Lewis "Scooter" Libby Indicted (Further Updated)

Washington Post 'Cheney Adviser Indicted in CIA Leak Probe' a few moments ago:

"A federal grand jury today indicted Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, after a two-year investigation into the leak of a CIA agent's identity but spared -- at least for now --President Bush's top political strategist, Karl Rove.

Libby was indicted on charges of perjury, obstruction of justice and making false statements. The indictment charged that he gave misleading information to the grand jury, allegedly lying about information he discussed with three news reporters. It alleged that he committed perjury before the grand jury in March 2004 and that he also lied to FBI agents investigating the case.

The indictment of Libby, 55, was presented in court today by the special counsel in the case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, as the grand jury's term expired. Although no indictment was announced for Rove, 54, the White House deputy chief of staff, today's proceedings did not remove him from legal jeopardy. Sources close to the case said the investigation of Rove is continuing.

"The Special Counsel has advised Mr. Rove that he has made no decision about whether or not to bring charges and that Mr. Rove's status has not changed," said Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, in a statement this morning. "Mr. Rove will continue to cooperate fully with the Special Counsel's efforts to complete the investigation. We are confident that when the Special Counsel finishes his work, he will conclude that Mr. Rove has done nothing wrong."

Rove provided new information to Fitzgerald during eleventh-hour negotiations that "gave Fitzgerald pause" about charging Bush's senior strategist, said a source close to Rove. "The prosecutor has to resolve those issues before he decides what to do."

This raised the prospect that a new grand jury or another existing one would continue the probe, given the expiration today of the current grand jury's term.

Libby essentially was charged with lying to protect his boss, the vice president. He testified that he learned of the identity of the CIA agent in question, Valerie Plame, from reporters. But evidence emerged indicating that he actually learned Plame's name and her role in the CIA from Cheney. The evidence reportedly includes notes Libby took in a June 12, 2003, meeting with Cheney."

Copy of the indictment.

No surprises there. I've said it all before: 'Indictments in 'The Libby Rove MSM Spin'?'

He immediately handed in his resignation, and left the White House, which again was to be expected.

Tom Maguire raises the question ' How covert was Valerie Plame?' and thinks Libby can try an insanity plea.

Ed Morrissey had some pre-indictment fun:

"The Left has spent the last two weeks crowing about "Fitzmas" -- the day special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald climbs down the chimney of good little Leftist boys and girls and leaves copies of indictments against Bush administration officials. Since Fitzgerald's grand jury expires today, I imagine a number of these hopeful dreamers spent at least last night with very little REM sleep."

A few preliminary thoughts from my ever prolific favorite read Jeff Goldstein (although this is a contradiction in terms, there is nothing ever preliminary about Jeff's thoughts...scroll right down for some more) : "This is Martha Stewart with a security clearance."

Sigmund Carl & Alfred, one of my great new finds : "One would think the chief of staff of the Vice President of the United States would have better things to do with his time than play footsie with reporters." I agree, it is ridiculous, especially when you hear about the ins and outs of the gossiping lunches with the Press. I mean really!

Media Lies: "I never cease to be amazed by public officials who think they can lie to a grand jury. It makes me wonder how smart they really are.... A court of law will determine whether or not the charges are true, and Libby's status will be known then."

Tom Maguire is doing a Rove Watch (well someone other than Fitzgerald has to). I wouldn't have thought there was any need, Karl Rove would have already struck a deal with the prosecutors as far back as Tuesday, Well I am doing a Tom Maguire watch, as he is after all the only one who really knows what is going on here. I highly reccomend you do the same.

John Hinderaker @ Powerline : "I can't imagine how Libby could have been foolish enough to lie to the grand jury, if indeed that is what happened. As a long-time Washington insider, he must have realized how grindingly thorough this kind of investigation is. How could Libby not have foreseen that his story would be contradicted by every other executive branch employee who was interviewed by the FBI? And how could he not have realized that perjury would be far worse than the original alleged offense?"

