The Political Chase

Cheney, Libby, the CIA and Niger

Murray Waas has a piece in The National Journal which should be rather unsettling to Dick Cheney and Scooter Libby. The CIA definitively informed Cheney and Libby that they clearly found without merit the allegations that Saddam Hussein attempted to purchase yellow-cake uranium from Niger. This evolves from a June 17, 2003 letter that CIA analysts wrote to George Tenet, the former Director, Central Intelligence (and Medal of Freedom recipient), which in turn was promptly proffered to the Office of the Vice President.

This piece yields at least three significant items:

• Substantially puts a greater focus on Dick Cheney’s knowledge, activities, and requests of the CIA as it directly relates to Plamegate — the purposeful intent to destroy former CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson and her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson.
• Knocks Scooter Libby’s defense counselors out of the park in their attempts to portray Libby as too busy and too important to remember the “minutiae” of any discussion regarding Valerie Plame Wilson.
• Further substantiates motive.

Continue reading ‘Cheney, Libby, the CIA and Niger’

Will the Shoe Drop on Karl Rove Soon?

Raw Story reports that Patrick Fitzgerald will most likely indict Karl Rove along similar lines as he indicted Scooter Libby in the Plame Wilson investigation. IMHO, the sources Raw Story cites do not sound as if they are at the appropriate level to bet money on an indictment coming forth in the next 24 hours.

In its report, Raw Story cites lawyers familiar with the case occasionally, but most of the source information comes from the very vanilla, “sources familiar with the case.” I may be wrong, but there are just too many sources cited that seem too low to put real confidence in something substantial happening soon.

That’s not to say Raw Story’s incorrect, or has unreliable sources. This sounds more like leading down the path rather than being at the end of the path. There are some key points, that when put together, provide a  good case based on circumstantial evidence, but I don’t believe Fitzgerald will even remotely consider a circumstantial evidence based case. Like it or not, Karl Rove is a power house – when he speaks the President listens. You only knock one of those guys down when you are 110% sure you have the goods and there is no way for the defendant to get out – a jury of 12 Bob Novaks would convict.

Taking into account Raw Story’s piece and history, it doesn’t look good for Rove. I think this is a matter of when, not if.

1. Back in 2003, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales ordered everyone in the White House, including the big guy, to turn over any and all communication regarding Valerie Wilson, but the order was not executed until 12 hours after Gonzales issued the order. I’m going on memory on this one, I don’t have a source to cite but, I seem to remember that Andrew Card was responsible for executing the order. Card waited 12 hours from the time he received the order until he, Card, dispatched it to the White House staff. That’s a lot of rip, tear and destroy time. It only took an 18 minute 30 second gap to throw Nixon out of the White House and virtually all of his lieutenants in jail.
2. Assume nothing was destroyed. There’s the matter of the missing email between Rove and Steven Hadley. Anybody reading this blog knows about email. Either you have it or you don’t. When you don’t, then it’s been purposefully deleted or it went away with a ton of other email at the same time. Rove was supposed to supply the DOJ with all communications, but somehow this one email is missing for a year. How does just one email pop up after a year? You hand the DOJ your current email file and your archive files – simple. One email does not just magically appear when you or your lawyer decide to do an exhaustive search because of a statement made when two people are slamming down a few.
3. According to Raw Story, Rove told his assistant to not log a specific phone call from Matt Cooper. I missed that along the way if it is common knowledge. I knew the call was not logged (excuses given were the White House switchboard), but this is the first time I’ve heard that Rove ordered her to not log the call. That smells worse than dead fish after a week.

There’s been too much proven already for Karl Rove to walk away with a halo over his head. He’s as dirty as the soil in a landfill. He might slip away from the slammer, but he’ll still go home with dirty clothes. Fitzgerald just has to have prove the man was playing in the sand box and that’s why he’s dirty.

Raw Story may have a hot one, and Rove goes bye-bye real soon, but my instincts tell me it’s not going to be tomorrow. I don’t think he’s had sufficient time with the new grand jury. If Fitz happens to drop the shoe tomorrow or the next day, then Rove is absolutely toast – don’t bother with a jury. Getting the grand jury to indict after having met only three hours at this point, would mean Fitz has overwhelming hard evidence.

What about Cheney? Any hunches there?

Vandehei’s Statement Incorrect

False alarm. Jim Vandehei misspoke last night (see here and here). The Washington Post corrected the statement this morning.

Lawrence, Kan.: Did Jim VandeHei misspeak on Hardball when he attributed Rove’s knowledge of Valerie Plame to Hadley?

Peter Baker: Thanks for the question. Jim informs me he did misspeak. He meant to say chatter between Rove and Libby, not Hadley. That’s the trick with television, it’s hard to correct. Appreciate the opportunity to set the record straight here.

Firedoglake has some commentary related to the error.

Jim Vandehei’s Statements on Hardball

Previously, I noted that Jim Vandehei, of The Washington Post, stated on last night’s Hardball show, that Stephen Hadley told Karl Rove about Valerie Plame Wilson. Hadley is the Deputy National Security Advisor and was (is?) a member of the White House Iraq Group.

