All Things Beautiful: Indictments in 'The Libby Rove MSM Spin'?

Corbis Images

For Thursday October 27th Updates scroll down

If we are to believe Steve Clemons from The Washington Note :

"An uber-insider source has just reported the following to TWN (since confirmed by another independent source):

1. 1-5 indictments are being issued. The source feels that it will be towards the higher end.
2. The targets of indictment have already received their letters.
3. The indictments will be sealed indictments and "filed" tomorrow.
4. A press conference is being scheduled for Thursday."

Again there are no conservative blogs writing about this, total radio silence. None so far other than Matt Margolis' Blogs for Bush , my friend Jeff Goldstein @ Protein Wisdom, and Dafydd @ Big Lizards. The great conservative blog Media Lies, is also reporting, and adds an interesting inaccuracy of a bombshell from England, linked to the Niger saga (delivered by the French of course, who are desperate to undermine the British and American pro-war argument). More on The Niger Forgeries today, from Richard Sale.

I was beginning to think that the bloggosphere is suffering from the same prejudicial spin reporting sickness that the MSM has been plagued with for years. Media Lies is such a breath of fresh air in the sometimes polluted atmosphere today.

Not to forget also that Dafydd @ Big Lizards is trying to get this message across again regarding Niger, which the MSM are of course blatantly choosing to ignore:

"I think I've read eight MSM stories about this case in the last twenty-four hours... and not one, single story has so far mentioned the most salient feature of this case: that the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence determined that Joseph Wilson lied [through] his teeth about what he found in Niger. Not a single story has noted that he actually found that Iraq had likely tried to purchase yellowcake from Niger, and that Wilson's carefully orchestrated series of leaks to various reporters was a campaign of falsehoods -- capped by Wilson's own mendacious op-ed in the New York Times."

I digress...Nonetheless, a volcano is erupting, it seems inevitable, unless the grand jury votes against the proposed indictments put forward today by Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald. The focus of attention has been spinning from White House advisor Karl Rove, to V.P's chief of staff Lewis 'Scooter' Libby, and venturing as far as V.P. Cheney (mostly promoted by the raging left conspiracy theorists, and highly improbable), and back again to an unnamed mystery person outside The White House. The CBS segment:

SCHIEFFER: John, I am very interested in Mr. X. Is there any clue or hint as to whether he be - maybe someone who outranks Libby and Rove or would he be a lower-ranking official?

ROBERTS: The best guess is that Mr. X, even though his name is not known and some people are just speculating on who he might be or she might be, is somebody who is actually outside the White House, and in that case would be of a lower rank that both Rove and Libby.

The supposed sources insisted that Libby and Rove are secondary players, that it was an unidentified Mr. X who actually gave the name of CIA agent Valerie Plame to reporters. Fitzgerald knows who Mr. X is, they say, and if he isn’t indicted, there’s no way Rove or Libby should be. But charges may not focus on the leak at all. Obstruction of justice or perjury are real possibilities. After all as I said before "We are clutching at straws gentlemen, clutching at straws". But straws can be dangerous and sharp, and Fitzgerald is known to be a quiet rottweiler who does not let go very easily, after all now, too many eyes are focused on him, to allow him to simply walk away with his tail between his legs.

The Washington Post's 'Bush Aides Brace for Charges' today indicating that although V.P. Cheney did not do anything illegal or improper, he had been aware of Plame well before she became a household name. So? Why shouldn't he be, he is the Vice President, I don't see the point. Even if he knew that she was an operative why should that immediately imply that he has broken the law by revealing that information to another government official, namely Libby, both of whom have top clearance for such information, and would be able to discuss a C.I.A. officer or her link to a critic of the administration:

"The prosecutor in the CIA leak case was preparing to outline possible charges before the federal grand jury as early as today, even as the FBI conducted last-minute interviews in the high-profile investigation …"

One of my readers:

"I remember that Valerie Plame was found to NOT be a covert agent for at least five years! I would think that would constitute exculpatory evidence, even in those TV courts. Didn't Aldrich Ames out her once? And the Swiss out her again after they asked for the pleasantries of a formal presentation of credentials, then promptly handed them over to the Cubans (I guess they got the envelopes with their cigar orders mixed up). I even called the CIA Headquarters in Langley and asked for Valerie Plame (Valerie Wilson) a couple of days after the story broke and was connected with her number (A secretary told me she wasn't available and asked if I cared to leave a message). I didn't. That whole process wouldn't have ocurred, I assure you, if Ms Plame was covert"

Be that as it may Fitzgerald did not simply pick up the phone, he has been breathing down everyone's neck, even interrogating the neighbors, in order to show that Plame's status was covert, and that there was damage from the revelation that she worked at the CIA. All part of the 'need to indict' process.

