Fitz Watch

Carol D. Leonnig and Jim VandeHei write in today’s Washington Post that the big announcement will be made on Friday.

The prosecutor in the CIA leak investigation presented a summary of his case to a federal grand jury yesterday and is expected to announce a final decision on charges in the two-year-long probe tomorrow, according to people familiar with the case.

The reporters say it is unlikely he will fake us out and extend the grand jury’s term, which expires tomorrow:

Should he need more time to finish the investigation, Fitzgerald could seek to empanel a new group of grand jurors to consider the case. But sources familiar with the prosecutor’s work said he has indicated he is eager to avoid that route. The term of the current grand jury has been extended once and cannot be lengthened again, according to federal rules.

Whenever I feel impatient, I remind myself that the wait must be torture for Karl Rove. Happy thoughts!

Even as Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald wrapped up his case, the legal team of White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove has been engaged in a furious effort to convince the prosecutor that Rove did not commit perjury during the course of the investigation, according to people close to the aide. The sources, who indicated that the effort intensified in recent weeks, said Rove still did not know last night whether he would be indicted.

And here’s another happy thought:

A new USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup poll reminded the White House of the damage the CIA leak case has already inflicted: Eight in ten people surveyed said that aides had either broken the law or acted unethically.

Over at the Los Angeles Times, Doyle McManus, Warren Vieth and Mary Curtius discuss how the White House might react to indictments.

The basic plan is familiar to anyone who has watched earlier presidents contend with scandal: Keep the problem at arm’s length, let allies outside the White House do the talking, and try to change the subject to something — anything — else.

The White House doesn’t plan to attack Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor in the CIA leak investigation — at least not directly, several GOP officials said. Instead, expect Bush to unveil a flurry of proposals on subjects from immigration and tax reform to Arab-Israeli peace talks.

Oh, yes, that’ll work. When the press hears the President is going to make a tax reform proposal, they’ll scamper away from the courthouse and come runnin’ to the White House.

Or maybe not.

Republicans outside the White House are pleading with Bush to act quickly and decisively if aides are indicted. “What is of most concern is that the president handle it properly — that he ask [officials who are indicted] to step down; that he not vacillate, not equivocate; that he be decisive,” said Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), a leading Republican moderate.

“Changing the subject will not work,” said David Gergen, a former aide to Presidents Reagan and Clinton. “Giving more speeches about Iraq or the state of the economy doesn’t have the weight that action does…. It’s dangerous for the country to have a disabled president for three years, and we’re getting close to seeing that happen. I worry that they [Bush and his aides] are in denial.”

And GOP pollster David Winston warned that discontent among Republicans in Congress was rising. “This is not the environment that Republicans want to run in next year,” Winston said.

The Bushies actually seem to think the story will go away.

White House officials and allies are hoping that intensive news coverage of the Fitzgerald investigation will be short-lived. On Nov. 7, they predicted, attention would shift to the Senate confirmation hearings of Supreme Court nominee Harriet E. Miers.

“Let’s say something happens in the next 48 hours,” said one official. “It will dominate the news cycle until the 7th of November. Then a new cycle begins: Harriet will be the news.”

Once the controversy begins to subside, they argued, Bush will have an opening to change the subject and call public attention to Iraq and the domestic economy, where the administration says there is good news.

“Because all this other snap, crackle and pop is occurring, it’s harder to tell the story of the progress being made on the foreign policy front and the economic front,” another strategist said. “When some of these other stories expire, it will be easier to get back on those issues.”

Others disagree.

[David] Gergen said problems went deeper than the CIA case. “This story’s going to have legs if somebody gets indicted,” he said. “I think the president has to lance the boil directly…. It starts with facing reality, accepting your share of responsibility without blinking.”

Kenneth M. Duberstein, who served as chief of staff to Reagan after his White House was shaken by a scandal over secret weapons sales to Iran, said his old boss “cleaned house and appointed…. a very strong management team. There are lessons to follow there.”

Yes, but this is George W. Bush we’re talking about. He’s not capable of facing reality without blinking, accepting responsibility, or starting over with a new team any more than pigs can fly.

Also: Congratulations to Chicago and the White Sox. The fellow pictured on the baseball card above, John Collins, played first base for the Sox ca. 1912.

Fitz Watch

David Shuster of MSNBC just reported that there is “no indication” there will be an announcement from Patrick Fitzgerald today. The grand jury is meeting and is probably hearing Fitzpatrick’s recommendations today, Shuster said. Tomorrow, maybe.

Update: Jason Leopold and John Byrne of Raw Story report:

Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has asked the grand jury investigating the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson to indict Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby and Bush’s Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, lawyers close to the investigation tell RAW STORY.

Fitzgerald has also asked the jury to indict Libby on a second charge: knowingly outing a covert operative, the lawyers said. They said the prosecutor believes that Libby violated a 1982 law that made it illegal to unmask an undercover CIA agent.

This was added at the end:

Added in revision: “The grand jury had not yet decided on whether to make indictments at the time this article was published. It appears more likely that the jury would hand down indictments of perjury and obstruction than a charge that Plame was outed illegally. “

As I keyboard, a reporter on MSNBC is saying that Fitzgerald left the court a little after 1:00 pm. He presented his recommendations to the grand jury this morning.

