Plamegate countdown for the final week...

I think most Americans are more interested in fictional TV versions of the White House.. they can wrap up a story in a hour, after all. And it stars whats-her-name.

For the record, there were two articles of impeachment against Clinton: One for perjury, one for obstruction of justice. No other charges. Hutchison, like most Senate Republicans voted "guilty" on both of them. And in a statement , she explained her vote this way: "If only the President had followed the simple, high moral principle handed to us by our Nation's first leader as a child and had said early in this episode 'I cannot tell a lie,' we would not be here today."

God loves Texas. Wasn't the Clinton impeachment viewed by some as retribution for the attempted impeachment of Nixon? So does this mean that if someone gets indicted here that the Republicans will be plotting revenge for the next 20 years?

Martin Sheen.

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn10222005.html

"What [Times' editor] Bill Keller Keller actually wrote was the following:

'if I had known the details of Judy's entanglement with Libby, I'd have been more careful in how the paper articulated its defense and perhaps more willing than I had been to support efforts aimed at exploring compromises.'

'Entanglement' is a curiously suggestive word, given the notoriously rich and varied texture of Judy Miller's sexual resumé whose imagined contours have been the sport of newsrooms and hotel bars around the world. Certainly Miller took it that way, writing in response, 'As for your reference to my 'entanglement' with Mr. Libby, I had no personal, social, or other relationship with him except as a source.' Welcome to The Times as Pay-Per-View Reality TV....

Miller's game was the Times' game. They were witting co-conspirators. When Miller co-wrote (with Stephen Engelberg and William Broad) Germs: Biological Weapons and America's Secret War, the Times was happy to print her stories in the paper designed to push the book up into Bestseller status, in a staggering conflict of interest that earned the paper plenty of money. This, remember, was when Miller was sent that mysterious envelope of white powder that turned out not to be anthrax spores, which gave the book yet another boost.

It's way too late in the game for Times editors to start whining that Judy misled them. They printed her rubbish because they were disposed to believe it, and for Keller to turn on her now in an 'internal' memo designed for public consumption is cowardly and despicable. The gentlemanly thing for Keller to do would to keep a stiff upper lip, let Dowd and the reporters toss Miller on their horns and, if circumstances warrant, fall upon his sword, accompanied in this act by the publisher, unless the Times' shareholders shoot him first for presiding over the 53 per cent drop in profits this year.

I never cared much for the whole Plame scandal, mostly on the aesthetic grounds that outing Plame as a CIA agent seemed such a moronic way for the White House to try to discredit Joe Wilson, also because outing CIA agents is an act for which--for radicals at least--applause should be the default setting. But in that odd way that scandals acquire critical mass by dint of larger social and political discontent, the Plame scandal is severely wounding the Bush regime and the New York Times and we certainly applaud that.

And with the Times now publicly dismembering itself the scandal has at last become fun. Not as much fun as the Lewinsky scandal of course, but what scandal will ever match those magic years?"

I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, first learned about the C.I.A. officer at the heart of the leak investigation in a conversation with Mr. Cheney weeks before her identity became public in 2003, lawyers involved in the case said Monday.

Notes of the previously undisclosed conversation between Mr. Libby and Mr. Cheney on June 12, 2003, 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.

Meanwhile, the bar certainly has slipped considerably for Alexander Cockburn in top form. Does he wish to comment on Maureen Dowd, or to emulate her? Were it not for the continued great work of Jeff St. Clair, that newsletter should long ago have been rechristened CounterPinch.

QUESTION: Back in 2003, the Vice President said publicly that he didn't know who sent Joe Wilson on the Niger mission, back in June of 2003 -- or July of 2003 -- when the person who sent him's name first became public. There now seems to be contradictory evidence that, in fact, he did know. Do you know, did he know, did he not know?

SCOTT McCLELLAN: This is a question relating to an ongoing investigation, and we're not having any further comment on the investigation while it's ongoing. That is on all questions relating to the investigation.

QUESTION: But that isn't really a question about the investigation.

SCOTT McCLELLAN: It relates to the whole issue that the special prosecutor is investigating, or looking into.

QUESTION: Well, it relates to the truthfulness of the Vice President with the American public, too, doesn't it?

SCOTT McCLELLAN: Terry, I think you're prejudging things and speculating. And we're not going to prejudge or speculate about things.

QUESTION: Does the President have confidence in the Vice President?

QUESTION: Does the President have confidence in the Vice President?

