
Reader Looseheadprop had some very astute observations about the legal wrangling and back and forth between Team Libby and Team Fitz. In case folks missed it yesterday, I wanted to highlight a big portion of the comment for everyone to read. I think it is spot on in terms of tactics as well as being a hopeful little statement on the potential for more to come down the road. Here's the comment:
PJF did say he would be getting them their Jenks Act and Giglio in a matter of weeks not months (even though it is not actually due until AFTER the witness testifies and if you change your mind and don’t call the witness it is never due–unless the witness shows up on the defense’s witness list and, oh, they haven’t given ANY discovery yet so no witness list).He did seem to indicate that he would try to give Wells some of it even sooner as a courtesy. He’s killin’ em with kindness.
They are being cut off from one appealable issue after another. I just love this.
He’s got em. I can feel it. I can hear it in the tone of his written and spoken remarks. He’s just doin’ Kabuki with them and letting them run out the defense fund.
EVERY FREAKIN TIME, Team Irving pitches a fit about ANYTHING Team Fitz is doing, their position (at least in public) deteriorates a little (or alot) more.
From several comments Wells has made about having a tough row to hoe and about how if the court doesn’t let him expand the scope of the case he has no case, suggest to me that privately they have known all along that they are screwed.
There was a period shortly before the first GJ expired when Fitz was walking a guantlet every couple days on CNN as he went into the courthouse. He started looking really peaked, pasty faced, bloated, vaguely ill.
Then one day maybe a week 10 days out, he shows up and he looked like the sun breaking out from behind the clouds.
One of the goddeses even made a reference at about that time about integrity being good for the complextion.
I think that is the moment (if 3-4 days constitutes a moment) when he figured out what he was going to do and how he was going to do it.
And ever since he has known he has Irving by the short hairs and it’s all about giving him and everybody else enough rope to hang themselves.
No matter what, absent some huge mistake, Scoots is toast. Right now it’s all about having the rest of them self select whether they are going to be witnesses or defendants.
On the last thread,I told the story of Martha Stewart and how the FBI agents working the case expected her to come in tell what she knew appoligize for having inadvertantly crossed over a line and go on her merry way.
It’s kinda the same thing here, I think. basically decent people who did not intend evil will come in (it is obvious some already have and I am SURE there are cooperation agreements in place, probably very generous ones at that)told what they knew and expressed regret that things got out of hand.
People with evil in their hearts, will lie, fight, obstruct and reveal themselves to be worthy of criminal prosecution.
Poppy Bush accused Larry Walsh of trying to “criminalize policy disputes” and said that policy disputes should be resolved in the election booth not the courtroom.
in several places in the transcript and in the Indictment Press Conference, Fitz said that a court room is not the right place to try the issue of whether we were correct to go to war.
I think maybe our boy Fitz studied Iran Contra very carefully. Many of the same players are involved and he had a free window into their personalities and preferences. I think maybe he learned a lot from what happened to Larry Walsh.
Not only that, he may well disagree that the criminalization of policy disputes is a slippery slope that the nation cannot afford to go down. And he would have a point IMHO.
So what’s he to do? Answer, let the bad guys step up to the plate themselves and let them essentially choose themselves for prosecution, by their own actions.
This is why I think he has set up the finest piece of lawyering I will ever see in my life. It is about justice, it is about truth, and he does not set himself to judge what is what. The entire method starts from a postion of basic humilty. Although he was given broad discretion and has enormous power, he is exercising unheard of dicipline and humilty in its use.
I don't normally reproduce a quote this long, and I hope looseheadprop doesn't mind my doing so -- but the whole of this comment was so spot on that cutting it too much would have detracted from the whole.
So much of legal trial practice is tactics and maneuvering -- and that is especially true for criminal practice, because you have pressure being applied in the form of a threat of loss of liberty and imprisonment with criminal charges and investigations hanging over someone's head. It has to be tempered with justice and care on the part of the prosecutor, but at the same time those charges have to be tested by defense counsel to ensure that the system is operating fairly and not charging people inappropriately or without cause.
It's a tough balance. But the differences between the way the Starr investigation operated and Pat Fitzgerald's team are just striking, aren't they?
I do feel like things are coming to a head, somehow. And not just because the Cheney note revelations hit the front pages, but with all of the information that has trickled out bit by bit in all the legal filings and the fact that Gold Bars Luskin and Ted Wells and company have clammed up to all but the Hair Boy set. You guys can feel it, too, can't you? Don't have a clue as to when we'll get any final answers -- investigations take a long time to firm up and Fitzgerald and his team are absolutely right to take the time they need to be certain any charges filed are appropriate and deserved.
Here's hoping that the entire cabal of smarm merchants gets exactly what they deserve and nothing less.
(graphic by Dark Black)
Login Here
Share This
Spotlight
I got a Fitz!
We need a new line,though.Feingold!Colbert!Murtha!