More from Raw Story:

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. A call placed to Luskin was not returned.

Those familiar with the case said that Libby did not inform Rove that Plame was covert. As a result, Rove may not be charged with a crime in leaking Plame’s identity, even though he spoke with reporters. …

…Rove’s charges appear to stem from allegations that he lied to FBI investigators in 2003, the sources said. Perjury and obstruction charges leveled against Libby center around conflicting testimony to the grand jury, they added.

Viceroy

Mo Dowd’s on a roll today–

The shocking thing about the trellis of revelations showing Dick Cheney, the self-styled Mr. Strong America, as the central figure in dark conspiracies to juice up a case for war and demonize those who tried to tell the public the truth is how unshocking it all is.

It’s exactly what we thought was going on, but we never thought we’d actually hear the lurid details: Cheney and Rummy, the two old compadres from the Nixon and Ford days, in a cabal running the country and the world into the ground, driven by their poisonous obsession with Iraq, while Junior is out of the loop, playing in the gym or on his mountain bike.

Mr. Cheney has been so well protected by his Praetorian guard all these years that it’s been hard for the public to see his dastardly deeds and petty schemes. But now, because of Patrick Fitzgerald’s investigation and candid talk from Brent Scowcroft and Lawrence Wilkerson, he’s been flushed out as the heart of darkness: all sulfurous strands lead back to the man W. aptly nicknamed Vice.

La Dowd sites the Tenet to The Dick to Scooter connection, then continues:

The Bush hawks presented themselves as protectors and exporters of American values. But they were so feverish about projecting the alternate reality they had constructed to link Saddam and Al Qaeda – and fulfilling their idée fixe about invading Iraq – they perverted American values.

Whether or not it turns out to be illegal, outing a C.I.A. agent – undercover or not – simply to undermine her husband’s story is Rove-ishly sleazy. This no-leak administration was perfectly willing to leak to hurt anyone who got in its way.

In the Bush Administration, all dark roads lead to The Dick. In Salon, Jim Lobe writes that Cheney was at the center of the administration’s propaganda and intelligence-fixing efforts leading up to the Iraq War. Cheney, Lobe says, “started beating the nuclear drum with vigor significantly earlier than most remember; indeed at a time that was particularly curious given its proximity to the famous mission former Ambassador Joseph Wilson took on behalf of the CIA.”

Cheney’s drum-beating about Saddam Hussein’s alleged nuclear capabilities began

… just after his return from a tour of Arab capitals where he had tried in vain to gin up local support for military action against Iraq. Indeed, the specific date on which his campaign was launched was March 24, 2002, when, on return from the Middle East, he appeared on three major Sunday public-affairs television programs bearing similar messages on each. On CNN’s “Late Edition,” he offered the following comment on Saddam:

“This is a man of great evil, as the President said. And he is actively pursuing nuclear weapons at this time.”

On NBC’s “Meet the Press,” he said:

“[T]here’s good reason to believe that he continues to aggressively pursue the development of a nuclear weapon. Now will he have one in a year, five years? I can’t be that precise.”

And on CBS’s “Face the Nation”:

“The notion of a Saddam Hussein with his great oil wealth, with his inventory that he already has of biological and chemical weapons, that he might actually acquire a nuclear weapon is, I think, a frightening proposition for anybody who thinks about it. And part of my task out there was to go out and begin the dialogue with our friends to make sure they were thinking about it.”

Lobe writes that in March 2002 there were only two pieces of evidence of Saddam’s nuclear capabilities known to be available. One was a “defector” offered by Ahmed Chalabi who delivered testimony seized upon eagerly by the Cheney cabal, and reported in the New York Times by Judy Miller in December 2001, even though both the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency thought the testimony was a fabrication. And the other piece was …

The infamous forged Niger yellowcake documents that, at some point in December, 2001 or January, 2002 somehow appeared on Cheney’s desk, supposedly through the Defense Intelligence Agency or the CIA, though accounts differ on the precise route it took from Italian military intelligence (SISMI) to the Vice President’s office. It was these and related documents that spurred Cheney to ask for additional information, a request that would eventually result in Wilson’s trip to Niger in late February, which, of course, set the Plame case in motion. Wilson’s conclusion — that there was nothing to the story — would echo the conclusions of both U.S. ambassador to Niger Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick and Marine Gen. Carlton W. Fulford Jr., then-deputy commander of the U.S. European Command who was also sent to Niger in February. A couple of days after his return to Washington, Wilson would be debriefed by the CIA.

How far up their respective chains of command Wilson’s and Fulford’s reports made it remains a significant mystery to this day. Cheney’s office, which reportedly had reminded the CIA of the Vice President’s interest in the agency’s follow-up efforts even while Wilson was in Niger, claims never to have heard about either report. We do know that Fulford’s report made it up to Joint Chiefs Chairman Richard Myers whose spokesman, however, told the Washington Post in July 2003, shortly after Wilson went public on the New York Times op-ed page, that the general had “no recollection” of it and so no idea whether it continued on to the White House or Cheney’s office.