SCOTT McCLELLAN: The Vice President is doing a great job as a member of this administration and the President appreciates all that he is doing.

Talking Points is also hyping up a new Italian news story -- worth reviewing at least.

Since saying how much he "appreciates" someone or something is Bush's primary signal of disdain (note he always greets what passes these days for tough questions from reporters with, "I appreciate the question"), I would say Cheney is basically finished.

Indictment letters going out already?

The indictment lists the crimes the defendant allegedly committed and describes the facts the government believes support those allegations. It is a roadmap to what the prosecution intends to prove at trial. Grand jury indictments are returned to the district court – usually to a magistrate judge – in a sealed court hearing. Indictments generally are unsealed after a defendant is arrested.

Indictments generally are unsealed after a defendant is arrested.

perp walk! PERP WALK!

I am a lawyer and can tell you that "sealed" indictments can mean a number of things - especially in this case.

Often times the indictments are, in fact, "un-sealed" , i.e, made public, upon the arrest and arraignment of the person named in the indictment. But they don't have to be.

Remember that this grand jury expires this friday. So unless Fitzgerald wants to empanel a new grand jury he needs to hand down indictments by then. If there are sealed indictments handed down by the grand jury in this case I would wager one of two things (that have already been reported by others, by the way): Either some of those that are to be indicted are working on plea/cooperation deals with Fitzgerald currently and by sealing the indictments he is allowing them to negotiate some sort of deal and then will dismiss the indictments against them. This may mean that the public never hears the extent of such person's complicity.

In the alternative, Fitzgerald may be planning on empaneling another grand jury to buy him time to further investigate matters and is only handing down the indictments he knows he can get from this grand jury at this time. This would allow him to empanel another grand jury without publically releasing the details of the indictments handed down by the expiring grand jury.

Of course the most-likely scenario is that the prosecutor perhaps did not want to deliver the so-called "target letters" (he is not required to do so) because of the over-whelming amount of leask that have been occuring recently and is just sealing the indictments in order to give himself time to give those named in the indictments notice thereof. Given the magnitude of the case and the press coverage related to it I wouldn't be at all surprised if this last scenario is the one that plays out. Fitzgerald seems like the type of guy who would be diplomatic and courteous in delivering the news to those indicted in order to possibly allow them to avoid the press frenzy that would ensue if he filed unsealed indictments.

But never fear........ if sealed indictments are handed down the leaks will come even more fast and furious.

I think the phrase you're looking for is "frog march"

Look out
Look out
Pink Elephants on parade...

its funny cuz ROVE IS GAY

Man, the press/appointee/diplomatic corps needs to get out more. Or does she just photograph extraordinarily poorly?

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/rids/20051026/i/r4038924512.jpg?x=380&y=286&sig=5MzvqdOxvvY250nn535lyA-- http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/rids/20051026/i/r1285281954.jpg?x=380&y=241&sig=ki3KLYzjybVwR6uFpdycUQ--

hey you semiotics folks. You wanna do a BAGnewsnotes-style deconstruction of Our Teeny-Tiny Dear Leader there?

-- Josh in Chicago (Vitesse9...) (webmail), October 25th, 2005. (Josh in Chicago)

OTM.

judging from rove's physique, i'm not sure the swat team would be necessary, but he may just have it in him to get past a cop who was too busy with his donut to notice.

http://redstateson.blogspot.com/2005/10/systemic.html

From Watergate to Iran/contra to Plamegate and the lies that led to the present war, we are supposed to believe, as adults, that all this criminality is an aberration; that if we take away these lapses of governing judgment, the American corporate state would operate at a higher moral level, most likely under the aegis of the Democratic Party. As the insufferable Randi Rhodes put it on TV recently, if you value the truth, then you must be a Dem. In other words, the Dems are humanity's Final Stop. Little wonder that the likes of Rhodes and (Ed) Schultz refrain from serious analysis. They like this system just fine. They simply want those they agree with to run it instead.

This helps to explain all those libs online jumping and leaping about, gleefully anticipating a slew of indictments... That the Bush gang couldn't have gotten away with so much without the help of various Dems seems beside the point. Like the Rove clones they so despise, mainstream libs stick to a political line of their own, and will not - cannot -- entertain, much less seriously consider, any deviation, especially now.

obstruction. jesus.

in an unrelated story, rightwing political t-shirt adverts kinda unnerve me.