Update:

I have just finished watching the Justice Department Press Conference given by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald on CNN. It lasted for about an hour. Impressive, I found Fitzgerald eloquent, straight forward, no nonsense, no agenda kind of guy. And all these conspiracy theories about how he bats for the Dems, and has a hidden agenda is absolute nonsense. This man is proud of what he does, diligent, thorough, fair, possibly ambitious, but then the whole of America is guilty, if this is a bad trait. He reminded me of Eliot Ness in the Untouchables. Ummh, not as hunky though...

Interesting how I found him an emotional guy. Watching the press conference, it was very noticeable how his voice trembled whenever he talked about subpoenaing members of the press. "I read newspapers; I want them to have their sources. [...] There is nothing wrong when someone tells a reporter that something bad is happening down the hall, but I'll get fired if I'm named.." It was my impression, that he really wanted to dispel any notion that he had any kind of agenda in this direction, as has been widely and repeatedly suggested by the MSM in general and by the NYT in particular.

A transcript of Fitzgerald's opening statement :

"In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence [community]. . . . Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003. . . . Mr. Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter when he talked to Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson. . . .

It was known that a CIA officer's identity was blown. It was known that there was a leak. We needed to figure out how that happened, who did it, why, whether a crime was committed, whether we could prove it, whether we should prove it. And given that national security was at stake, it was especially important that we find out accurate facts. . . .

In October 2003, the FBI interviewed Mr. Libby. . . . The focus of the interview was what was it that he had known about . . . Valerie Wilson, . . . what he said to people, why he said it, and how he learned it.

And to be frank, Mr. Libby gave the FBI a compelling story. What he told the FBI was that essentially he was at the end of a long chain of phone calls. He spoke to reporter Tim Russert, and during the conversation Mr. Russert told him that, hey, do you know that all the reporters know that Mr. Wilson's wife works at the CIA. And he told the FBI that he learned that information as if it were new, and it struck him.

So he took this information from Mr. Russert, and later on he passed it on to other reporters, including reporter Matthew Cooper of Time magazine and Judith Miller of the New York Times. And he told the FBI that when he passed the information on July 12th of 2003, two days before Mr. Novak's column, that he passed it on understanding that this was information he had gotten from a reporter, that he didn't even know if it was true. And he told the FBI that when he passed the information on to reporters, he made clear that he did not know if this were true, this was something that all the reporters were saying, and in fact he just didn't know, and he wanted to be clear about it. . . .

It would be a compelling story that would lead the FBI to go away, if only it were true. It is not true, according to the indictment.

In fact, Mr. Libby discussed the information about Valerie Wilson at least half a dozen times before this conversation with Mr. Russert ever took place, not to mention that when he spoke to Mr. Russert, Mr. Russert and he never discussed Valerie Wilson. . . . He didn't learn it from Mr. Russert, and if he had, it would not have been new at the time. . . .

The indictment alleges that Mr. Libby learned the information about Valerie Wilson at least three times in June of 2003 from government officials. And let me make clear there was nothing wrong with government officials discussing Valerie Wilson or Mr. Wilson or his wife and imparting the information to Mr. Libby.

But in early June, Mr. Libby learned about Valerie Wilson and the role she was believed to play in having sent Mr. Wilson on a trip overseas from a senior CIA officer on or around June 11th, from an undersecretary of state on or around June 11th, and from the vice president on or about June 12th. It's also clear, as set forth in the indictment, that some time prior to July 8th, he also learned it from somebody else working in the vice president's office. So at least four people within the government told Mr. Libby about Valerie Wilson, often referred to as Wilson's wife, working at the CIA and believed to be responsible for helping organize a trip that Mr. Wilson took overseas.

In addition to hearing it from government officials, it's also alleged in the indictment that at least three times Mr. Libby discussed this information with other government officials. . . .

If you saw a baseball game and you saw a pitcher wind up and throw a fast ball and hit a batter right smack in the head and it really, really hurt them, you'd want to know why the pitcher did that. . . .