If you can get around Salon‘s subscription firewall I recommend the Jim Lobe article, as it contains a good account of how the neocons, the Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal, and other players like Judy Miller worked together to wave the nuclear shirt in support of an invasion of Iraq. But now I want to go on to Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly, who recently wrote a series of posts on the forged Niger yellowcake documents. See, for example, this and this. A story emerges that the documents were put together by some part of the Italian government to curry favor with the White House and push for war with Iraq. Via Kevin, we learn from Laura Rozen at TAP,

In an explosive series of articles appearing this week in the Italian newspaper La Repubblica, investigative reporters Carlo Bonini and Giuseppe d’Avanzo report that Nicolo Pollari, chief of Italy’s military intelligence service, known as Sismi, brought the Niger yellowcake story directly to the White House after his insistent overtures had been rejected by the Central Intelligence Agency in 2001 and 2002.

….Today’s exclusive report in La Repubblica reveals that Pollari met secretly in Washington on September 9, 2002, with then–Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley. Their secret meeting came at a critical moment in the White House campaign to convince Congress and the American public that war in Iraq was necessary to prevent Saddam Hussein from developing nuclear weapons. National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones confirmed the meeting to the Prospect on Tuesday.

Kevin comments,

La Repubblica‘s story suggests that the Italians pushed hard on the documents because they were eager to impress the Americans with their loyalty to the war cause. When the CIA and the State Department didn’t bite, they went straight to the White House. Read Laura’s entire piece for all the details.

And the forged documents made their way to Cheney’s desk in December 2001 or January 2002. The Big Dick took it from there.

In spite of the pressure he is under at the moment, the Dickster is still busy shaping American policy. This is from today’s New York Times:

Amid all the natural and political disasters it faces, the White House is certainly tireless in its effort to legalize torture. This week, Vice President Dick Cheney proposed a novel solution for the moral and legal problems raised by the use of American soldiers to abuse prisoners and the practice of turning captives over to governments willing to act as proxies in doing the torturing. Mr. Cheney wants to make it legal for the Central Intelligence Agency to do this wet work.

Mr. Cheney’s proposal was made in secret to Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican who won the votes of 89 other senators this month to require the civilized treatment of prisoners at camps run by America’s military and intelligence agencies. Mr. McCain’s legislation, an amendment to the Defense Department budget bill, would ban the “cruel, inhuman and degrading” treatment of prisoners. In other words, it would impose age-old standards of democracy and decency on the new prisons.

President Bush’s threat to veto the entire military budget over this issue was bizarre enough by itself, considering that the amendment has the support of more than two dozen former military leaders, including Colin Powell. They know that torture doesn’t produce reliable intelligence and endangers Americans’ lives.

But Mr. Cheney’s proposal was even more ludicrous. It would give the president the power to allow government agencies outside the Defense Department (the administration has in mind the C.I.A.) to mistreat and torture prisoners as long as that behavior was part of “counterterrorism operations conducted abroad” and they were not American citizens. That would neatly legalize the illegal prisons the C.I.A. is said to be operating around the world and obviate the need for the torture outsourcing known as extraordinary rendition. It also raises disturbing questions about Iraq, which the Bush administration has falsely labeled a counterterrorism operation.

The obvious question is: What is wrong with these people?

The answer, IMO, appears in an article Josh Marshall wrote for Washington Monthly in September 2002, titled “Confidence Men.”

Dick Cheney was the signature figure [of the Bush Administration]: a former White House chief of staff, congressman, and wartime defense secretary, whose vaunted government savvy had been validated in the private sector as CEO of the energy giant Halliburton. Like the administration, Cheney was right-wing, but in a way that was at once daunting and oddly reassuring. You may not have liked what he was doing. But you had little doubt that he knew what he was doing.

Today, that record doesn’t look nearly so impressive. We now know that as CEO, Cheney got snookered into a disastrous merger that has since sent Halliburton’s stock price plummeting, while signing off on dubious balance sheets that have sparked a Securities and Exchange Commission investigation. His mastery of the Beltway is similarly in question. Last year’s Cheney-led energy task force produced an all-drilling-no-conservation energy bill that went nowhere. The task force’s real legacy was to mire the administration in a thicket of congressional investigations and private lawsuits, all springing from Cheney’s insistence on Nixonian secrecy. His major foreign policy gambit–last spring’s shuttle-diplomacy mission to the Middle East to secure support for an invasion of Iraq–was a debacle. The tough-talking VP went to the region to line up the Arab states behind the United States against Saddam; days after Cheney’s return they were lining up behind Saddam against the United States. Less well known, but no less embarrassing, was Cheney’s leadership of the pre-9/11 anti-terrorism task force. In spring 2001, rather than back congressional efforts to implement the findings of the Hart-Rudman commission, Cheney opted to spearhead his own group, to put the administration’s stamp on whatever reforms occurred. But the task force did almost nothing for four months until terrorists struck on September 11. More recently, it was Cheney who advised Bush not to include any serious corporate reforms in his July speech on Wall Street, the one that sent markets plunging. While no one bats a thousand in politics, it’s actually difficult to think of one thing the vice president has been responsible for that has not ended in muddle or disaster. Yet his reputation for competence has survived.