MSNBC has finally published the show’s transcript, from which the following is taken:

MATTHEWS: Well, let me ask you one thing. One thing watching this thing from a bit of a second-degree look, it seems to me there’s interesting in the dates. The very day, July 12, I believe, that Scooter Libby is accused of telling two reporters about this. That is Matt Cooper and his favorite reporter, Judy Miller.

The day before that, Karl Rove now apparently told Matt Cooper. So, it looks like these two guys were working together to put this story out, right, Jim?

VANDEHEI: That’s always been — it’s always –

MATTHEWS: I mean, just from the looks of it.

VANDEHEI: That’s what it looks like and we do know from the indictment of Scooter Libby that there certainly was a conversation between Libby and Rove where it was mentioned that Bob Novak, no relation to Viveca, was making phone calls and asking about Valerie Plame. And that they discussed it.

We still don’t know exactly where Karl Rove originally learned about Valerie Plame. That’s still one of the mysteries. We know one of them he had heard it from Hadley as just sort of chatter inside the office, but he had learned it earlier from some other place. And we still don’t know where that is.

MATTHEWS: We’ll be right back with Norah O’Donnell and Jim VandeHei.

Jeralyn Merritt and Firedoglake were right.

I have not read the entire transcript; I just confirmed what was quoted in Jeralyn’s post.

More later…

Update: Handehei made a mistake last night. See this post for correction.

Stephen Hadley Told Rove About Plame

TalkLeft conveys from Firedoglake that Washington Post reporter Jim Vandehei let the cat out of the bag on Hardball tonight. Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley told Karl Rove about Valerie Plame Wilson.

Hardball does not release a transcript until the day after the show runs, therefore it is not available as of this post. The following is copied from Jeralyn’s post (ed. note: reference via Lexis.com). Quoting Vandehei:

We still don`t know exactly where Karl Rove originally learned about Valerie Plame. That`s still one of the mysteries. We know one of them he had heard it from Hadley as just sort of chatter inside the office, but he had learned it earlier from some other place. And we still don`t know where that is.

I watched Hardball tonight, but obviously Vandehei rolled that out during that brief period of time I was comfortably “watching” with my eyelids closed. Jeralyn puts her spin on the logic behind Vandehei’s statement. Check it out while waiting on MSNBC to publish the transcript.

Click here or here for full coverage on Plamegate. A full timeline of the CIA leak is here.

More to follow after reading the transcript or other developments — whichever comes first. If you have any tips, please let us know.

This should raise the buzz index considerably tomorrow. Film at 11:00.

Update: Handehei made a mistake last night. See this post for correction.

Time Gives Viveca Novak a Time Out

Time magazine has put reporter Viveca Novak on leave of absence status because she failed to notify Time’s editorial staff of her role in the Plame Wilson investigation.

The magazine said Novak is now on a leave of absence by mutual agreement with her employer.

The investigation and Novak’s role in it are “pretty serious stuff and the whole incident led Viveca and me to conclude that a leave of absence was wise,” said Time’s managing editor, Jim Kelly. “She and I will have a fuller discussion of this.”

—–

Luskin Knew About Conversation with Cooper

Viveca Novak (no relation to columnist Bob Novak) told Robert Luskin, Karl Rove’s attorney, about Rove’s communications with Matt Cooper of Time magazine, many months before Rove corrected/disclosed the information to the grand jury.

Rove disclosed the information after Matt Cooper was subpoenaed and ordered to testify before the grand jury.

Luskin declined to comment on Novak’s testimony. That’s a bit telling, because Luskin can’t find a reporter’s microphone fast enough when he has positive comments to make regarding Rove’s status.

Viveca Novak is a reporter for Time magazine. Her first person account is on Time’s Web site. 

—–

Arthur Sulzberger on Charlie Rose

Drudge Report has some excerpts of Arthur Sulzberger from the NYTimes discusing the Judith Miller situation on Charlie Rose.

As Talking Points Memo points out today:

He really doesn’t get it, does he? Sure, Jayson Blair’s transgressions were open-and-shut journalistic capital offenses. No question it was terrible and that his career was over. But, honestly, what were the real world consequences of his misdeeds? Pretty minimal. And the Miller fiasco? Well, yes, more complicated. But the real world consequences? Immeasurably greater. And the paper’s dragged out, compromised way of dealing with the whole mess? He really doesn’t seem to grasp what happened.

Once again it seems that people involved are not realizing the implications of this “technicality.” Is it because it’s been 5 years of an administration that hasn’t been held accountable for any of their actions that has made us all say, “ah well, it’s no big thing?” Is it because there are really dire consequences to the definition of our country’s values and beliefs that there is an avoidance of how important it is, and thereby making it just go away?

Getting to the facts

Larry Johnson at TPM Cafe has a good piece on the credibility of Joseph Wilson and the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on Iraq.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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.