This has been the most straight-laced prosecution I can recall. The ju-jitsu aspect of letting Luskin, Libby, and Rove dig their own graves (deeper, deeper!) is sublime.
EPU’d on Fitzmas day announcing it–Aargh!
From last thread:
HUGE
Ian Masters interviewing Jason Leopold now:
http://www.kpfk.org/
WHOOOOOOOOO-AAAAAAAHHH!!!
FITZ EM FOR THE HELL OF IT!
Having grown up on Watergate, I must admit, this just feels like it. New revelations every day, folks jumping ship, and what used to be the whiff of scandal now smelling like the low-down funk of fish rotting from the head down.
It is unbelievable that we have sunk this far into the abyss, but folks like Fitzgerald, Colbert, Gore, and Dean give me hope that we can, yet again, climb back into the sunshine.
As you note,Christy,the differance in Fitz’s style and Starr’s(we’ll get Clinton by fair or foul)leak fest is remarkable.Anytime I hear that a person participated in the Starr debacle my red flags go up high.
Okay I just listened to the Jason Leopold interview. Missed the beginning. Here are my chronological notes:
leopold got serious level of level of detail.
fitz arrived at paton boggs (luskin’s law firm) at 11:30 on friday, spent many hours there
rove was at the law firm also, with secret security
spent many hours on a plea agreement that ultimately was rejected [leopold doesn’t say who rejected]
at the end of the negotiations, fitz handed indictment papers to luskin
fitz said at that time that rove had 24 business hours to get his affairs in order
leopold states that he feels very confident about this information. he states that a source that burns him will no longer be anonymous.
asked about mainstream media, leopold says he isn’t sure why they aren’t reporting this, offers a few thoughts on this. also points out how ny times has failed, sat on the nsa story, etc.
more notes to follow momentarily…
Just read the Jason Leopold story (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051306W.shtml) on Karl’s indictment, and I believ it’s true. The sentence that convinced me was:
“Robert Luskin, Rove’s attorney, did not return a call for comment.”
Gold Bar Bob not commenting? It’s gotta be a done deal. I wonder if it’ll be announced Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday? I can’t imagine it would be any later than that — unless Fitz informed Luskin that he would be *seeking* indictments from the Grand Jury.
If that’s the case, that we’re still waiting on the Grand Jury to vote on the indictments, I suppose we won’t hear till Thursday or Friday.
Now that I think about it, that’s probably more consistent with Leopold’s story than an indictment early in the week. The report that Fitz said he’d give Karl 24 hours to get his things in order doesn’t make much sense if indictments were already voted on the Wed. just past.
Leopold said he would out his sources if the story turned out not to be true? That’s FANTASTIC. That really turns this whole thing into a win-win. If Rove has already been indicted, we all celebrate. If not, we get to show that the blogosphere has higher standards than the MSM when Leopold outs his sources.
I for one am applauding
As ever, your site has great posts and many of the comments do the posts true justice. Keep up the wonderful work and tone of the posts.
Pat Fitzgerald: The Anti-Starr.
more notes on leopold interview:
leopold’s confidence in this story is based on the level of detail that he has received about the paton boggs meeting, which he describes as “just too real”
leopold notes that rove’s speech is off the aei website, but leopold has not confirmed anything with the aei.
leopold states that he is an agressive reporter, but he would never get in front of a story this big without thinking and fact checking.
leopold notes that his sources are aware that he would no longer be obligated to keep their identity secret if they led him astray.
when leopold speaks with people at the white house, the tone is that they are loyal to rove, but ready to get rid of the cloud that he has brought over the administration.
more to follow momentarily…
looseheadprop is a gem, love reading his stuff.
Thanks for highliting it Christy.
Didn’t DICK go on MTP with Tim and deny knowing anything about Wilson and wife?
Just to paraphrase the EPUed posts by from a lurker, JWR and myself on the previous thread…
Jason Leopold defended his truthout.com story in a just-concluded interview by Ian Masters on KPFK. Bottom line: when Friday night negotiations broke down in the offices of Patton-Boggs, Fitz handed one of Rove’s lawyers a sealed indictment and said “…[Rove] has 24 business hors to get his affairs in order.”
Leopold says that “…an announcement could come anytime after Monday night.”
Leopold claims to have more than one source for this info and that these sources know that they’ll be outed if they’ve burned him.