Josh goes on to exlain how the Bushies emanate an aura of competence in spite of the fact that it’s a wonder they can keep their shoes tied. Much of that aura was destroyed only recently by Hurricane Katrina. And for all his repuation for smarts, Cheney’s history reveals plenty of massive blunders and misjudgments. And, unfortunately, he is a big enough fool not to have noticed his own shortcomings. Given near unlimited power, he’s been able to do a lot of damage.

Maybe it’s all about to catch up to him. Let’s hope.

Update: See also “The Cheney Factor” by Dan Froomkin.

Update update: See “Treasongate: The Real Significance of the Niger Uranium Forgery Stories in La Repubblica” by eriposte at The Left Coaster.

Cross-posted on The American Street.

‘Twas the Night Before Fitzmas

Via Judd of Think Progress–indictments tomorrow?

Update
: This is interesting …

Prosecutors investigating the leak of a CIA agent’s identity returned their attention to powerful White House advisor Karl Rove on Tuesday, questioning a former West Wing colleague about contacts Rove had with reporters in the days leading to the outing of a covert CIA officer.

Special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald also dispatched FBI agents to comb the CIA officer’s residential neighborhood in Washington, asking neighbors again whether they were aware — before her name appeared in a syndicated column — that the agent, Valerie Plame, worked for the CIA.

This suggests to me that Fitzgerald is going for something more than obstruction of justice charges.

Update update
: Just posted at the New York Times — Richard Stevenson and Anne Kornblut write that today Patrick Fitzgerald was still looking into what Karl Rove may have told reporters.

Three days before the grand jury in the case expires and with the White House in a state of high anxiety, the special counsel, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, appeared still to be trying to determine whether Mr. Rove had been fully forthcoming about his contacts with Matthew Cooper of Time magazine and Robert D. Novak, the syndicated columnist, in July 2003, they said. …

…Mr. Fitzgerald, who is the United States attorney in Chicago, spent the day in Washington and summoned his team, including his chief F.B.I. investigator, Jack Eckenrode, for what appeared to be a final round of discussions about how to proceed.

Buggy

This morning it seems the right sidebar has disappeared, taking the blogroll with it. Well, shoot. (Update: The WordPress Fairy brought the sidebar back! Yay!)

Following up the New York Times story about Tenet to The Dick to Scooter–Jane Hamsher at firedoglake points out that last year Cheney was interviewed by Fitzgerald under oath.

Oopsie!

And Jane figures that the reason Fitzgerald needed testimony from Matt Cooper and Judy Miller “to counter Scooter Libby’s testimony that he first heard about Valerie Plame’s identity from journalists.” Jane continues,

Also from the Times article:

It also explains why Mr. Fitzgerald waged a long legal battle to obtain the testimony of reporters who were known to have talked with Mr. Libby.

The reporters involved have said that they did not supply Mr. Libby with details about Mr. Wilson and his wife.

In other words: the testimonies of Cooper and Miller were necessary to bust Libby in a lie.

It appears there is some question about whether Mr. Cheney was under oath. I do recall that Bush was not interviewed under oath, but I don’t know about Cheney.

Update: In other news–The Iraq draft constitution has been approved. I’ll probably write some commentary on this later today.

Tenet to The Dick to Scooter?

Just posted on the New York Times web site — David Johnston, Richard Stevenson, and Douglas Jehl write that Scooter Libby learned about Valerie Plame Wilson from … Dick the Dick.

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.

Libby’s notes say that Dick the Dick got his info from George Tenet, CIA director at the time. It wouldn’t be illegal for Tenet and Cheney to have discussed a CIA agent; it’s safe to assume they both have top security clearances. “But any effort by Mr. Libby to steer investigators away from his conversation with Mr. Cheney could be considered by Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special counsel in the case, to be an illegal effort to impede the inquiry.”

To which I say … heh.

Nightly News

First item–Hurricane Wilma is tearing across Florida. Hang in there, Florida!

Second item — some guy named Ben Bernanke has been tagged to succeed Alan Greenspan as Federal Reserve Chairman. I know absolutely nothing about Bernanke, but Brad DeLong says he’s a good choice. I’ll post other comments from people who know stuff about economics as soon as I find some.

Third item–tonight Patrick Fitzgerald is makin’ a list and checkin’ it twice. Pretty soon we’ll find out who’s naughty and who’s nice.

As I keyboard some guy on MSNBC is saying that Libby and Rove have bothed been advised they are in “legal jeopardy.” I think we may have heard that already.

Jason Leopold and Larisa Alexandrovna of Raw Story have posted what they call a more detailed account of how Valerie Plame was uncovered.

Those close to the investigation say that Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has been told that David Wurmser, then a Middle East adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney on loan from the office of then-Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs John Bolton, met with Cheney and his chief of staff I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby in June 2003 and told Libby that Plame set up the Wilson trip. He asserted that it was a boondoggle, the sources said.

Libby then shared the information with Karl Rove, President Bush’s deputy chief of staff, the sources said. Wurmser also passed on the same information about Wilson to then-Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley and then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, they added.

