen no rumor of sealed indictments."

Now I could be wrong, I am science type person, not a law type person... But my understanding on sealed indictments is that they can't be held over from one GJ to another... They can only remain hidden after voting for a short time.

I think what we have here is a "case", where Fitz may have considerable evidence already bagged and tagged... But he does not want to present formal charges to a GJ to vote on at this time.

He is sitting on evidence, not quite ready to make charges on it yet. Maybe he feels he needs a little more supporting evidence, maybe he feels he needs a little more cooperative testimony to make his charges airtight... But he is not ready to put it in front of a GJ vote and create paper yet.

Also, I just got done reading the WH rebuttal to the charges... Poor Scooty pants was worked so hard he forget all his phone conversations (even tho the FBI interviews were conducted just a few months after his dirty work took place... Even tho he was quite sure how he did things when asked in sworn testimony in front of the GJ) - My take on this is that a guy who can't remember enough to tell the truth out of 5 felony charges does not deserve a position of importance in the WH with a security clearance and should be fired anyways!!!
Me | Homepage | 10.29.05 - 4:32 pm | #

JG--That's pretty good. I heard all that...now, who was he talking to, if most everyone has already cooperated?

Pach--

I'm not a sucker for just any old bulge.

LOL! I see the word "old" was not emphasized.
NYBri | Homepage | 10.29.05 - 4:32 pm | #

If he would have done that, then he certainly could have done it yesterday, because the lies and the truth were exposed in the indictment. But he didn't.

I don't agree with that assumption.

If Fitzy believes that the outing was part of a conspiracy, then it would be better not to let that out before he had all the evidence he wanted to wrap up all the players. But a nice shot across the bow to the whole gang, while applying pressure on one key player, is a standard prosecutorial tactic.

You persume that he would have indicted on all he had right away. I don't think that's a safe assumption.

Mind you, I don't take thhis to indicate that he will produce more indictments. But a production of more indictments is consistent with 1) his past pattern and 2) the fact that the investigation is ongoing.
Pachacutec | 10.29.05 - 4:32 pm | #

If that's the best spin Rove can come up with, stick a fork in him 'cos he's done.

I fervently hope you're right about this. But he's sure looking relaxed now. And it's disturbing that whatever his lawyers brought up this week worked. Fitz doesn't seem like the kind of guy who's thrown off by a feint...
nyc | 10.29.05 - 4:34 pm | #

Me: Neither am I a lawyer, but I would appreciate any lawyers milling about to make themselves useful and clarify this question of the posibility of sealed indictments gathering mold.

;-]
Pachacutec | 10.29.05 - 4:34 pm | #

nyc: Looking relaxed is part of Rove's standard m. o.

They do it even when they know the did a lousy debate job, in order to psych the coverage.

They did it in 2000 when they decided not to campaign in CA "because they were confident of a win" in the last week of the election.

Ever the con man, the con begins with a smile and a jump in one's step.
Pachacutec | 10.29.05 - 4:36 pm | #

emptywheel has a great point about
Pillsbury Tim not being journo#6.

I don't buy Powell as the source.

I think Tenet is the heavy actor blowing this case wide open.
Frisco Lefty | 10.29.05 - 4:37 pm | #

Re: sealed motions

I believe this relates to the filings related to Cooper and Miller, and the eight redaced pages.

aReader | 10.29.05 - 4:38 pm | #

How about this theory on the Fitz visit to Bush's lawyers office.

Rove was widely reported to be in legal jeopardy. At the last minute he "provides" Fitz with "new information" and as a result Fitz has to"resolve those issues before he decides what to do"

What if Rove told Fitzgerald that Bush was somehow involved? Is Rove's story that Bush called Rove from AF1 and authorized in some way that Rove was to knock down the Wilson's story by getting out the fact that Plame was involved with the Niger trip.

Also interesting here is that this did not come from the lawyers.

Pollyusa | 10.29.05 - 4:40 pm | #

anyone watching cnbc? i think that twat andrea mitchell just said something about being interviewed by the fbi.
the patriot | 10.29.05 - 4:41 pm | #

The patriot: for what? smuggling coke in her empty fucking head?

Sorry.

Couldn't resist.
Pachacutec | 10.29.05 - 4:43 pm | #

just turned it on to CNBC...Russert and Andrea all at once...no whiplash for Andrea yet unfortunately
puzzled | 10.29.05 - 4:44 pm | #

"Where did the number of 22 indictments orginally come from" (paraphrased)

From the number of participants in the orginal WHIG conspiracy:

http://www.thinkprogress.org/lea...ak- scandal#rove
Me | Homepage | 10.29.05 - 4:44 pm | #

they must spray her makeup on with a garden hose
puzzled | 10.29.05 - 4:45 pm | #

dab:

Your post about Maggie:

"Furthermore, I'm sure Rove's minions are popping up on all the progressives blogs, trying to push the notion that Fitz somehow failed."
dab | 10.29.05 - 4:25 pm | #

certainly looks on target to me at this point.