IMO, Leopold came off as somewhat defensive and as a bit of a self-promoter, but that doesn’t necessarily make him wrong.
if fitz can continue to operate, believe you have hit this on the head. it is starting to resemble the watergate players a little now, people on record to someone of doing a crime. some are singing, some are finding out their little “conversations” are now conspiratorial to one degree or another. and when 28 or more players are all having to talk, the differences will allow for a wide variety of testimony to sift through. fitz is probably gathering false statement charges on people he believed a couple years ago. he may have a lot more iceberg yet to melt. it becomes clear why he takes so long between appearances, his staff has so much testimony that it must go through it for the small clues. I would guess a few of these tiny little bits have brought very large issues to the front no one would have dreamed of. the power boys and girls wouldn’t have thought that they would ever be subject to law, another corresponding analogy of nixon’s hatchets. they got sloppy. this time, sloppy was combined with a vast level of extortion upon government workers to follow dictates from the king, rather than those of the law. those on the receiving end of the extortion have begun to tell the story.
let’s extrapolate a little further. cheney is in charge, he was planning on seizing iraqi and iranian oil field since the ford admin, right? he has his friends all with him. maybe this is just a random chance and maybe it isn’t, but now you have to wonder if this one great coincidence is that, or just a piece in the chain;
cheney was working on taking over the oilfields, did he know that Ms. Plame was part of the CIA’s team working on that? was he going to rid himself of her so that he could duplicate the BS the admin was using on iraq? make it so that no good intelligence could come out iran so their version would be taken as fact? they did it once and got caught. twice?
I still wonder about Bob Novak. Is he cooperating with Fitzgerald, or will he be prosecuted later? Is he being used by the prosecution as leaverage? Can some of you legal eagles enlighten us on this?
Looseheadprop: “There was a period shortly before the first GJ expired when Fitz was walking a guantlet every couple days on CNN as he went into the courthouse. He started looking really peaked, pasty faced, bloated, vaguely ill.”
You know, I think insult could have been saved here by merely describing Fitz’s appearance as “looking like someone who spent his time shuttling back and forth, between Chicago and D.C., in late October.”
Just sayin’.
“hors” = “hours”
This is the Rove story, not the Foggo story; please forgive me if they all run together. :-)
Mad props to losseheadprop, mad props ! it is comments like that, coupled with Christy & Jane’s work tha allows someone like me to not only follow, but appreciate all the maneuvers and machinations of the case
more leopold interview notes
leopold stated that the announcement that bolton would be shaking up the wh staff came after he had been informed by rove that he was meeting with the gj for a fifth time.
leopold doesn’t seem to understand the meaning of a sealed indictment, as he states that he believes that the indictment that fitz gave to luskin was “sealed” because it was not yet made public, at which point it would be unsealed. this is not my understanding of the definition of “sealed”, so leopold loses some credibility here although he acknowledges that he is not a lawyer and seems confused about this point.
leopold believes the indictment will be made public any time this week, after monday, which is the expiration of the 24 business hours. does believe that it will be this week and not later. [so announcement will be made any time from Tues through Fri - we will hear somethign this week]
leopold stated that luskin, not fitz, was the one who requested the fifth gj appearance. [i’m not sure that we knew this yet here at fdl - although not sure whether i trust leopold on the legal stuff very much]
leopold closed by stating that he and truthout fully understand the significance of this story. this is not a story that he and truthout would go with if they were “not confident that the details were bulletproof”
[he literally said “bulletproof”]
[look forward to hearing the thoughts of fdl on this. generally, he sounded confused on legal matters but decisive on the basic facts.]
xyz #14:
Sorry for my redundant post. Nice recap!
Standing ovation from me!
something is happening witrh the comments - most have disappeared! it’s FROGMARCH SEASON and the servers are getting weird…
JP,
“Didn’t DICK go on MTP with Tim and deny knowing anything about Wilson and wife?”
Not exactly. He gave one of his per usual, technically correct but deliberately misleading answers…
“VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I don’t know Joe Wilson. ….. One of the questions I asked at that particular time about this, I said, “What do we know about this?†They take the question. He came back within a day or two and said, “This is all we know. There’s a lot we don’t know,†end of statement. And Joe Wilson—I don’t know who sent Joe Wilson. He never submitted a report that I ever saw when he came back.”
http://www.buzzflash.com/analy.....heney.html
Which comments,*ilson?
Leopold sounded very credible to me. The fact that he will out liar sources is great. He obviously told the sources this would be the case.
Wild props to the Leopold interview note-takers! God, is FDL the go-to place or what? Hope the broadcast gets podified soon.
So we’ll see if Jason’s “bulletproof” info re Rove is more bulletproof than Rumsfeld’s “bulletproof” intelligence on Iraq-alQaeda links. I’m voting, or at least rooting, for Leopold.
the comments have returned… our hostess last night mentioned they are moving to different servers imminently and I might have been seeing an artifact of the move process.
As I said: it’s FROGMARCH SEASON and we need this place up and running real good… (really good!)
Jane,
Yes, Leopold stated repeatedly at different points in the interview that his sources are aware that he is not obligated to keep their identity secret if they “lead him astray”. He seemed to lean on this point heavily as a key reason why he was so confident in his article’s veracity.
one more point that i’m not sure showed up in my earlier notes:
Leopold indicated that he had more than two sources on this story.