The “boondoggle” claim was bogus, of course, but it is significant because tracing how that story was spread could have provided some solid evidence into a conspiracy and who might have been part of it. Be sure to read all of the Raw Story report for the juicy details.

More proof the Apocalypse is at hand–A diarist of RedState.Org named reddstaty posted a suggestion that Karl Rove and Scooter Libby should resign no matter what; should have resigned already, in fact.

Karl Rove and Scooter Libby should both resign immediately. In fact, they should have both resigned as soon as the identity of Plame passed from their lips to the reporters they were speaking to.

It is by now pretty obvious that both Rove and Libby passed Plame’s identity to reporters (Rove to Matt Cooper and Libby to Judith Miller; we apparently still don’t know who passed it on to Bob Novak and others), knowing that it was highly likely to be printed in national newspapers and magazines (if not guaranteed, if they told enough people).

It is also pretty obvious that she was an undercover agent who was entitled to not have her identity splashed all over the pages of a national newspaper. If she was not under some kind of cover, it is not likely that the CIA would have forwarded the investigation to the DOJ, that the DOJ would have pursued the investigation as long as they did, and that the judges overseeing Fitzgerald would have allowed him to expand his investigation as quickly as they did (that is, if she wasn’t undercover, this investigation would have ended long ago).

This means that Rove and Libby outed an undercover CIA agent.

I’m sure the last thing reddstaty needs is approval from me. Commenters are giving him a hard enough time already. But I was moved. And notice the commenters can’t address specific facts, especially “If she was not under some kind of cover, it is not likely that the CIA would have forwarded the investigation to the DOJ, that the DOJ would have pursued the investigation as long as they did, and that the judges overseeing Fitzgerald would have allowed him to expand his investigation as quickly as they did.” Of course if the CIA would not have pursued this case unless the CIA believed someone had done something wrong. Makes sense.

Anyway–best antidote to the nonsense coming from the clueless rightie commenters–Media Matters Plame FAQ and the Think Progress Right-Wing Plame Myth page.

Fitzmas Eve?

It could be tomorrow, children. Will Santa Fitz bring us sparkly new indictments or lumps of coal?

Richard Stevenson and David Johnston write in the New York Times that Republicans are bracing for indictments and are getting their excuses talking points ready.

With a decision expected this week on possible indictments in the C.I.A. leak case, allies of the White House suggested Sunday that they intended to pursue a strategy of attacking any criminal charges as a disagreement over legal technicalities or the product of an overzealous prosecutor. …

… On Sunday, Republicans appeared to be preparing to blunt the impact of any charges. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Republican of Texas, speaking on the NBC news program “Meet the Press,” compared the leak investigation with the case of Martha Stewart and her stock sale, “where they couldn’t find a crime and they indict on something that she said about something that wasn’t a crime.”

Ms. Hutchison said she hoped “that if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn’t indict on the crime and so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation was not a waste of time and taxpayer dollars.”

As Tbogg says, “It’s not like they were out raping cattle and then setting them on fire…not that I would put it past them.”

The chief talking point seems to be that “bringing charges like perjury mean the prosecutor does not have a strong case,” write the NY Times reporters.

Hmm, let’s think. What was it the righties kept saying about the Clinton witchhunt investigations and impeachment? That it wasn’t about sex, it was about lying under oath? I do believe I remember that.

Oh, but Clinton was a Democrat lying under oath. That’s different. Sorry, I forgot. IOKIYAR.

Snarking aside, this flip flop on the severity of perjury is so hypocritical that even Michelle Malkin was bothered by it. Malkin links to a statement made by Senator Hutchison in 1999 on the Clinton articles of impeachment in which the Senator declared that lying to a Grand Jury and other acts of justice obstruction are extremely serious matters. And you’ll remember that righties everywhere took this lesson to heart–obstruction of justice is real bad. And now the GOP is saying that it isn’t that big a deal. No wonder they are confused.

And, of course, we lefties don’t forget that Clinton attempted to cover up a personal sexual relationship that didn’t make any difference to how he was running the country. The Bushies (allegedly) are trying to cover up a breach of national security.

Today the Wall Street Journal editorial pages does its job as official dispenser of GOP talking points and declares that what Patrick Fitzgerald is actually investigating is just a policy dispute. In response, World o’ Crap makes some editorial suggestions.

In the Washington Post, Walter Pincus writes that White House officials might resign if indicted. Also, Pincus writes, former attorney general Richard Thornburgh disagrees with Senator Hutchison. “If there is false testimony given or there’s an attempt to corrupt any of the witnesses or evidence that is presented to the grand jury, that’s a very serious offense because it undermines the integrity of the whole rule of law and investigatory process,” Thornburgh said.

Also in WaPo, Peter Slevin and Carol D. Leonnig write that prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is known for being tough and bipartisan. “…in a case with huge political stakes for the White House,” they write, “a portrait is emerging of a special counsel with no discernible political bent who prepared the ground with painstaking sleuthing and cold-eyed lawyering.”

Fitzgerald was recruited to the case in December 2003 by close friend James B. Comey, deputy attorney general to John D. Ashcroft. He was two years into a posting as Chicago’s U.S. attorney, a job he won partly because he was a seasoned outsider with no evident political agenda, qualities that inspired Comey to appoint him to a case with powerful partisan overtones.