Maggie, are you a stoolie for one of turdblossom's minions? FDL has been getting lots of pub lately.

Up until I read your post, pessimistic posting here had been pretty much limited to Cowboy Scooter and how much farther the indictments will go. No one, except you, in my memory has focussed on Fitzgerald's accomplishments: "color me unimpressed" is what you wrote.
John Casper | 10.29.05 - 4:46 pm | #

puzzled -- little russ was talking about his role in the case and mitchell said something like, "I must confess, I was contacted by the fbi also. I told them that I wasn't the source of the leak. . ."
the patriot | 10.29.05 - 4:47 pm | #

Pollyusa: no clue. Maybe. It could be any of a million things that might implicate Bush, but I think the more likely scenario would be something that implicates Cheney, and which indicates the scope of responsibility for these matter delegated to him.

Then it might make sense to check with W's counsel to see just what kind of latitude to act had been delegated to Cheney, by way of partial verification.

Hey, I like fiction. Sometimes I like to think I wold like to write some. It takes imagination to be a good investigator, too. I like that Jane has her background related to story development.

We could imagine lots of things, but I think it's probably most sensible to imagine why, in general terms, such a meeting might occur, and what agenda might be behind it, rather than seek to imagine the specific fact pattern involved in the conversation.

Heh. We're far enough out on a limb as it is.

But what the hell: it's fun!
Pachacutec | 10.29.05 - 4:49 pm | #

anyone check out the lineup for tomorrow's meet the press? second half: broder, judy woodpecker, safire, david brooks (has anyone noticed that he always seems on the verge of tears).

so. . .two ministers of CW, two conservatives. disgraceful.
the patriot | 10.29.05 - 4:51 pm | #

Being anal - previous post should have read: lying - sheesh

That correction made - Maggie, again, do you really believe what you're writing or are you playing Devil's Advocate?
dab | 10.29.05 - 4:51 pm | #

Pacha -- you're thinking conspiracy. What about the outright charge of Libby outing Valerie? That wouldn't have to be a conspiracy. He stated right there in the indictment that Libby was the source of Valerie's name to Miller and Cooper.

And, frankly, had he done that, THAT would have put a bunch of people on notice.
Maggie | Homepage | 10.29.05 - 4:52 pm | #

Me: thank you for reminding of that link. The Think Progress entry does not suggest 23 (or 22) indictments, though somewhere that rumor spread around.

Was Rawstory involved in that somewhere?
Pachacutec | 10.29.05 - 4:53 pm | #

"Furthermore, I'm sure Rove's minions are popping up on all the progressives blogs, trying to push the notion that Fitz somehow failed."

Hehehe I had my own dedicated neocon lapdog trailing me here for a couple of days!!! A little Karl Jr ;)
Me | Homepage | 10.29.05 - 4:56 pm | #

maggie: but if you la out your evidence in an indictment about the outing relevant to 1 person, but there is really a conspiracy behind it, then you are showing your cards and some of your evidence to the rest of the conspirators. That only works to the prosecution's disadvantage, since it allows the conspirators time to adjust their stories to defend against what evidence you have shown yourself to rely on.

I guess I just don't see how a charge on the outing itself could be disentangled from a conspiracy IF there is in fact a conspiracy.

That is my frame of reference.
Pachacutec | 10.29.05 - 4:56 pm | #

"Was Rawstory involved in that somewhere?"

- No, but there was also the GJ witness list... And people started adding people from the witness list they wanted to see indicted to the number of people in the WHIG, and hence "22 possible indictments" grew out of it.
Me | Homepage | 10.29.05 - 4:58 pm | #

More on the "infamous 22" - Rumor had that it that Fitz and his team were working with files of 22 major people in this case, cross-referencing testimony and developing a time line for the case.
Me | Homepage | 10.29.05 - 5:01 pm | #

Pacha -- I see what you're saying. What I am saying is that Fitz basically laid out his evidence that Libby outed Wilson by laying out his evidence that Libby lied about outing her. True, it would take more than what he wrote, but if you read through the indictment, you come to the inescapable conclusion that Libby outed Valerie Wilson. It is right there in black and white.

And really, I am applying logic here more than the law.
Maggie | Homepage | 10.29.05 - 5:02 pm | #

"there's a black mercedes rollin through the combat zone" bob dylan

the argument so far that there are possibilities o