You'd want to know what happened in the dugout. Was this guy complaining about the person he threw at? Did he talk to anyone else? What was he thinking? How does he react? All those things you'd want to know. And then you'd make a decision as to whether this person should be banned from baseball, whether he should be suspended, whether you should do nothing at all. . . ."

Having told myself I will read all my notes from watching the  Press Conference and compile a list of answers Fitzgerald gave, I went over to Michelle Malkin who has been live blogging it. So why mess around when someone does it better. Here goes:

"Fitzgerald recounting Libby's testimony...Libby discussed information about Valerie Wilson/Plame a half a dozen times before conversation with Tim Russert.

At least four people within the govt told Libby about Wilson/Plame...in addition to hearing it, at least three times Libby discussed the information with govt, according to indictment...

Fitzgerald says Libby discussed the matter with Ari Fleischer on July 7 2003 (a Monday). He claimed to have first learned about it the following Thursday.

...He lied under oath and repeatedly.

It does show the world that this is a country that takes its laws seriously. Everyone bound by the law. Follow this process with American values and our dignity.

***
Questions:

Q: This began as a leak investigation, but no one is charged with leaking. Is investigation finished?

A: It's not over, but I'll tell you this...substantial bulk is completed...[but] ordinary to keep grand jury open to consider other matters, and that's what we'll do...

Fitz makes a baseball analogy to explain probe and unresolved questions. Obstruction of justice is like sand getting thrown in umpire's eyes. Prevents us from making judgements we need to make. This is a very serious matter. The need to get to the bottom of what happened...is extremely important. We need to get to the truth...if what we allege in indictment is true, then what we have charged is a very serious crime.

Q: Any evidence that VP of U.S. encouraged him to leak it or encouraged him to lie?

A: I'm not making allegations about anyone not charged indictment. We make no allegation that VP engaged in any criminal act or any other people who discussed info with Libby...

Q: from Michael Isikoff...For all the sand thrown in our eyes, it seems you known the identity of the leaker. Why not revealed?

A: I can't. The law is the law...we cannot discuss information not contained in indictment. ...if you ask me any name, I'm not going to comment...I can tell you no one wants this over as quickly as I do...

Q: You said that damage was done to all of us. What?

A: For the people who work at the CIA, they have to expect that classified info will be protected...they have to expect something won't be done to put them at risk by their own fellow employees...

Q: Re. Judy Miller. How important was her testimony?

A: No one wanted a dispute with the NY Times or anybody else. I was not looking for a First Amendment showdown...when we issued subpoenas, we thought long and hard before we did that...we scrubbed it thoroughly...

Q: You said Libby was first to leak Wilson/Plame info...are there definitely other leakers? Facilitators?

A: I can't go beyond the four corners of the indictment...

Q: Did Libby know whether Valerie Wilson's identity was covert?

A: ...We have not made any allegation that Libby knowingly/intentionally outed a covert agent.

Q: Your critics are charging you are a partisan--

A: What party?

[Laughter]

One day I read I was a Republican hack. The next, I read I was a Democratic hack. I am not registered with either party, and I'll leave it there.

...Our jobs in the criminal justice system are to make sure people tell the truth.

Q: Why are you confident that this is the right thing to do given that you are relying on people's memories of things that occurred long ago?

A: Can't go into trial evidence, but...he is presumed innocent and let's let the trial proceed...

Q: Last-minute activity...FBI interviews...flurry of activity...were you just buttoning up the case? What are we supposed to read into that.

A: There was a flurry of attention...we wanted to get as much done...wouldn't read anything into it...

300pm EDT

Q: Terry Moran...There are some who see this is vindication of their views on the war. Is it?

A: This indictment is not about the war. Not about the propriety of the war. This is stripped of that debate and focused on a narrow transaction...they will be frustrated and not good for process and fairness of trial.

Q: Did Bob Novak cooperate with the investigation?

A: Can't comment.

310pm EDT

Q: Do you anticipate needing to empanel a new grand jury in order to wrap up?