DRUDGE: Karl Rove, President Bush's senior adviser and deputy chief of staff, will not be charged on Friday, but would remain under investigation... Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, braced for an indictment on Friday charging him with making false statements to the grand jury... MORE...

http://www.drudgereport.com/siren.gifhttp://www.drudgereport.com/siren.gifhttp://www.drudgereport.com/siren.gif

October 28, 2005
Aide to Cheney Appears Likely to Be Indicted; Rove Under Scrutiny

By DAVID JOHNSTON and RICHARD W. STEVENSON
WASHINGTON, Oct. 27 - Associates of I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, expected an indictment on Friday charging him with making false statements to the grand jury in the C.I.A. leak inquiry, lawyers in the case said Thursday.

Karl Rove, President Bush's senior adviser and deputy chief of staff, would not be charged on Friday, but would remain under investigation, people briefed officially about the case said. As a result, they said, the special counsel in the case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, was likely to extend the term of the federal grand jury beyond its scheduled expiration on Friday.

As rumors coursed through the capital, Mr. Fitzgerald gave no public signal of how he intended to proceed, further intensifying the anxiety that has gripped the White House and left partisans on both sides of the political aisle holding their breath.

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.

White House officials said their presumption was that Mr. Libby would resign if indicted, and he and Mr. Rove took steps to expand their legal teams in preparation for a possible court battle.

Among the many unresolved mysteries is whether anyone in addition to Mr. Libby and Mr. Rove might be charged and in particular whether Mr. Fitzgerald would name the source who first provided the identity of a covert C.I.A. officer to Robert D. Novak, the syndicated columnist. Mr. Novak identified the officer in a column published July 14, 2003.

The investigation seemed to be taking an unexpected path after nearly two years in which Mr. Fitzgerald brought more than a dozen current and former administration officials before the grand jury and interviewed Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney to determine how the identity of the officer, Valerie Plame Wilson, became public.

Mr. Fitzgerald's spokesman, Randall Samborn, declined to comment.

Mr. Fitzgerald has examined whether the leak of Ms. Wilson's identity was part of an effort by the administration to respond to criticism of the White House by her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former diplomat. After traveling to Africa in 2002 on a C.I.A.-sponsored mission to look into claims that Iraq had sought to acquire material there for its nuclear weapons program, Mr. Wilson wrote in an Op-Ed article in The New York Times on July 6, 2003, that the White House had "twisted" the intelligence it used to justify the invasion of Iraq.

At the White House, the withdrawal of Harriet E. Miers as the president's nominee to the Supreme Court dominated the day. Still, officials waited anxiously for word about developments in the investigation, which has the potential to shape the remainder of Mr. Bush's second term.

Officials said that Mr. Bush, who traveled to Florida on Thursday to view the damage from Hurricane Wilma, would keep to his planned schedule on Friday, including a speech on terrorism in Norfolk, Va., if indictments were announced.

Administration officials said that the White House would seek to keep as low a profile as possible if indictments were issued; Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, did not schedule a briefing for Friday, and Mr. Bush plans to leave in the afternoon for a weekend at Camp David.

With so much about the outcome of the case still in doubt, political strategists in Washington spent the day gaming out the implications of different endings.

People in each political party said indictments of both Mr. Libby and Mr. Rove would be a major blow to the administration at a time when it is struggling across many fronts.

Should Mr. Rove eventually avoid indictment, the political implications would be less severe, they said. Mr. Rove is Mr. Bush's closest and most trusted adviser, and any charges would not only bring the case that much closer to the Oval Office, but also deprive the administration of its primary strategist and big-picture thinker at a time when it is struggling to get back on track.

Yet any indictment would leave the White House facing the prospect of a drawn-out legal proceeding that is likely to touch on what Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney knew about the effort to deal with Mr. Wilson's criticism, as well as keeping a spotlight on the shortcomings in administration prewar intelligence about Iraq's weapons.

Mr. Fitzgerald has been closely examining the truthfulness of accounts given by Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby about their conversations with reporters about Ms. Wilson. As early as February 2004, two months after he was appointed, Mr. Fitzgerald obtained a specific written authorization from James B. Comey, the deputy attorney general who appointed him, permitting him to investigate efforts to mislead the inquiry.

The prosecutor has inquired how Mr. Libby and Mr. Rove first learned that Ms. Wilson was employed at the C.I.A. and whether the discussions were part of a deliberate effort to undermine the credibility of her husband, according to lawyers in the case. The lawyers declined to be named, citing Mr. Fitzgerald's request not to discuss the case.

Allies of Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby have hoped that Mr. Fitzgerald could be convinced that any misstatements were inadvertent and not intended to conceal their actions from prosecutors.