Also a general note: Leopold seemed extremely confident in his sources, going so far as to conclude the interview by acknowledging the importance of the story and stating that he and his organization would not go forward unless they were confident that the details of their story were “bulletproof”
William Pitt at DU has also clarified the time period, saying, “…those 24 hours are ‘business hours,’ i.e. starting on Monday.”
Lhp great comment.
As for looking pasty-faced, we northern Scottish folk resemble that remark.
IANAL, but if there’s a sealed indictment of Rove, can Fitz “hand it to Luskin”? Isn’t it sealed by the Court, and doesn’t a judge have to unseal it?
And if it’s unsealed, doesn’t it have to be filed with the Court, and therefore be on the public servers?
It may be that I just misunderstand the whole process. But can someone who is a lawyer clear this up for me?
Paul Krugman vouches for Leopold’s journalistic integrity. As one of his posse, that’s says a lot to me.
fucking eh! Fitz is giving lawyering a good name…
he’s doing a heck of a job, eh? Junior?
al-Scooter
Leopolds’s got a hell of a scoop so you can’t really blame him for bragging a bit, but for me it has the stamp of truth because of the MO of everyone involved–Rove and Luskin spinning to the end, a 15 hr marathon of spin, no less–and Fitz going about things with his customary deliberateness and thoroughness, allowing them to hang themselves in the void.
Even if our FDL is on the blink,to see this particular frog marched to face the music,well I don’t even have words.WOOOOHOOOOO!might cover it.
Thanks to the commenter for the notes on the Leopold radio interview.
xyz, thank you for the recap. Answered some questions I had on the 24 hour timing.
I guess we’ll have to wait until Tuesday or Wednesday to find out how accurate Leopold’s story is.
Unfortunately, the lack of any other media outlet following up on the report is a little disconcerting. It reminds of that Richard Sale article last October that got everyone excited and then turned out to be flat wrong (which, to be fair, Sale did apologize for, if I recall correctly).
Re people who didn’t set out to be evil but got caught up in events–sometimes my attorney father would remark while leaving for work,
“Do justice, love mercy. Well, one out of two.”
He also said “Sometimes you have to rise above principle.” If you follow the rule book too exactly, you might miss an opportunity to do the right thing.
xyz and al-Scooter - Sounds about right to me. I recorded the interview and will review.
Wow, agree with all, fitzheadpr - er, looseheadprop’s been stellar this weekend. I caught the Martha Stewart stuff yesterday but missed the above, thanks for reposting it. This place has some amazingly edifying commenters (as opposed to mostly ranters/jokesters like me) in addition to the principals. Bravo and FITZ ON! KEEP THE FAITH, HE’S CLOSIN’ IN!
Looseheadprop’s identification of “basic humility” as the foundation of Patrick Fitzgerald’s approach, and the “discipline” that flows from such humility is very important, and I think very true.
Credentialed “professionals” in this country long ago were given a pass by our society on the need to show humility in the course of their careers simply because of their lauded credentials, as though those college degrees or powerful positions somehow made them more than human. And the Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rove Gang now in control of our government is about as far from humility as it is humanly possible to get.
Jeralyn of Talkleft.com just demonstrated some humility of her own, and I salute her for it. She “dared” to call one of those high and mighty fellow professionals at home on a Saturday night (9:45 p.m.) and was roundly chastised by him for doing so. She called Bob Luskin, Rove’s attorney, in an effort to confirm or debunk the rumors being published on the internet of Karl Rove’s sealed indictment. When she was imperiously rebuffed for calling, despite the importance of the story, she proceeded to blog about the call and Luskin’s response, in embarrassment (and humility) that it hadn’t occurred to her that in Denver, where she is, it was two hours earlier (7:45 p.m.) than it was in Washington, D.C. where Luskin is.
But I want to draw Jeralyn’s attention to a parallel situation during the Watergate coverage, to show what good company she is in. Assuming one episode in the movie “All the President’s Men” is accurate to life, Carl Bernstein can sympathize with you, Jeralyn. As I recall, on a breaking news story of far less import than confirmation of an actual indictment of today’s “power behind the throne” - Bernstein WOKE UP someone very late at night to get a quote, and persevered with his questioning despite that fact. John Mitchell was it? Who was asleep at a hotel at 11 p.m. or so when Bernstein woke him up to get a quote/confirmation on a Watergate story about to go to press. This call elicited the famous crude comment about Publisher Katherine Graham by Mitchell, and a similar sort of incoherent brush-off to Bernstein to call Mitchell’s attorney in the morning for a response. But Bernstein got enough from that call to Mitchell for his editors to run the article on schedule in the morning papers.
Do the lawyers here think that the series of events described by Leop*ld is plausible?
so will the indictment story break before, after or during the Preznit’s 8pm ET speech ?
Yes Christy . . . . I feel it. It’s getting close.
Thumbs up for Looseheadprop. Great read. Thanks for sharing.