The grand jury, whose term expires Friday, is scheduled for a session today. Before a vote on an indictment, prosecutors typically leave the room so jurors can deliberate in private, and ask that the jury alert them when it has reached a decision.

Unlike the jury in a criminal trial, grand jurors are not weighing proof of guilt or innocence. They must decide whether there is probable cause to charge someone with a crime, and they must agree unanimously to indict. The prosecutor could seek to seal any indictments until he announces the charges.

The New York Times is still holding onto the Karl Rove indictment theory, with the usual sting in the tail, whilst attempting to appear bipartisan:

"Congressional Republicans were bracing for indictments and the potential disruption it could mean for their legislative agenda while Democrats prepared to take advantage of any charges to drive home their theme that Republican rule had fostered an atmosphere of corruption."

Tom Maguire, our uber - source on the whole Plame/Wilson/Miller/Rove/Libby saga is contemplating:

"And why did Fitzgerald pursue the media so intently? Because he still needs to know who leaked, and Libby's "blame the media" strategy" is relevant to that line of inquiry even if Cheney's role has been fully disclosed. As to the current gloomy atmospherics at the White House - well, they aren't staging that. Libby may well have other problems with his Judy Miller/Tim Russert testimony that have nothing to do with Cheney.

Here we are. Even some aficionados are growing weary of this speculation and leak-parsing (but not me!). Since Fitzgerald is expected to announce something (anything!) this week, this debate has the feel of ruminating about which team has the best chance to win the World Series with two outs in the ninth inning of the seventh game.

Put another way - Time will tell, shortly. But don't rule out the possibility that all of those leaks about Libby's testimony have been a misdirection play. That seems at least as plausible as a grand conspiracy involving eerily prescient missing notes, tampered records and false statements from Cheney and Tenet.

Now, if we can just come up with a scenario in which Fitzgerald indicts Harriet Miers..."

Hey Tom take it easy, this is a pro - Miers Blog!!! That'll teach me to quote my liberal friends in the bloggosphere....

Check out National Review's 'Phoney Baloney':

"Is there anyone more full of malarkey than the ineffable mainstream media? It's hard to believe they could top themselves on the hypocrisy meter, but in the Valerie Plame leak investigation, they've managed to do just that.

I refer not to their precious wailing over the refusal of the special prosecutor, in a leak investigation, to leak to them — which has, even more than usual, reduced them to loading 24/7 news cycles with their hopes and dreams for a Bush calamity. Nor is this even about reporters pretending to be dispassionate raconteurs when, in fact, they are actors on the stage: participants who testify about their role in events one day and then merrily report on those same events the next — quite aware that they'd be screaming "conflict of interest" if such flim-flam were attempted by anyone else."

Update: Tom Maguire places his educated guess on the roulette wheel of the MSM spin 'Better To Be Wrong Than Gutless':

"Karl Rove walks - no indictment, nada. Jeralyn Merritt, who has been doing a superb job on this, keeps the flame flickering for a "False statements" charge based on Rove's early forgettery of his conversation with Matt Cooper of TIME. Based on the evidence leaked so far, it won't happen.
[...]
John Hannah had CIA links, so he can't convincingly plead ignorance about Ms. Plame's status. He gets a wrist slap for misuse of classified information. No jail time it is.[...] Hannah's offense - he was Novak's primary source.
[...]
David Wurmser also has CIA links, and he gets a wrist slap for leaking to Walter Pincus of the WaPo.
[...]
And Libby? He goes to trial, or walks. My full psychic prediction is that he will turn down a plea deal (after negotiating about what might have been disclosed in the accompanying indictment) and say to Fitzgerald, "Bring it on, Irish".