A: Can't comment. What I'm trying to convey: We're not quite done, but I don't want to add to a feverish pitch...

Q: Any possibility that anyone else will be charged?

A: Not going to comment...[laughter]...You're getting cold not hot.

Q: What harm was there [to Valerie Wilson]?

A: On specifics, I won't touch that with a ten-foot-pole...but at a time we need spy agencies, it compromises ability of government to recruit...that's damage...but I'm not going to go beyond that...

We will not be arresting Mr. Libby...we'll arrange for him to appear before assigned judge...whatever he tells us to do, we will do...

Q: Are you for or against a federal shield law?

A: I don't think I should opine on that in my capacity...this was a situation where conversations between officials and reporters may have been a crime itself [transmitting classified info]...what people don't appreciate is that we interviewed many officials before we went to reporters...

...There was no political interference in this case..."

Download The Newsweek Audio, with Michael Isikoff and Carl Sullivan discussing what the indictment of Scooter Libby means for the White House, and what key questions remain to be answered.

From Paul @ Wizbang: "So while I think administration indictments are now a fact of life, I'm not sure how I feel about it. I WANT our public officials to know they are being watched, but on the other hand, at some point, all the backside covering will harm their ability to get any work done. Potential prison time should not be a byproduct of public service. I see the trend, but I don't know if it is a good thing or bad thing. - I'll leave that for Jay Tea to ponder."

On a positive note from our conservative blogger Kevin Aylward @ Wizbang, in 'Best Week Ever/ Worse Week Ever (by the way Kevin, I love your site...):

"Turning all of the negatives of last week around is well within the reach of the White House. It all starts with the Supreme Court nominee..."

Ending with an Ed Driscoll caution:

"We've long won the war on the ground--but the real front in the battle is against the American media.
[...]
That's the next real battle--one that's long been ignored by the White House, partially as a result of the rope-a-dope strategy that was worked to help neutralize many of its opponents. But just as Ali eventually came out swinging against George Foreman after absorbing several rounds of punishment, sooner or later, as VDH notes, the battle for ideas needs to be fought by the White House."

I am afraid Ed is absolutely right, there is no time for licking our wounds, we need do press on, and make some ingenious moves to get back to the all too familiar sound bites of the MSM rather than the  sharp shooting bulls eye shots we have received of late. And as Kevin said...it all starts with the Supreme Court nominee...

Update October 29:

Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove was the mysterious 'Official A' named in the indictment of Vice President Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff.

In case any of you didn't plough through the entire indictment, it identified "Official A" as a "senior official in the White House who advised Libby on July 10 or 11 of 2003" about a conversation with conservative columnist Robert Novak about an upcoming column where Plame would be identified as a CIA employee. Novak's column ran Jul. 14, 2003.

It is extremely likely knowing Novak's connections in the White House that the conversation would have taken place with Rove.

Now, of course simply because Novak informed Rove, does not mean to say that Rove revealed it to him in the first place. In fact I think it's almost hardly likely that he would have done that unless he had an ulterior motive. Knowing how much Novak likes to suck up to the White House that is. Unless of course the conspiracy theory falls into play again, where Novak is encouraged by Rove to reveal the very information he gave him in the first place, in order to discredit Wilson. Ummh, that sounds more plausable.

Whatever the truth is, I doubt we will ever get to it, as Rove has undoubtedly made a deal with Fitzgerald, as far back as Tuesday this week. Novak would have made his deal immediately after revealing his source, which is why we don't hear much about him anymore. But I am sure we will at some stage get more about that  from Tom Maguire. So if you are indeed interested you can be doing the 'Tom Maguire watch' with me. LOL!

Rove is expected to be identified in several newspapers today. The Associated Press is also close to naming Rove as 'Official A', although who will concur with my theory, we don't know..