Known for convicting Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and for compiling the first criminal indictment against Osama bin Laden, Fitzgerald is an Irish doorman’s son who attended a Jesuit high school, then Amherst College — where he was a Phi Beta Kappa mathematics and economics major — and Harvard.

He registered to vote in New York as an independent. When he discovered that Independent was a political party, he re-registered with no affiliation. Illinois citizens know him for pursuing Republicans and Democrats with equal fervor. Former governor George Ryan (R) is on trial on corruption charges, and a growing number of aides to Mayor Richard M. Daley (D) face influence-peddling charges.

Finally, via John Aravosis, we learn that Bush is getting really, really cranky. Thomas DeFrank writes in the New York Daily News:

Facing the darkest days of his presidency, President Bush is frustrated, sometimes angry and even bitter, his associates say….

…”He’s like the lion in winter,” observed a political friend of Bush. “He’s frustrated. He remains quite confident in the decisions he has made. But this is a guy who wanted to do big things in a second term. Given his nature, there’s no way he’d be happy about the way things have gone.”

Bush usually reserves his celebrated temper for senior aides because he knows they can take it. Lately, however, some junior staffers have also faced the boss’ wrath.

“This is not some manager at McDonald’s chewing out the help,” said a source with close ties to the White House when told about these outbursts. “This is the President of the United States, and it’s not a pleasant sight.” …

… Bush, who has a long history of keeping staffers in their place, has lashed out at aides as his political woes have mounted.

“The President is just unhappy in general and casting blame all about,” said one Bush insider. “Andy [Card, the chief of staff] gets his share. Karl gets his share. Even Cheney gets his share. And the press gets a big share.”…

…Bush is so dismayed that “the only person escaping blame is the President himself,” said a sympathetic official, who delicately termed such self-exoneration “illogical.”

Great men face problems with courage and fortitude. Small men throw temper tantrums and blame the help.

Judy Miller Smackdown

Crooks & Liars posts the text of a memo from editor Bill Keller to the New York Times staff.

Short version: I apologize for letting Judy Miller screw the New York Times.

Sample:

I wish that when I learned Judy Miller had been subpoenaed as a witness in the leak investigation, I had sat her down for a thorough debriefing, and followed up with some reporting of my own. It is a natural and proper instinct to defend reporters when the government seeks to interfere in our work. And under other circumstances it might have been fine to entrust the details — the substance of the confidential interviews, the notes — to lawyers who would be handling the case. But in this case I missed what should have been significant alarm bells. Until Fitzgerald came after her, I didn’t know that Judy had been one of the reporters on the receiving end of the anti-Wilson whisper campaign. I should have wondered why I was learning this from the special counsel, a year after the fact. (In November of 2003 Phil Taubman tried to ascertain whether any of our correspondents had been offered similar leaks. As we reported last Sunday, Judy seems to have misled Phil Taubman about the extent of her involvement.) This alone should have been enough to make me probe deeper. …

… 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.

It’s not just Bill Keller. Miller’s colleague Mo Dowd writes a column today (behind the bleeping subscription wall) that takes Judy down, although gently (for Dowd).

Shorter version: Somebody should have stopped her a long time ago.

Sample:

She never knew when to quit. That was her talent and her flaw. Sorely in need of a tight editorial leash, she was kept on no leash at all, and that has hurt this paper and its trust with readers. She more than earned her sobriquet “Miss Run Amok.”

Judy’s stories about W.M.D. fit too perfectly with the White House’s case for war. She was close to Ahmad Chalabi, the con man who was conning the neocons to knock out Saddam so he could get his hands on Iraq, and I worried that she was playing a leading role in the dangerous echo chamber that Senator Bob Graham, now retired, dubbed “incestuous amplification.” Using Iraqi defectors and exiles, Mr. Chalabi planted bogus stories with Judy and other credulous journalists.

Even last April, when I wrote a column critical of Mr. Chalabi, she fired off e-mail to me defending him.

When Bill Keller became executive editor in the summer of 2003, he barred Judy from covering Iraq and W.M.D. issues. But he acknowledged in The Times’s Sunday story about Judy’s role in the Plame leak case that she had kept “drifting” back. Why did nobody stop this drift?

Judy admitted in the story that she “got it totally wrong” about W.M.D. “If your sources are wrong,” she said, “you are wrong.” But investigative reporting is not stenography.

At the Los Angeles Times, Tim Rutten discusses the Keller memo.

Shorter version: Miller’s a liar.

Sample:

The Times is a great news organization with a newfound capacity for self-criticism and a demonstrated capacity to renew itself. Miller, the reporter, represents something far more persistent and pernicious in American journalism. She’s virtually an exemplar of an all-too-common variety of Washington reporter: ambitious, self-interested, unscrupulous and intoxicated by proximity to power. …

… As Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball reported in Newsweek’s online edition this week, Libby deceived Miller during that breakfast meeting when he told her — according to her own account — that a classified National Intelligence Estimate “had firmly concluded that Iraq was seeking uranium” for a nuclear bomb. In fact, it called reports of Baghdad’s purchase of African uranium “highly dubious.”