*If* they are filed, charges will be perjury and obstruction, as well as a conspiracy to misuse classified info. However, Fitzgerald has very serious doubts about some of his star witnesses, such as Judy Miller. Both sides are weighing the implications of the venue for a trial - Libby knows it won't be Berkeley, but it still might not be favorable for him. However, it might be politically awkward for Libby to ask for a change in venue. Of course, getting tossed into stir can be awkward too."

As I've said before, I am with Tom on this one...

Update October 27th: The New York Times, 'Grand Jurors Hear Counsel on Leak Case' :

"The special counsel in the C.I.A. leak inquiry met for more than three hours with the federal grand jury on Wednesday and later talked privately with the district judge in the case as the White House waited out another day in the expectation of possible indictments.

After the grand jury session, the prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, discussed the case for about 45 minutes in the chambers of Judge Thomas F. Hogan, the chief judge of the district court who has presided over the leak case, said the judge's administrative assistant, Sheldon L. Snook.

The grand jury deliberations and the special prosecutor's meeting with the judge ratcheted up fears among officials that Mr. Fitzgerald might have obtained an indictment from the grand jury, and was requesting that it be sealed. He could also seek an extension of the grand jury's term, which expires on Friday

Although lawyers in the case said that they expected that Mr. Fitzgerald would announce a decision on charges by Friday, his continuing deliberations chafed the already raw nerves at the White House and raised the possibility that he might need more time to complete his inquiry."

The person who originally broke the story was Josh Gerstein from The New York Sun, and should be read in it's entirety. It highlights the fact that we should not jump to conclusions regarding the reasons why Fitzgerald was in discussion with Judge Hogan. Equally, just because Fitzgerald would want to extend the life of this grand jury does not mean that he is not about to soon bring charges. Even if the sitting grand jury were to bring charges, Fitzgerald would still want a grand jury to continue to hear evidence. There are still some uncleared matters, for example it seems that very late into the investigation the Feds were questioning Valerie Plame's neighbors, (as late as Tuesday in fact), regarding whether they were aware of her position in the CIA. So, perhaps there is more afoot, or simply Fitzgerald still needs to strengthen his case, which is more likely if he is batting for the indictments we spoke of earlier. He needs to prove that a) Plame's position was indeed an ongoing under cover agent, and not in a so called 'sleep' mode and b) that as an active operative she indeed was jeopardized by the leak.

Murray Waas, who is another uber-blogger on the story with Tom Maguire right from the very beginning:

"He might want to bring charges against a potential defendant now, as he considers additional charges. Or there is always a possibility that a potential defendant... once convicted, might "flip" and later implicate someone else. I'm not saying that is the case here, but that is routine in federal criminal white collar investigations."

Further Update October 27th: It seems, although as yet unconfirmed, that Fitzgerald has asked the grand jury to indict Rove and Libby on counts of perjury and obstruction of justice, with Libby facing the possibility of an added second charge of knowingly outing a covert operative. This I must say, I doubt very much would stick, and therefore doubt it will be put forward. Fitzgerald believes that Libby violated a 1982 law that made it illegal to unmask an undercover CIA agent. Two further indictments are expected for officials who are non - White House employees. Read more from Raw Story (sorry guys but if the conservatives are keeping a radio silence on this one where else do we go?):

"Those close to the investigation said Rove was offered a deal Tuesday to plead guilty to perjury for a reduced charge. Rove’s lawyer was told that Fitzgerald would drop an obstruction of justice charge if his client agreed not to contest allegations of perjury, they said.

Rove declined to plead guilty to the reduced charge, the sources said, indicating through his attorney Robert Luskin that he intended to fight the charges."

Another source, Richard Sale, long-time Intelligence Correspondent, is the first to mention the Joe Wilson civil rights act:

"But federal law enforcement officials told this reporter that Fitzgerald was likely to charge the people indicted with violating Joe Wilson's civil rights, smearing his name in an attempt to destroy his ability to earn a living in Washington as a consultant.

The civil rights charge is said to include "the conspiracy was committed using U.S. government offices, buildings, personnel and funds," one federal law enforcement official said."

Check out my previous posts:

Place your Bets on 'The Libby Rove MSM Spin'
Clutching at Straws Gentlemen
St. Judith The Martyr

Trackback Party: The Political Teen, Mudville Gazette, Stop The ACLU