Blogenlust offers Two Points on Libby, the first of which is:
1) Before joining the White House in 2000, Libby was the managing partner of a Washington law firm. He knows the law and he knows the consequences of perjury, obstruction of justice and making false statements. If the allegations are true, it raises the question of what Libby was hiding that he'd rather risk the consequences of obstructing and lying to a federal grand jury. In other words, if there was nothing to cover up or hide, it would seem unusual that a seasoned lawyer like Libby would put himself in a position to be indicted on these charges.
Think Progress quotes Washington Post reporter Jim VandeHei:
Rove Investigation Will Be Completed In Weeks, Not Months
More details on the Rove/Fitzgerald dealings from Washington Post reporter Jim VandeHei on MSNBC:
We have more detail on what’s happening with Karl Rove. We know that something happened in the last couple of days that Rove’s legal team was able to provide to Fitzgerald, that according to one Rove associate, “gave Fitzgerald pause” about charging Rove. They think that within the next couple of weeks, not months, that the Rove part of this investigation will be wrapped up, and that it is still centered on whether he provided false statements. It’s not clear what exactly transpired. There has been this flurry of conversations between Rove and his team and Fitzgerald over the last week, with Rove trying to convince him, like, “Look, I may have forgotten some things but I did not lie.”
From the Republican side of things, Below The Beltway picks up GOP talking point number one: Trivialize the indictment:
In other words, like Martha Stewart, Libby was indicted for lying, not for the underlying act being investigated.
Actually, BTB blogger Doug provides an answer to his own statement a little bit lower in his post when he quotes Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid:
This case is bigger than the leak of highly classified information. It is about how the Bush White House manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to bolster its case for the war in Iraq and to discredit anyone who dared to challenge the president.
Lower still, Doug quotes Patrick Fitzgerald with what he thinks is
Patrick Fitzgerald's response to Harry Reid:
This indictment is not about the war. Not about the propriety of the war. This is stripped of that debate and focused on a narrow transaction...
I think it's just as likely if not more so that Fitzgerald was speaking in his by-the-books, special council capacity. I also note that he only said this indictment is not about the war...
Safely back among the Democrats, John observes something in AmericaBlog about GOP talking point number two:
Republican hack Joseph di Genova is now saying on TV that the indictment "proves" that no one in the White House knew Valerie Plame was an undercover agent so they've been exonerated.
You know someone is CIA.
You also know that you have no idea WHAT this person's status is - covert or overt agent.
So Scooter and Rove did not know for sure whether Valerie Plame was an undercover CIA agent, yet they outed her anyway. What di Genova seems to be saying, and any other Bush defenders would be saying, is that it's okay to out a CIA agent so long as you make super duper sure that you DON'T find out that agent's status, overt or covert.
In other words, if you want to out CIA agents and risk the lives of countless Americans while our country is at war, just make sure you don't inquire first as to whether it might be a problem. So long as you're negligent, you're a Republican hero.
Let me just add a couple of things here before moving on. I watched about an hour of NBC, CNN and CBS News this morning. Just enough to remind me why I don't do that. I swear, one of things I think I'd do if I had a TARDIS is go back and tell Ted Turner that a 24-hour news channel is a terrible idea. I miss the old days, when we had one, half-hour news program at the end of the day, so most of it had to be actually news. Instead, we just get people talking and talking...
Also, anyone making the "We didn't know! How could we know?" defense always reminds me of what Will Durst said when Bush, Sr. denied knowledge of Iran-Contra: Either he knew...and he's a doofus...or he didn't know...and he's a doofus. Ignorance is no defense, especially involving people whose lives are at risk.
Okay, via TGW, Raw Story is reporting that Fitzgerald is pursuing more serious charges for Rove:
“This investigation is not yet over,” one of the lawyers in the case said. “You must keep in mind that people like Mr. Rove are still under investigation. Rather than securing an indictment on perjury charges against Mr. Rove Mr. Fitzgerald strongly believes he can convince the grand jury that he broke other laws.” . . .
Shakespeare's Sister has her impression of Fitzgerald's press conference, and his direct response to a talking point:
He made it perfectly clear that these charges are extremely serious. When some clever reporter asked him about the GOP talking points about these being “technical” charges, he came out swinging: “I’ll be blunt—that talking point won’t fly… The truth is the engine of our justice system… It is a very, very serious matter that no one should take lightly…
Okay, back to the Bushies. Eugene Volokh wonders: So what's a Bush Administration official supposed to do? He's impishly chiding someone from TalkLeft for complaining that Rove might avoid serious punishment by "flipping."
I've heard people condemn the Bush Administration for placing too much premium on loyalty over other virtues -- but surely few (on the Left or on the Right) would think that Administration officials should place such a premium on loyalty that they refuse to testify about others' criminal conduct?
It seems likely to me Volokh knows perfectly well that the bigger point is, if Rove did indeed break other, more serious laws, it will not satisfy justice if he avoids punishment like this. Oh well, if VandeHei is right, we'll know in a few more weeks (sigh).
In War and Piece, Laura asks,
...how in the world could Libby have lied so blatantly, have misled so blatantly, without realizing given the scope of this investigation that he would get caught? Did he think the investigation would go away? That his colleagues would participate in the cover up? It's hard to know what he was thinking, but Kevin Drum's 'bottom line' analysis of what happened sounds right to me: Libby invented a compelling false narrative and just stuck to it.
And finally, from The Sideshow:
You know Libby=Cheney & Rove, you just know it, and these three charges are not nearly all they should be hit for. Novak said two people spilled the beans to him, and Karl has admitted talking. There's lots left on the table. And Raw Story is saying that Karl was offered a perjury deal but turned it down.
Whew! Okay, so these are the big questions yet to be answered to my satisfaction:
Who was/is Libby protecting?
Will Cheney be hit?
What's next for Rove?
Will they be able to weasel their way out of it?
Tune in tomorrow for another exciting episode of The Mayberry Machiavellis...it'd be a sitcom if it weren't so tragic.
No comments:
Post a Comment