Years ago, the best advice I ever got from a seasoned trial attorney was this: The secret of successful litigation is to “keep the turd in the other guy’s pocket.”
I figure the stench around the White House is getting so bad, it’s as if the Rose Garden is buried under ten feet of manure by now . . .
Must be the NSA
This is all good, but it doesn’t change the fact that the key strategy is to keep Libby out of jail until after the November elections. After Nov 7th, Bush can safely pardon Libby (and Rove, Cheney, and the white house pooch, for that matter).
When hunting big game, you only get one shot. Steady….steady…
What a great article, CHS and great analysis from Looseheadprop. It certainly feels like there has to be a fire started with all the current smoke in the air.
As to the Leopold story, I’ve been quite sceptical BUT…I’m beginning to waiver. This is a career-ending move if Leopold is wrong and I just can’t imagine making a positive assertion about the indictments already being in without there being something to back it up. Particularly, where the source knows that they would be given-up in such a case. I’m still troubled that there’s been NO other reporting or leaks regarding this but DAMN…there is a current in the air similar to approaching rapids in a canoe…felt the same way right before Libby’s indictment.
Go Fitzgerald!
24 business hours…Thursday.
JWR - Thanks.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the Leopold interview.
hurm
OT: One of Ian Masters’ subsequent interviewees was Kevin Bengston, a lawyer with EFF. I wasn’t aware that they have a hearing on Wednesday vs. lawyers from AT&T re: a 20+-year employee whistleblower who apparently knows the ins and outs of technical arrangements in those highly-restricted rooms in switching centers. AT&T is claiming trade secrets (!) are involved.
Those interested can hear the interview (and Leopold’s as well)at Masters’ website once he gets today’s program up:
http://www.ianmasters.org/
One further thought, the interaction between Fitz, Rove, Luskin, et. al., sounds a bit like Scooter Libby Redux.
I’m guessing that Karl refused to accept any plea deal that compelled prison time, and Fitz refused to offer a deal w/o prison time, say anywhere from 6 - 24 months.
I’m sure this question has already been asked and answered before, but…can Cheney be indicted, or as a Constitutional Officer, can he only be impeached?
Also, could Fitz name him as an “unidicted co-conspirator”?
I missed this in the Leopold story: 24 *business* hours.
That means the announcement is Thursday, I guess.
LindyH -
I understand why you might think 24 business hours would bring you to Thursday (because you only count the business hours in each day, so Monday is 8 hours, etc., but Leopold indicated the 24 business hours would expire by the end of Monday.
In my work, we speak of “business days”, not “business hours”.
Anyone able to shed light on the meaning of “business hours”?
somebody is working on the FDL website: please insert in the template for all comments a string to erase any html tags from the preceding comment. I’d suggest: [/B] [/CODE] [/EM] [/I] [/STRIKE] [/STRONG]
I’m a little out of touch. What day is that 8 pm address happening?
FWIW,
I was reading another site today (I think talkleft) and someone who sounded knowledgable said that all the MSM outlets had heard about Leopold article and were desperately trying to confirm or deny it. Not sure what it means that it has been so long now and no one else is airing it. Could be no one else has mulitple sources and can’t go on the record without at least two on such a major story. Or could be that they have had direct denials and therefore don’t have to air them because the story hasn’t “officially” been broken.
I’ve never understood quite what was meant by the phrase “24 hours to get his affairs in order”. Is that supposed to mean, that after 24 hours the deal could be announced at any time?
It’s a very curious phrasing, so I wonder if it’s Fitzgerald’s phrasing or a paraphrase. It sounds very 18th century, like something you’d say the night before a duel.
Quick transcription of JL on his sources:
“First of all, it’s more than two, and they are definitely in the know. On Saturday, I received a level of detail of information on what took place this past Friday, that was quite explosive. Now these are people that I trust. They are also sources who KNOW, full well, that if they led me astray, they would no longer be anonymous sources.”
the Preznit’s 8pm speech is tomorrow. CNN is going apeshit over it! It’s supposedly about ‘brown folk taking over america’ or somesuch. A Rove indictment would sure mess up all their programming specials…
xyz #61:
There did seem to be definitional issues during the interview, but Leopold seemed sure that the announcement would be made “…anytime after Monday…” which would imply three calendar days from late Friday night.
So if there’s no announcement on Tuesday, we’ll have to sweat through Thursday.
It’s Fitzwatch ‘06! Keep that seatbelt securely fastened about you.
cbear: “I’m sure this question has already been asked and answered before, but…can Cheney be indicted, or as a Constitutional Officer, can he only be impeached? Also, could Fitz name him as an ‘unidicted co-conspirator’?”
Someone will have probably answered by the time I finish typing this but…
A) Yes, Cheney can be indicted. See e.g. Spiro Agnew.
The only citizen of the U.S. who cannot be indicted is a sitting president, who must be impeached by the House and fouind guilty by the Senate. If that happens, then the president can be indicted.