Jeff Goldstein weighs in:

"The irony here is of of course the Libby committed a technical crime under the espionage act with regard to “compromising” Plame (crimes set forth to protect against damaging the country and helping the enemy, which he violated in letter but not spirit) in order to rebut the lies being proferred by Joe Wilson, which were intended to hurt the President’s foreign policy and weaken the position of the US with regard to Iraq in particular, and the GWOT more broadly."

Wizbang is 'Viewing from a Distance': "Some people are looking at the Libby case in a historical context. They point out the case of Sandy Berger, convicted of stealing and destroying classified documents, and punished with a $10,000 fine and loss of his security clearance for three years. Or Bill Clinton's own plea-bargain on perjury charges, costing him is license to practice law in Arkansas. Others even bring up how five of Clinton's cabinet officers were criminally investigated, with two indicted and one convicted (and a third apparently escaping indictment only by dying in a plane crash)."

Patrick Fitzgerald's friend Andy McCarthy's offers a great summary in the NRO (via Jeff Goldstein), and should be read in it's entirety.

"On the other hand, though, Libby also clearly was not trying to out Plame for the purpose of endangering her, punishing Wilson or harming the CIA. He was trying to do something that was legal and appropriate: to discredit Wilson and knock down Wilson’s misleading story about why he was sent to Niger. He should not have done it the way he appears to have done it, but he surely was not doing what Wilson and the Left have been claiming.

So, while Libby may have had a bad purpose as far as the law is concerned, he did not have a purpose to do damage to the country or help an enemy. That is what the espionage act is most concerned about. Under the circumstances, he was given the benefit of the doubt on his state of mind. I think that was an appropriate exercise of restraint on Fitzgerald’s part. The charges brought are serious ones. There was no reason to bring a questionable one just to rebut a talking point about how it’s only a cover-up and not a crime. "

An interesting article in the LA Times has just come out with some compelling arguments as to why the case against Libby is very strong:

"The one ironclad rule of white-collar crime is you get indicted not for what you originally did but for what you did after the investigation started," said Columbia University law professor John C. Coffee Jr. "It is much easier to prove that you lied to investigators than to prove you were the original source" of the leak."

The Wall Street Journal, 'Obstruction for What?', probably the only conservative media source left in the main media stream, has some valid arguments:

"Libby is charged with lying about a crime that wasn't committed.
Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation took nearly two years, sent a reporter to jail, cost millions of dollars, and preoccupied some of the White House's senior officials. The fruit it has now borne is the five-count indictment of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the Vice President's Chief of Staff--not for leaking the name of Valerie Plame to Robert Novak, which started this entire "scandal," but for contradictions between his testimony and the testimony of two or three reporters about what he told them, when he told them, and what words he used."

Also check out the Washington Post article: 'Valerie Plame,The Spy Who got Shoved out into the Cold'. There is definitely a 'Wilson civil suit' with damages brewing there:

"For all intents and purposes out at the CIA, she's like a leper . . . she's radioactive," said Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst and acquaintance of Plame's who was in her officer training class. "There are instances where some people at headquarters have shunned her. In other cases they don't know what to say. It's like someone whose child has died: What do you say to them?"

One also shouldn't forget that if you are Wilson and you want to protect your wife, why on earth would you ever go to the media and draw attention to yourself regarding anthing at all, let alone a high profile issue such as the Iraq war. It would be inevitable that  the journalists would have eventually, one way or another, discovered his wife's links with the CIA. If nothing else, foreign intelligence would have been alerted to the fact, and would not have had to do much of a background check to discover that Plame worked for the CIA. One agent outed there and then, I say.

So Wilson, not only lied, to the press about the nature of his involvement in the Niger mission and about the nature of the intelligence that it produced, but is being quite disingenuous when expressing concern for his wife's safety, whilst being responsible for placing his wife in the media spotlight.

Sigmund Carl and Alfred has just pointed me in the direction of a fantastic link to a story which reveals in detail THE SEEMINGLY ENDLESS SPIDERWEB OF LIES SPUN BY former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, and the couple's links to the left. She quite rightly points out  that this affiliation should bring fresh questions as to the motive behind his accusations and treachery.

