The Political Chase

Statement by Joseph Wilson

Joseph Wilson issued a statement today (read by his attorney on TV). The statement is here.

Additional information about indictment

Following is an excerpt from Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald’s press release. Fitzgerald will make a statement at 2:00 pm EDT - 11:00 am PDT.

Additionally, the indictment and presss release are available from TPC’s document library. Click here for the indictment. Click here for the press release.

Senior White House official I. Lewis Libby was indicted today on obstruction of justice, false statement and perjury charges for allegedly lying about how and when in 2003 he learned and subsequently disclosed to reporters then-classified information concerning the employment of Valerie Wilson by the Central Intelligence Agency. Libby was charged with one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury and two counts of making false statements in a five-count indictment returned today by a federal grand jury as its term expired, announced Justice Department Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald.

The defendant, also known as “Scooter” Libby, has served since January 20, 2001, as Assistant to the President, Chief of Staff to the Vice President, and Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs. Libby, 55, will be arraigned at a later date in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

The charges allege that Libby lied to FBI agents who interviewed him on October 14 and November 26, 2003; committed perjury while testifying under oath before the grand jury on March 5 and March 24, 2004; and engaged in obstruction of justice by impeding the grand jury’s investigation into the unauthorized disclosure – or “leaking” – of Valerie Wilson’s affiliation with the CIA to various reporters in the spring of 2003.

Five Count Indictment Against Libby

New York Times:  I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff and one of the most powerful figures in the Bush administration, wasformally accused today of lying and obstruction of justice during an inquiry into the unmasking of a covert C.I.A. officer.

A federal grand jury indicted Mr. Libby on one count of obstruction, two counts of perjury and two of making false statements in the course of an investigation that raised questions about the administration’s rationale for going to war against Iraq, how it treats critics and political opponents and whether high White House officials shaded the truth.

More a little later. Big time. 

Krugman on Bernanke

Paul Krugman performs a dual role today - comedian and economist. Half of his column is humor, at the expense of George Bush, and the second half focused on his view of Bernanke. The humor within the first half readily let’s the reader know he is pleased with the appointment of Bernanke.

Mr. Bernanke’s partisanship, if it exists, is so low-key that his co-author on a textbook didn’t know he was a registered Republican. The academic work on which his professional reputation rests is apolitical. Moreover, that work is all about how the Fed can influence demand - there’s not a hint in his work of support for the right-wing supply-side doctrine.

Nor is he a laissez-faire purist who believes that government governs best when it governs least. On the contrary, he’s a policy activist who advocates aggressive government moves to jump-start stalled economies.

Last but not least, Mr. Bernanke has no personal ties to the Bush family. It’s hard to imagine him doing something indictable to support his masters.

Moving on to the real substance of the piece, Krugman does not attempt to make a long list of items that support his endorsement. His endorsement is primarily based on Ben Bernanke’s role as Chairman of the economics department at Princeton prior to moving to Washington.

George Bush has appointed so many unqualified people to key positions, the mere fact that a nominee has a credible background for a position, potentially elicits an almost overly zealous approval. Better that way though, than the opposite direction.

Krugman does note some concerns, but they are not so much about the person as they are about the situation Bernanke will face.

My main concern is that the economy may well face a day of reckoning soon after Mr. Bernanke takes office. And while he is surely the best politically possible man for the job (all the other candidates I would have been happy with are independents or Democrats), coping with that day of reckoning without some nasty shocks may be beyond anyone’s talents.

So, in a week of horror befitting Halloween, Bernanke’s appointment is a welcome relief. I remember the skepticism when Greenspan followed Paul Volker…Greenspan rose to the occasion. We don’t know what effect Mr. Bernanke’s will have three years from now, but we do know there is reason for hope rather than a known failure before he assumes the position.

Bernanke is not Harriet Miers, which isn’t a slam on Ms. Miers’ capabilities. I’m sure she’s well qualified for corporate law and to serve as White House counsel, but a constitutional expert she is not. Bernanke stands a chance to further prove his capabilities, with less reason for anxiety from the American people.

The Humor of Krugman

I just read the first two sentences (paragraphs) of Krugman’s current article and could barely contain my laughter. It’s pretty obvious where he’s headed. Anyway, these two sentences are just too good to not pass along now. I’ll provide an update a little later.

By Bush administration standards, the choice of Ben Bernanke to succeed Alan Greenspan as chairman of the Federal Reserve was just weird.

For one thing, Mr. Bernanke is actually an expert in monetary policy, as opposed to, say, Arabian horses.

WP Sways Towards Times Story

The Washington Post seems to be swaying towards the Times story. I noted last night a distinct difference in the two articles. This morning, the Post’s Global Page says “Rove Said to Be Spared Indictment for Now”, but the actual article has not changed - they don’t address the headline.

I think I’m going to ignore both periodicals until something definitive comes forth. A bunch of jittery editors wanting to outdo each other.

Martha continues decline

Makes me wonder…are Martha’s declining profits a result of the economy in general, her incarceration, or that unbelievably bad prime time show she started this fall.