B) Yes, Cheny can be cited as an undicted co-conspirator.
You’re playing the small game. The big game involves pardons that will be issued at some point, probably soon after the 2006 mid-term election, if not, then in January 2009. Thus, all Libby (and Rove and Cheney, if we should be so lucky) have to do is engage in a holding pattern. Delay delay delay. Is Libby sitting currently in a cell? No. I wouldn’t want to be him right now, but it’s a certainty that he can expect a pardon within the next few years. At most he spends 18 months in club-fed.
This, of course, assumes that GWB’s penchant for loyalty outweighs his disdain for people who make him look like a fuck-up. I think it does. Shit, even Goss got a happy send-off, with the complicity of the press. Hookers? What hookers? And what is this “Watergate” thing of which you speak? (perhaps the press will come around, though by then it will be too late and everyone will be consumed by the finals of American Idol, the bombing of Tehran, or the meltdown in the housing market).
I think Fitz has been exemplary: if only all public servants had his integrity, professionalism and discretion. Unfortunately the President (and I hate to capitalize it when I refer to the current occupant of the White House) possesses none of these traits, and in fact considers them to be indicators of weakness. If he were the special prosecutor, why not use such power for political gain? Starr took his quasi-unlimited power and ran with it. He was a politician, not a lawyer. Fitz is a (true) lawyer first. He believes in truth, justice and the American way, and acts accordingly. To BushCo such things are for chumps. They’re selling-out the rest of us out for next quarter’s 10-Q filing.
GWB is a win at all costs kind of man. He is the Presidential equivalent of Barry Bonds. Even that comparison is charitable, Bonds played by the letter, if not the spirit, of the rules (”no rules against steroids in baseball? Shit, shoot me up”). Bush is motivated by winning, and, perhaps more ominously, outdoing his father. Tristero links today at Digby’s place to a prescient Vanity Fair article on W during the 2000 campaign. His father didn’t get re-elected and left Saddam in place, W did and didn’t, ergo W wins in the inter-family pissing match. God help us if Jeb wins on 2008 (though, in retrospect, we might have all been saved of the nightmare of W’s presidency had Jeb not lost his first bid for FL governor in 1994; he seems to be the true heir to his father, which, if still awful, I think would be 100 times better than W; but now his election in 2008 would only continue W’s legacy).
Right now, with his approval rating approaching the BTKWB limit at 29%, what does “winning” mean for the “President?” A few things. First, he doesn’t believe the polls (or perhaps the bubble protects him from them), and if he does they reflect biased reporting. This first view leads to the second: to him he has been an enormous success as POTUS. Tax cuts, no child left behind, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., the only real setback being the Harriet Meirs nomination, but she’s still his “main woman.” The semi-unbroken stream of successes provides him, in his mind, with a mandate to continue the chosen path to: Tehran.
And there, tragically (for the people of the United States of America, not to mention the rest of the world), hell will break loose on such a scale that even W will recognize the error of his ways. He might not beg for forgiveness in the eyes of the American republic, but he will know he should. Instead, he will be driven on by Cheney to further misdeeds, until we are in the arms of a dictatorship, or worse.
This is a more charitable comment to W than it sould be.
Wow. Looks like we got a helluva week coming up, gang.
Expect distraction and misdirection.
I’m with ProfFoland on the question of 24 hours to get things in order. What would Rove be doing during such 24 hours?
Also, parsing- no longer be anonymous souces– no longer be anonymous, or no longer be sources?
al scooter - thanks
This whole “business hours” thing is somewhat confusing.
If business hours are 8 hrs a day and run 7 days a week, then we can expect an announcement anytime after monday (8hrs sat+ 8rs sun+ 8hrs mon = 24 hrs)
However, if business hours run during the business week only, then we can expect an announcement no earlier than thursday, as the clock will not start until monday.
I personally have no idea, but Leopold seemed to think that Tuesday was the first day on which an announcement might be made.
I’m glad that Leopold is willing to out his sources if they steer him wrong here (and I hope he’ll out them for whatever they’ve told him, if they’re wrong on this). But I’d point out there is still a timing inconsistency (as there was in yesterday’s story).
24 business hours would be, presumably 3 8-hour business days from when Rove received the indictment. That is, Wednesday night. There’s no way 24 business hours would be Monday in any case, because if the 24-hour clock started Monday at 8:00, then it would mean Karl frogmarches on Tuesday AM.
The 24 business hours doesn’t seem to make sense.
a-S #57:
The AT&T whistleblower has said that the NSA installed a splitter, which means that all traffic coming into the center is also being captured by NSA. That goes way beyond the call records. I’m just afraid that the ‘gov’t secrecy’ argument is going to win out again here . . .
Sorry, that 24 hour point was made above.
And actually, the interview may have clarified the 15 hours/half a day discrepancy. Did he address that? That is, Fitz was there for half a day and Luskin and Rove were working for 15 hours?