Update October 30th: Via my friend The Anchoress, Macsmind article with the same questions about Wilson and the trip to Niger. Mac also gives us this little data from the Clinton Administration days, which makes the present days' news fade into insignificance:

"Records:

- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates*
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First president accused of rape.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- First president to be held in contempt of court
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court

STARR-RAY INVESTIGATION

- Number of Starr-Ray investigation convictions or guilty pleas (including one governor, one associate attorney general and two Clinton business partners): 14
- Number of Clinton Cabinet members who came under criminal investigation: 5
- Number of Reagan cabinet members who came under criminal investigation: 4
- Number of top officials jailed in the Teapot Dome Scandal: 3

CRIME STATS

- Number of individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine who have been convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes: 47
- Number of these convictions during Clinton's presidency: 33
- Number of indictments/misdemeanor charges: 61
- Number of congressional witnesses who have pleaded the Fifth Amendment, fled the country to avoid testifying, or (in the case of foreign witnesses) refused to be interviewed: 122

SMALTZ INVESTIGATION

- Guilty pleas and convictions obtained by Donald Smaltz in cases involving charges of bribery and fraud against former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy and associated individuals and businesses: 15
- Acquitted or overturned cases (including Espy): 6
- Fines and penalties assessed: $11.5 million
- Amount Tyson Food paid in fines and court costs: $6 million

CLINTON MACHINE CRIMES
FOR WHICH CONVICTIONS
HAVE BEEN OBTAINED

Drug trafficking (3), racketeering, extortion, bribery (4), tax evasion, kickbacks, embezzlement (2), fraud (12), conspiracy (5), fraudulent loans, illegal gifts (1), illegal campaign contributions (5), money laundering (6), perjury, obstruction of justice.

Perhaps Mr. Libby would have done better to say, "I can't remember":

ARKANSAS ALTZHEIMER'S

Number of times that Clinton figures who testified in court or before Congress said that they didn't remember, didn't know, or something similar.

Bill Kennedy 116
Harold Ickes 148
Ricki Seidman 160
Bruce Lindsey 161
Bill Burton 191
Mark Gearan 221
Mack McLarty 233
Neil Egglseston 250
Hillary Clinton 250
John Podesta 264
Jennifer O'Connor 343
Dwight Holton 348
Patsy Thomasson 420
Jeff Eller 697

Not to mention Mr. Clinton himself, who although a Rhodes Scholar, seemed to aquire "brainleaky" when it was "convenient".

In the portions of President Clinton's deposition that have been made public in the Paula Jones case, his memory failed him 267 times. This is a list of his answers and how many times he gave each one.

I don't remember - 71
I don't know - 62
I'm not sure - 17
I have no idea - 10
I don't believe so - 9
I don't recall - 8
I don't think so - 8
I don't have any specific recollection - 6
I have no recollection - 4
Not to my knowledge - 4
I just don't remember - 4
I don't believe - 4
I have no specific recollection - 3
I might have - 3
I don't have any recollection of that - 2 I don't have a specific memory - 2
I don't have any memory of that - 2
I just can't say - 2
I have no direct knowledge of that - 2
I don't have any idea - 2
Not that I recall - 2
I don't believe I did - 2
I can't remember - 2
I can't say - 2
I do not remember doing so - 2
Not that I remember - 2
I'm not aware - 1
I honestly don't know - 1
I don't believe that I did - 1
I'm fairly sure - 1
I have no other recollection - 1
I'm not positive - 1
I certainly don't think so - 1
I don't really remember - 1
I would have no way of remembering that - 1
That's what I believe happened - 1
To my knowledge, no - 1
To the best of my knowledge - 1
To the best of my memory - 1
I honestly don't recall - 1
I honestly don't remember - 1
That's all I know - 1
I don't have an independent recollection of that - 1
I don't actually have an independent memory of that - 1
As far as I know - 1
I don't believe I ever did that - 1
That's all I know about that - 1
I'm just not sure - 1
Nothing that I remember - 1
I simply don't know - 1
I would have no idea - 1
I don't know anything about that - 1
I don't have any direct knowledge of that - 1
I just don't know - 1
I really don't know - 1
I can't deny that, I just -- I have no memory of that at all - 1"

Yet President Bush's administration at this point is THE most unindicted, un-cited, and least investigated administration in recent history. Yet again, you are simply not going to hear this in the MSM. Which is why for news - they are complete irrelevant and useless.