In addition, they have hoped that the prosecutor would conclude it would be difficult to convince a jury that Mr. Rove or Mr. Libby had a clear-cut motive to misinform the grand jury. Lawyers for the two men declined to comment on their legal status.

In Mr. Rove's case, the prosecutor appears to have focused on two conversations that Mr. Rove had with reporters. The first, on July 9, 2003, was with Mr. Novak. Mr. Rove told the grand jury that Mr. Novak mentioned Ms. Wilson and that was the first time he had heard Ms. Wilson's name.

Mr. Rove's second conversation took place on July 11, 2003, with Matthew Cooper, a reporter for Time magazine. Earlier this year, Mr. Cooper wrote that Mr. Rove did not name Ms. Wilson but told him that she worked at the C.I.A. and had been responsible for sending her husband to Africa.

In his first sessions with prosecutors, Mr. Rove did not disclose his phone conversation with Mr. Cooper, the lawyers said, though he disclosed from the start his conversation with Mr. Novak. The lawyers added that Mr. Rove did not recall the conversation with Mr. Cooper until the discovery of an e-mail note about the conversation that he had sent to Stephen J. Hadley, then the deputy national security adviser. But Mr. Fitzgerald has been skeptical about the omission, the lawyers said.

In Mr. Libby's case, Mr. Fitzgerald has focused on his statements about how he first learned of Ms. Wilson's identity. Early in the investigation, Mr. Libby turned over notes of a meeting with Mr. Cheney in June 2003 that indicated the vice president had told him about Ms. Wilson, the lawyers said.

But Mr. Libby told the grand jury that he learned of Ms. Wilson from reporters, lawyers involved in the case said. Reporters who are known to have talked to Mr. Libby have said that they did not provide him the name, could not recall what had been said or had discussed unrelated subjects.

Plame charges could sink dollar, bonds, stocks

OH NOES WE MUST STOP IT AT ALL COSTS

As cliched and badly written as this is, it has made my day.

FITZMAS

...was indicted today by a grand jury on one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of making false statements and two counts of perjury in the CIA leak probe.

damn them technicalities! getcha every time!

Next up, rumors that Libby's broken leg wasn't an accident.

Fitzgerald seems to have made a point that government officials had leeway in discussing Plame's identity unless they went to a reporter. So my hunch is that unless he has really solid evidence that any of these people were leaking to a reporter prior to Novak's column, they aren't going to get charged.

Right now, I'd bet my balls that Rove will never do a frog march.

i wonder if they'll do this on monday, then.

explaining to the public that it's not illegal for those with security clearances to share classified information among themselves, but that it is illegal to share such information with the press is different from saying that you're not pursuing charges against those who shared such information as part of a conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act, or to violate Wilson and/or Plame's civil rights

hubris?

"Dick"

Fitz has made it clear at the news conference that he has his options open on this (and indeed, he has made it equally clear about his feelings towards Plame's disclosure) and maybe he's playing his cards close to his chest, but I find it hard to believe that with "the bulk of the investigation done" he is going to pull off an indictment of conspiracy (either to violate the Espionage Act or otherwise.) As for Wilson/Plame's civil rights in this case, you might as well elaborate on what you're hinting at with that phrase.

I see protecting his boss as a plausible explanation, I just don't see it as logical. Especially for someone who's been in DC as long as Libby has.

Ari Fleischer in discovering mysterious scruples-like substance deep within the charred remains of what he once called his soul SHO--

Say, that really would be a 11_i...

My impression is that the remaining persons who may be indicted may or may not be subject to perjury-type charges, but may also or instead be charged on one or more other grounds that may be more related to the leak than the probe.

also, apparently the Under Secretary reference in the indictment is not Bolton, but former Under Secretary for Political Affairs Marc Grossman

I think so; every day this looks like it's going deeper and beyond simply blowing an agent's cover. Do we know what she was specifically working on yet?

It's too much to hope, I guess, that the whole administration get indicted for their fraudulent reasons for going to war, but who knows.

QUESTION: In the end, was it worth keeping Judy Miller in jail for 85 days in this case? And can you say how important her testimony was in producing this indictment?

FITZGERALD: Let me just say this: No one wanted to have a dispute with the New York Times or anyone else. We can't talk generally about witnesses. There's much said in the public record.... I would have wished nothing better that, when the subpoenas were issued in August 2004, witnesses testified then, and we would have been here in October 2004 instead of October 2005. No one would have went to jail.

hmmmmm.