LindyH: “24 business hours…Thursday.”
Point. Leopold is correct as long as the indictment is announced any time this week.
xyz: “Anyone able to shed light on the meaning of “business hoursâ€?”
Yes, it’s used the way Lindy described, usually by project managers as a gender neutral term for man-hours, At least I’ve heard it used this way before, though personally I tend to use ‘worker hours’, which is used more often in my experience.
JL says that during the meeting at Patton-Boggs, they MAY have been working out a plea agreement, but that it was ultimately rejected.
At the end of this meeting, Fitzgerald handed indictments to Rove’s atty, and instructed Rove that he has quote, 24 business hours, to get his affairs in order. Says he confirmed the story with his sources, and ran with it.
He sounds pretty confident to me.
emptywheel,
i think leopold may be guilty of the same mistake that i initially made.
leopold said that the indictments can come as early as tuesday. i think he may have said that because he believes that 24 business hours means the same thing as one business day. So once monday has passed, the 24 business hours are up.
i see now that this is probably incorrect, but it seems like an honest mistake that someone outside of the business world might make (as i did).
about indicting Veeps: Spiro Agnew was forced into resigning before he got indicted. Aaron Burr, on the other hand, was indicted for murder and other crimes in both New Jersey and New York. He fled the scenes of the crime but returned to D.C. where he continued Veeping to the end of his term…
If anyone can host it, I’ve created an 18 minute, 4.92mb mp3 of all but the very first few seconds of the interview.
Over at DU a brave fellow progressive ventured into freeperland and found this link. For your reading pleas…whatever. Sensation librement au ridicule
The Good Ship Fitzgerald Is Listing
Valley Girl,
Regarding your parsing question - JL seemed clear that he was willing to publicly reveal the identity of sources who burned him.
Professor F: I think Fitzgerald’s “You have 24 hours” is to say “You have 24 hours to deal with your situation–the spin, the exit, the various head’s-ups you need to give, etc.–before I make my announcement to the world.”
Whether this is all true or not is TBD, but Leopold is putting his name on the line here, and while Rawstory has been wrong, they haven’t been THAT wrong–am I correct? He’s not as iffy as Drudge, or Capital Hill Blue?
oldtree - very important point in your comment - this whole series of crimes begins way back with Cheney and friend’s first decision to seize oil assets in the middle east.
I just saw on CNN that they are calling tomorrow “Immigration Nation” and running immigration stories all day - it’s amazing how quickly the media fall in line with WH desires. All the news shows have NSA on the back page and immigration up front (well, plus Duke Rape case, Polygamists and such … it must be time for another Natalie Hollaway sighting!)
Chisholm,
FYI the leopold articles are on truth out, not raw story
Is it possible the 24 hours is to give the judge time to unseal a sealed indictment, after which Fitz holds a press conference? The meeting in Luskin’s office ended:
“So, no deal.”
I’m thinking the 24 business hours are consecutive hours that occur during the business week, which would mean 1 business day, starting Monday am and concluding Tuesday am.
Just my two cents.
IANAL, but would this be a lawyerly way of saying 1 business day?
Fitz me baby, one mo’ time!
it sounds like Jason Leopold needs a good editor to iron out ambiguities in his reporting…
we think it’s pretty clear - rove has 24 hours to get his $hi+ together, but that’s not counting the weekend. so it’s 24 hours from friday, excluding saturday and sunday (which aren’t business days)
xyz–why there, and not raw? is leopold still affiliated with raw?
ugh @ 70: I think that by the time ‘08 rolls around the very last thing the American people will want is another Bush presidency.
Bush fatigue set in during Katrina, and it’s only going to get worse–I’m starting to think he’ll be impeached even without the democrats controlling one house of congress.
My 2 cents, 24 business hours would be 24 hours, Saturday & Sunday excluded. So indictment announced Tuesday earliest.
God help me, I love the smell of indictments in the morning.
Okay here’s something else that I don’t get. The issue that was on the table, I thought (from Leopold’s earlier reporting) was did Karl get an obstruction charge in addition to perjury and false statements. That’s what they were bargaining over on Friday. But if Fitz handed indictments out and then left, does that mean he had two versions, the + obstruction and the - obstruction ones? And actually, Leopold’s clarification says Fitz only left perjury and false statements.
Finally, the 24 hour thing is weird. (Particularly since Truthout only clarified it 24 hours after Leopold first used it.) You give 24 hours to turn yourself in, to be arraigned. But the only reason Fitz would need a delay would be to submit the indictments to the judge. Which wouldn’t necessarily be 24 hours.
chisolm
Leopold hasn’t been associated with raw for some months.
oceanbreeze #88:
The commonly-understood business definition of “24 business hours” would be, in this case, three days of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (allowing an hour for lunch) commencing at 8:00 a.m. Monday.