On an entirely different note, although in a strange way actually related ("evil must be addressed direcly, and not in ways more obtuse or less clear") read her excellent post today on the War of Terror, it's well worth the read.

Will keep the post updated throughout the weekend, and provide some interesting links. All the updates are in red.

Comments

[spiritofecstasy]

AvM,

Sent some mailers out recently. There seems to be a drop in replies from some of my regular readers. Are You aware of that circum?? One does not want to bother people, who may be busy, but I wonder if filtering may be blocking the mail? One really is not sure...

Those who opt out ask such, especially the vehement partisans who never remember their many email addresses and cannot be found in my lists. Which means they stay in the lists. Why would they want that? lol.

Have You have encountered such a situation as undelivered mail?

[Alexandra]

SCA,

It's excellent!

I have just linked it in the main body of the post:

"Sigmund Carl and Alfred has just pointed me in the direction of a fantastic link to a story which reveals in detail THE SEEMINGLY ENDLESS SPIDERWEB OF LIES SPUN BY former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, and the couple's links to the left. She quite rightly points out that this affiliation should bring fresh questions as to the motive behind Wilson's accusations and treachery.

On an entirely different note, although in a strange way actually related ("evil must be addressed direcly, and not in ways more obtuse or less clear") read her excellent post today on the War of Terror, it's well worth the read."

The links are interactive in the main body of the post.
Thanks for that. Great stuff

[sigmund, carl and alfred]

Your pointing out the potential civil suit is a shrewd observation. Wilson would have to sue, to maintain credibility. That said, he will certainly be asked why he waited sue. In addition, as you say, he certanily didn't behave as a man who cared a whit about his wife.

Which leads me to ask a question: Was Wilson the foreunner to Cindy Sheehan, 'managed,' albeit poorly, by agendistas of the liberal left? There already is a Soros/Plame connection see this:
Front Page Magazine

[north by Northwest]

And of course, the blogosphere is buzzing with debates and quarrels between those who are accusing Rove of having ratted Libby out and those who consider it an officials' job and duty to report on any irregularities - especially amongst ones' own in the WH...

[north by Northwest]

Not sure whether Adam meant it as a joke though ;-)

Loosing Libby in this way and having Rove named as Official "A" with all the implication of behind the scene deal-making etc. doesn't make for a great day in the annals of the GOP....

[Rob]

NxN,

'Alias' is probably the spy action series that Adam is referring to.
Just as in the name of the series it gives the whole fingerprint image even more humorous insight.

[north by Northwest]

Adam,

I didn't see that one. Is it still running?
But if there are any Big Thumb Prints I guess they belong to Rove and Cheney. I am still convinced Libby is the orchestrated fall guy.

[north by Northwest]

Thanks, Alexandra,

So, we really should have three thumb prints: one of Libby, one of Rove and, most importantly, one of Cheney. Because that is what would have happened. Remember Harrison Ford in 'Clear and Present Danger'. That's one of those scenarios. But Libby got reckless...

[Alexandra]

Adam,

I think Libby is the fall guy, and not because he was chosen to be, but because he was stupid enough to talk, and then perjure himself. I should think the Administration feels sorry for him, especially Cheney, as he knows only too well this was far too close for comfort!
There is a big sigh of relief in the White House this weekend.

[Alexandra]

02,

That's why the perjury and obstruction of justice are the only ones to stick, and the violation of the 1982 law that made it illegal to unmask an undercover CIA agent, is far more difficult to prove which is why Fitzgerald stayed away from it.
I guess your argument would have been their first line of defense.