First, Fitzgerald has four different sources in government who will testify they told Libby about Valerie Plame/Wilson's CIA job, at times because Libby actively pursued the information. Then he has Libby's repeated statements to FBI agents and the grand jury that he'd never heard any of this until Tim Russert told him, just a couple of weeks after a variety of conversations about Plame with at least two different reporters.

Any defense built on "it slipped my mind; I'm a busy, important man and can't keep track of everything" is going to look pretty unbelievable. Forgetting once is believable. Twice is pushing it. Forgetting all seven or eight conversations within a few weeks, when you've initiated them, is going to flop in court like a stunned ox.

My fond hope is that Libby cuts a deal and fingers Cheney instead of looking at 30 years imprisonment. Oh, what a frabjous day that would be!

If Libby is going to flip on Cheney, he'd better have some solid evidence to do so.

I think this is very possible, as all of the guys that fell on the sword for Nixon ended up quite prosperous after doing their time. It seems that Oliver North has also done OK for himself covering Reagan, of course the CIA director dropping dead probably helped a bit. Look at how many of the bit players in both Watergate and Iran/Contra seem to keep popping up in GOP political circles. I think they take care of their own shockingly well.

Later, if he's good, he'll get his reward, like Robert Bork - who was nicely rewarded for his loyalty during the Saturday Night Massacre by a Supreme Court nomination and his great stature in the conservative movement these days.

not to mention that "taking one for the team" also relies on quite a few other (as yet) unproven (but desperately hoped for, by some) assumptions (i.e. that Cheney is guilty of a crime in this situation, that Fitzgerald's evidence is as strong as Fitzgerald says it is, etc.)

Too bad Johnny Cochran isn't around to defend someone as obviously guilty as Libby.

Their big problem is not enough major media in their hip pocket to command as Rove does his media minions. That edge is so huge in the Republicans favor it has been the difference between holding power and marginalization.

Bush even made light of the issue of reporter-source relationships that has been at the center of the investigation into who in his administration was responsible for leaking the name of a covert CIA operative to the media. The investigation led to Friday's perjury and obstruction of charges against I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff.

When an Argentine reporter said sources told him that Kirchner planned to ask Bush for help reaching a new financial agreement on its debts with the International Monetary Fund, Bush expressed mock surprise that government officials can act as secret-leaking sources.

"I'm not going to ask you who they are, of course," Bush said, drawing laughter from the U.S. contingent in the room. "Inside joke here, for my team."

Fuckface.

it's been a year since Dubya got re-elected

let's review:
2004
November 3: Bush Pledges To Reach Out the Whole Nation In Second Term. Bush: “So today I want to speak to every person who voted for my opponent: To make this nation stronger and better I will need your support, and I will work to earn it. I will do all I can do to deserve your trust. A new term is a new opportunity to reach out to the whole nation.” [Link]

November 8: Federal Judge Rules Bush Overstepped Constitutional Grounds In Brushing Aside Geneva Conventions In Treatment of Detainees. [Link]

November 9: Presidential Election Revealed Major Voting System Failures. [Link]

November 17: House GOP Changes Rule Requiring Leaders To Step Down If Indicted. [Link]

November 30: Red Cross Investigation Uncovers Widespread Detainee Abuse in Guantanamo. [Link]

[......etc]

I wouldn't be surprised if Bush never has another full-on press conference.

one of the lefty blogs out there has quotations for all the other fucked up sex-scenes in rightwing books. Lynn Cheney's, Bill Oriellys, etc.

Anyhoo, Cheney told Libby to do it

Libby also indicated what he will offer as a broad defense during his upcoming criminal trial: that Vice President Cheney and other senior Bush administration officials had earlier encouraged and authorized him to share classified information with journalists to build public support for going to war. Later, after the war began in 2003, Cheney authorized Libby to release additional classified information, including details of the NIE, to defend the administration's use of prewar intelligence in making the case for war.

I'm waiting for him to testify under oath that that's the case, see.

(please don't photoshop my balls onto that pic)

Charlie Rose — fresh off last night's return to the air and surprise party filled with Gang-o'-500 guests galore — interviewing Richard Armitage, the man who tout le Washington believes was Bob Woodward's source on Plame (and probably Novak's too). That exclusive interview occurs this very day. And you won't believe how foxy and healthy Charlie looks.

i suppose this is a good place as any to Note (sorry) that the dude looked vaguely Clooneyesque last night

http://images.allmoviephoto.com/2004_Ocean