But we might be parsing a paraphrase (or worse) at this point, so we’ll have to wait and see. Maybe we’ll get more from Jason Leopold or other sources.
It’s going to be quite a week, I think…isn’t this also the week that someone is supposed to testify before a congressional committee that the NSA program is just the tip of the iceberg?
Yes, I’m feeling like this could be it, finally. I’m a little confused over the “24 business hours” thing, but I’m wondering if what it meant was that Rove had 1 business day from the close of business on Friday to get things in order. Anyone remember when we first heard that Bush would be speaking on Monday night?
I’m trying to picture the pre-speech blather: “This speech, billed as a major address on immigration, comes on the same day we have learned that the man who is often described as the architect of two successful presidential campaigns, Karl Rove, will be indicted on multiple counts of perjury, obstruction and conspiracy in connection with the investigation into the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame, and a man already under indictment in the same case, Lewis “Scooter” Libby, will face a new charge in addition to the ones he already faces: conspiracy.”
Would anyone, other than Lou Dobbs, give anything more than lip service to a speech on immigration if there is confirmation on this?
Just what exactly would Rove be expected to be doing during this 24 hour period? Was Libby given 24 hours too? What is the point?
Cleaning out his desk? Erasing his HD? Also, once indicted (and he presumably resigns), is he allowed to confer with the prez in any official way? Or do they all just use throw away cell phones? IOW, how limited is he?
so if Rove has been given a heads up on indictment, does that mean he will resign before the indictment to spare the W.H. the shame of another indictment of a W.H. employee? It certainly would seem the honorable thing to do …
I’m still reading through this thread, but have to say thanks to xyz for conveying the info on the Leopold interview. And to say, WOWIE. If he is willing to burn the source that burns him, this is a whole new day. OMG, this will bring a new level of accountability to the whole whisper campaign all these weenies perpetuate. Zing!
Waiting for Fitz-O at 51:
I very much fear that you’re correct.
And that will be no problem, inasmuch as the Libby trial is set for next year.
The basis for the pardons: All of those people Libby has subpoenaed to testify (Rice, Hadley, Cheney, others) can’t be distracted in a time of war (in Iraq and Iran).
The cost? Dropping in the polls from twenty-three to twenty? Hurting Bush’s re-election chances in ‘08? Hurting Republican chances in the ‘06 elections, the ones that happened ten weeks ago?
It costs them nothing that they care about, and it keeps anyone who knows where the bodies are buried (like Howard Hunt) from rolling over on them when faced with a decade or more in prison.
Time of the pardons: Between Christmas and New Year’s Day.
Time of starting war in Iran: October or November, depending on whether the polling shows people will revolt, or fall in line behind the War President.
This, by the way, is the reason I place no stock in the propositions that one person or another is plea bargaining or cooperating for a reduction in sentence - no one has to do that, because all they have to do is wait for the pardon. The only cooperation / plea agreement in this case would logically come only from a person who either (1) can’t be sure he would get a pardon (Novak early on, or relatively low level executive branch offials?) or (2) a person with a vendetta against some of the people in the crosshairs. Rove certainly needs no plea bargain.
It’s also why, even though Fitzgerald seems aimed directly at Cheney, and maybe even Bush, he will never be able to get there. I think he might find vindication, however, in the fact that they had to be pardoned (who besides a criminal even needs a pardon?).
Professor Foland #65, got a laugh out of the 18th century refrenence.
Also, could “getting his affairs” together mean he needs to wrap up anything important he may be working on for the POTUS, or since he will now be spending so much of the next few months in court, say goodbye to his wife and kids, grab some clean underwear, and stock up on twinkies?
hey, I just saw a clip of al gore over at c&l…a skit if he were elected president
man, talk about laugh out load funny, you gotta see it
How about this: 24 weekday hours? That seems to make the most sense in this context.
kate o’beirne’’s vaginal dentata: “we think it’s pretty clear - rove has 24 hours to get his $hi+ together, but that’s not counting the weekend. so it’s 24 hours from friday, excluding saturday and sunday (which aren’t business days)”
Could be, but I’m more inclined to believe the ‘24 hrs. = 3 business day” explanation.
If for no other reason, it seems like 3 rather than 1 business day is the proper deference to pay to Turd Blossom’s duties, responsibity to document them, and help get the ball rolling to find his replacement.
BTW, not saying that TB deserves the deference, just that his position, and his responsibilities to the American people, do.
Another quick transcription:
“..and again I will reiterate, these sources that I have had on this story know full well that leading me astray, or leading my news organization astray, I would no longer be obliged to keep their identities secret.”
He doesn’t say outright that he will reveal his sources, should they be wrong on this.
56, you have the best ever blog handle. LOL
Thanks to the Leopold interview transcription xyz.
Couple of other points to consider with the Leopold information and the fact he will out his sources if they burn him… combine all that with….
-Shuster’s story last week
-Tweety’s story last week
-Didn’t Fitz tell Bushco previ