NxN,

Check out my updates on that one.
My take is this:
Wilson talked. He talked against the Administration and against the existence of weapons in Iraq.
By definition as soon as he went to the media, he endangered his wife's position as a CIA agent, covert or not.
Dick Cheney gave the wink to Karl Rove to put a story out there to derail Wilson. Rove contacted Novak and gave him the story. Whether at this point he had orchestrated for someone else to do it or he did it himself is debatable. The likelihood is that it had to be someone else, otherwise who would Novak give up as his source.
Novak contacted Rove to let him know when the story was going to run. The story ran the weekend of July 14th 2003.
Now this is where I believe Rove and Novak are really tight, as their story is solid with what took place, and would have both agreed on a story if questioned. This is why I think there had to be a fall guy there, who officially told the story to Novak. Why otherwise would there be no peep from Novak or Rove at this stage of the proceedings. They have obviously both cut a deal with Fitzgerald, with Novak being the first to do it, and Rove making the deal possibly on Tuesday this week. Novak's source would have to have been revealed to Fitzgerald immediately.
So now enters the scene Libby, who talks too much. He has lunch with the Press secretary and talks about it, he talks to the press, and other people about it. But then lies to Fitzgerald, and then has to keep up the same appearance to the Grand Jury in an attempt to cover up. Sheer stupidity. If you know more than one person is involved in anything at all, you know that your lie by definition will be exposed. The reason why Rove and Novak are safe is because they were much smarter in keeping their little conspiracy theory all to themselves.
Novak is far too much concerned with keeping in with the White House to leak this story if the word was not coming from the top.
Unfortunately Wilson gets to have the last laugh.

[Adam Graham]

The only thing I've got to say is that Big Thumb print. Reminds me of an ABC TV show. Is Scooter Libby "The Mole"?

[02]

So former CIA are "outing themselves" to comment on this in the media (Larry Johnson).

Yet Libby endangered every agent by outing Plame.

Sure.

[north by Northwest]

Ah, but Sigmund et al., do not forget, the MSM throughout the affair has had and continuous to have the last laugh... on their way to the bank...

I did however find myself scratching my head wondering how DID this ever get this far? And after some reasonably determined attempts to get to the actual trigger event, i.e. who was it in fact who did what or pestered whom to get a criminal investigation process going? Was it Wilson? I couldn't get my hands on anything concrete.

Anybody to help me out here?

[sigmund, carl and alfred]

I did watch the news conference and came away impressed. Fitz is the ultimate BBQ chef. He thought he would be charged with serving up filet mignon- instead, he had to make do with serving up rather pedestrian hamburger. To be sure, he did a fine job with a bit of spice and a lot of filler.

He made the Libby indictment sound more important than L'Affaire du Pants, starring Sandy Berger. In other words, being stupid is a greater crime than being a criminal. That isn't a knock on Fitz- not at all. If by indicting Libby we are looking at less repulsive and more moral criminals, so be it- at least we're not dealing with lowlife, real criminals.

I suspect in the end, this will all go away- and once more, the media will look all the poorer for having gorged themselves on the buffet of stupidity and contrived agenda based reporting.

[Alexandra]

Ummh, SCA,

I agree with you. I don't know whether you would have had a chance to read a couple of links I have at the very beginning of another post I did on the whole issue Indictments in 'The Libby Rove MSM Spin'?. Check out in particular the link to the whole Niger story, and Wilson's involvement.
I have just finished watching the hour long Fitzgerald press conference, so I will now update the post with the latest. Not much to tell over and above what we have all been speculating for a while now. Other than that he gives a very good impression of a down to earth, straight forward no nonsense, no agenda kind of guy. And you know what, I think he is quite an emotional person. Anyway... I'll blog about it now in the update. Did you manage to see it?

[sigmund, carl and alfred]

The fact remains that media inquiries will by necessity, return to the WMD issue- starting with Joe Wilson's two step. None of these matters will serve the war detractors well.