For the three months ended Sept. 30, Martha Stewart Living lost $26.07 million, or 51 cents a share, compared with a loss of $14.97 million, or 30 cents a share, in the period a year ago.

WP Provides Different Report

No surprise here’a mixed bag. The Washington Post files a differing report than the New York Times account.

As noted earlier, the NYT indicates Libby will face an indictment and Rove will hang in the balance, with an investigation to continue on his activities. The Post does not go as far as the Times; no announcement of indictments.

Obviously the reports differ, but I think there are a couple of points to note, which shows the stark contrast between the two reports. If the NYT piece is accurate, that means a new grand jury must be impaneled, because there can be no continuing investigation or Karl Rove without the grand jury.

The WP, leaves the door open and makes no calls yet.

Though there was speculation among lawyers for witnesses in the case that Fitzgerald could choose to empanel a new grand jury and extend his investigation, two legal sources said he is eager to not take that route and would prefer to wrap up the case today.

However credible, the Post specifically states Fitzgerald’s preference was to “wrap up the case today,” which means a new grand jury will not be impaneled. No grand jury, no continuing investigation of Karl Rove. Fitzgerald could have indictments for both White House officials in his back pocket.

My guess, and it is no more than that, is that the Times has it half right and this is why.

• First and foremost, Fitzgerald has kept a tight lid on this investigation and now at the last minute there is a leak? It’s my gut feeling if he held it tight for two years, he can do it for another day.
• I doubt that either camp (Rowe, Libby) has a clue what is in store for the other, therefore minimizing speculation on my part that Rove or Libby’s lawyers are the source of the leaks, unless it is part of the White House’s spin, which they have been preparing for days.
• Recognizing Fitzgerald’s credibility and what I perceive to be his modus operandi, gleaned from afar, he is going to insure he personally makes all parties’ positions, if they are to be indicted, known at the same time.
• Unless Karl has done one hell of a job plea bargaining, the publicly known evidence clearly indicates Rove has committed criminal acts. Fitzgerald sees black and white, not gray. Guilty or not guilty.

So, we shall see what tomorrow brings and evaluate my prognostication skills then.

Last point, but the most important as far as I am concerned. It doesn’t matter if 100 or zero indictments are handed down tomorrow. The real matter has just begun. Fitzgerald’s investigation has been a laproscopy on the administration. The acts of this administration are of an impeachable nature and there’s still much we do not know. Bush must be held accountable for the multitude of lies he has made, the unjustified war — in effect, the perjury or false statements he made to the American people, the sanctioned activities of his Vice President, and the destruction of everything he has touched — the economy, education, social systems, doing absolutely nothing about high energy prices while ExxonMobile et al made unbelievable profits, and the wake of death and destruction in the Gulf Coast region.

It is time for Congress to provide the president a one-way ticket to Crawford. Ticket = Articles of Impeachment.

NYT: Rove will not be indicted - Libby will be indicted

REPORT:  According to the New York Times Libby will be indicted.  Karl Rove will not be indicted now, but will remain under investigation.

Scheduled Down Time

Announcement: Vox Popluli will be down tonight 4/28 (Thu. night - Fri. morning)  for scheduled maintenance at 4:00 am EDT, 1:00 am PDT.  Expectation is for about an hour.

Bush’s free fall

Some levity shuld be interjected once in awhile…Bush’s free fall.

OBTW, click refresh…the finale varies.

Fitzgerald did not lease space

Yesterday I noted that Patrick Fitzgerald leased additional office space. The Washington Note, which has a good reputation, retracted that piece. So, we are just a little bit more in the dark.

My apologies for posting misinformation.

More in Bush’s basket

Bush campaign fund-raiser indicted

CHICAGO (Reuters) - A prominent Republican fund-raiser for President George W. Bush in Ohio has been charged with illegally funneling money to Bush’s re-election campaign, a federal prosecutor said on Thursday.
—–

Why Haven’t Libby and Rove Resigned?

The answer(s) to this question may be revealed tomorrow, but why have Libby and Rove not already submitted their resignations to get the fire storm away from the president and the vice president?  What is the political reason or strategy behind them staying this long?

There has not been a White House staffer indicted since Ulysses S. Grant was president. If scandal or corruption hit previously, the individuals were either fired or resigned.  Resignation did not always confirm guilt, but at times was done out of respect for the Office of the President or the Office of the Vice President. Every day each person is in proximity of the president, the more he suffers permanent damage at some level.

I am not asking rhetorical questions, I would really like to know the answers. I know many, including myself could easily make a few wise cracks about the president’s management capabilities, but those aren’t the real answers. Or are they?

Like them or not – Rove, Libby and Cheney have a respectable level of intelligence.  There has to be some reason (would have to be powerful) or strategy associated with them standing firm to this point.

Consider this also – there seems to be a consensus that if indicted they will resign or be fired. Since they have stayed this long, with each day causing more damage to the president, are we so sure they will resign or be fired?  The consensus opinion of resignation or termination has been based on logic and ethics, but logic and ethics are not reflected in their current status.