Miller makes no mention whatsoever of this in her evasive published account of their dealings; what does that make her?

Sloppy and reckless — but apparently something more….

…Given Miller’s demonstrable conviction that a true picture can be repainted in situationally convenient hues, it’s not hard to figure out whom you believe on this one. A line of poetry comes to mind:

And what is truth, said Pilate, and washed his hands.

Ouch.

Colbert King of the Washington Post suggests that Miller’s relationship with her sources was way too cozy.

Shorter version: The White House did a no-no, and Judy helped.

Sample:

…the CIA leak case belongs in a class of its own. The Bush administration, having denied any knowledge or involvement in the disclosure of Valerie Plame’s CIA affiliation, appears to be up to its eyeballs in the whole affair. But security transgressions, if that’s what they are, appear to extend beyond blowing an agent’s cover.

Last Sunday, the New York Times published reporter Judith Miller’s firsthand account of her grand jury appearance in connection with the leak case. According to Miller, the inquiry that special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald conducted before the grand jury roamed beyond the disclosure of Valerie Plame’s name. Miller wrote that Fitzgerald, referring to Vice President Cheney’s chief of staff, asked “if I had discussed classified information with Mr. Libby, and I said I believed so, but could not be sure.” Miller said she told Fitzgerald and the grand jury that I. Lewis Libby treated classified material very carefully and that while he had not shown her any documents, “I thought I remembered him at one point reading from a piece of paper he pulled from his pocket.”

Miller does not have a security clearance, though she claimed she had one when she was embedded with a special military unit in Iraq two years ago. She later modified that statement to say she had signed a nondisclosure form with the military giving her temporary access to classified information under rules set by her military hosts, according to Thursday’s Times. At any rate, she no longer had authorized access to classified information after the Iraq assignment.

Before the release of the Keller memo, Jack Shafer at Slate was calling for an exorcism at the Times.

Shorter version: Miller should not only be dismissed from the Times, she should be drummed out of journalism.

Sample:

The Sunday Times account about Miller read alone paints her as an insubordinate, self-serving, and undisciplined menace you couldn’t trust to assemble entertainment listings let alone file national-security stories. Conceding in the Times piece that her WMD reporting was “totally wrong,” Miller proves she doesn’t understand how journalism works when she says, “The analysts, the experts and the journalists who covered them—we were all wrong. If your sources are wrong, you are wrong. I did the best job that I could.” That is a lie. Reporters aren’t conduits through which sources pour information into newspapers. And sources aren’t to blame if a reporter gets a story wrong. A real reporter tests his sources’ findings against other evidence in hopes of discovering the truth, something Miller was apparently loath to do. …

…Asking the Times to exhume Miller’s work and revisit the methods and practices that led to flawed WMD journalism at the paper isn’t a veiled way of asking that witches be arrested for burning at the stake. Journalistic standards were betrayed at the Times. It was the Times, not me, that stated in its May 26, 2004, mini culpa that “the story of Iraq’s weapons, and of the pattern of misinformation” is “unfinished business” and promised that the paper would “continue aggressive reporting aimed at setting the record straight.” Unless the paper wants to hear Judith Miller’s name yodeled with that of Walter Duranty on every occasion Times haters assemble, one last public exorcism must be conducted to drive out the demons forever.

Time will tell if the New York Times has actually learned anything from this mess. As I wrote here, the Times has a pattern of compromised reporting that predates the Bush Regime. Let’s see if they can remember how to cover news.

Update: More on MoDo from Steve Gilliard.

Anticipation

I apologize for not updating Traitorgate news yesterday, but Dan Froomkin tells you everything you need to know

The revelation du jour is from Murray Waas:

New York Times reporter Judith Miller told the federal grand jury in the CIA leak case that she might have met with I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby on June 23, 2003 only after prosecutors showed her Secret Service logs that indicated she and Libby had indeed met that day in the Executive Office Building adjacent to the White House, according to attorneys familiar with her testimony.

When a prosecutor first questioned Miller during her initial grand jury appearance on September 30, 2005 sources said, she did not bring up the June 23 meeting in recounting her various contacts with Libby, the chief of staff to Vice President Cheney. Pressed by prosecutors who then brought up the specific date of the meeting, Miller testified that she still could not recall the June meeting with Libby, in which they discussed a controversial CIA-sponsored mission to Africa by former Ambassador Joe Wilson, or the fact that his wife, Valerie Plame, worked for the CIA.

When a prosecutor presented Miller with copies of the White House-complex visitation logs, she said such a meeting was possible.

And by sheer coincidence (wink) Judy discovered her notes from the July 23 meeting–they must’ve fallen behind the sofa–and turned them over to Fitzgerald. Heh.

Dave Johnston reports in the New York Times that Fitzgerald

… is focusing on whether Karl Rove, the senior White House adviser, and I. Lewis Libby Jr., chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney, sought to conceal their actions and mislead prosecutors, lawyers involved in the case said Thursday.

Among the charges that Mr. Fitzgerald is considering are perjury, obstruction of justice and false statement – counts that suggest the prosecutor may believe the evidence presented in a 22-month grand jury inquiry shows that the two White House aides sought to cover up their actions, the lawyers said.

Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby have been advised that they may be in serious legal jeopardy, the lawyers said, but only this week has Mr. Fitzgerald begun to narrow the possible charges. The prosecutor has said he will not make up his mind about any charges until next week, government officials say.

With the term of the grand jury expiring in one week, though, some lawyers in the case said they were persuaded that Mr. Fitzgerald had all but made up his mind to seek indictments. None of the lawyers would speak on the record, citing the prosecutor’s requests not to talk about the case.

(Singing:

Anticipation
Anticipation
Is makin’ me late
Is keepin’ me waitin’

…)

I’m not making predictions, but you know that if Fitzgerald doesn’t bring indictments the righties are going to be insufferable. I don’t even want to think about it. On the other hand, if there are indictments, the explosion of slime and invective the Right will unleash on Fitzgerald will be awesome. The planet will not have seen the like since the Krakatoa eruption of 1883.

Here’s another interesting tidbit from the Johnston article:

But Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby may not be the only people at risk. There may be others in the government who could be charged for violations of the disclosure law or of other statutes, like the espionage act, which makes it a crime to transmit classified information to people not authorized to receive it.

It is still not publicly known who first told the columnist Robert D. Novak the identity of the C.I.A. officer, Valerie Wilson. Mr. Novak identified her in a column on July 14, 2003, using her maiden name, Valerie Plame. Mr. Fitzgerald knows the identity of this source, a person who is not believed to work at the White House, the lawyers said.

Bob “The Reptile” Novak said this of his source:

During a long conversation with a senior administration official, I asked why Wilson was assigned the mission to Niger. He said Wilson had been sent by the CIA’s counterproliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife. It was an offhand revelation from this official, who is no partisan gunslinger.”

Make of that what you will.

They’re also anticipatin’ at the White House. At the Washington Post, Jim VandeHei and Peter Baker write “the surreal silence in the Roosevelt Room each morning belies the nervous discussions racing elsewhere around the West Wing.”

Out of the hushed hallway encounters and one-on-one conversations, several scenarios have begun to emerge if Rove or vice presidential chief of staff I. Lewis Libby is indicted and forced out. Senior GOP officials are developing a public relations strategy to defend those accused of crimes and, more importantly, shield Bush from further damage, according to Republicans familiar with the plans. And to help steady a shaken White House, they say, the president might bring in trusted advisers such as budget director Joshua B. Bolten, lobbyist Ed Gillespie or party chairman Ken Mehlman.

This is the part I found most interesting:

These tentative discussions come at a time when White House senior officials are exploring staff changes to address broader structural problems that have bedeviled Bush’s second term, according to Republicans who said they could speak candidly about internal deliberations only if they are not named. But it remains unclear whether Bush agrees that changes are needed and the uncertainty has unsettled his team. …

… Bush implicitly acknowledged the distractions in answer to a reporter’s question during a Rose Garden appearance with visiting Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas yesterday, while reassuring the public that he remained focused on the pressing matters of state facing his White House.

“There’s some background noise here, a lot of chatter, a lot of speculation and opining,” Bush said. “But the American people expect me to do my job, and I’m going to.”

Although he’s generally disinterested in the governing thing, he may get to it any day now.

Many allies blame the insularity of his team for recent missteps, such as the Miers nomination. Even some sympathetic to her believe the vetting process broke down because as White House counsel she was so well known to the president that skeptical questions were not asked.

Some GOP officials outside the White House say they believe the president rejects the idea that there is anything fundamentally wrong with his presidency; others express concern that Bush has strayed so far from where he intended to be that it may require drastic action.

I infer that Bush is not dealing with any of this well. He’s buried his twitchy little head in the sand and hopes the bad things will go away. But indictments or no indictments, if Bush’s second term continues to go south, Capitol Hill Republicans will have to do an intervention to salvage what’s left of it.

The other information in the WaPo article that interested me is that Bush’s ever-shrinking inner circle is burning out.

Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. gets up each day at 4:20 a.m., arrives at his office a little over an hour later, gets home between 8:30 and 9 p.m. and often still takes calls after that; he has been in his pressure-cooker job since Bush was inaugurated, longer than any chief of staff in decades. “He looks totally burned out,” a Republican strategist said.

Others, including Rove, Bolten, counselor Dan Bartlett, senior adviser Michael J. Gerson and press secretary Scott McClellan, have been running at full tilt since 1999, when the Bush team began gearing up in Austin for the first campaign.

Compare/contrast with Bush, who is famous for his extensive vacations and early bedtimes. Bush must be the most well-rested President since William Henry Harrison spent his entire one month in office on his deathbed.

Update: Fitzgerald launches web site! Could it be, as Froomkin suggests, “he’s getting ready to release some new legal documents? Like, maybe, some indictments? It’s certainly not the action of an office about to fold up its tents and go home.”

Fitzgerald’s office won’t say, of course.

It has occurred to me that the Grand Silence coming from Fitzgerald must be more terrifying to the potential targets than a leakier investigation, like Ken Starr’s. If information were leaking out, the Bushies would at least have something to do; they could be busily spinning away every little drop. But there’s nothing the Bushies can do now but wait.