Yesterday was the day when the other shoe was supposed to drop in the Plamegate CIA leak case that some predict could shake the Bush administration to its foundation if some key officials are indicted.
It didn’t drop….but there was plenty of legal activity in this case…and it could drop with a big kaboom later today when some analysts predict the Special Prosecutor will make a decision, most likely an announcement…and the political fallout will begin. For instance, the Washington Post declares:
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.
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.
Fitzgerald is completing his probe of whether senior administration officials broke the law by disclosing the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame to the media in the summer of 2003 to discredit her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, an administration critic. The grand jury’s term will expire Friday.
But after grand jurors left the federal courthouse before noon yesterday, it was unclear whether Fitzgerald had spelled out the criminal charges he might ask them to consider, or whether he had asked them to vote on any proposed indictments. Fitzgerald’s legal team did not present the results of a grand jury vote to the court yesterday, which he is required to do within days of such a vote.
But speculation — a lot of it informed speculation — is rampant. For instance, The Hotline has a batch of tidbits including:
From the Los Angeles Times: “One grand juror was overheard telling another juror, ‘See you Friday,’ suggesting the possibility that the grand jury would continue to meet up to the last minute.” .
….And Time’s Mike Allen, who also has some of the best sources in Washington, strongly hinted that WH folks had been indicted, and that we’d learn about them soon.
What’s at stake? The Bush administration is already set to go down as one of the most polarizing in American history. It’s now beset with a host of dilemmas, political crises, and shows little signs of garnering more support among the American public, even if it can bolster its conservative base.
Indictments would raise all kinds of questions and potential consequences such as:
- What happens to its already sagging clout in Congress — particularly if indictments aren’t excused by the American public? Will GOPers try to find ways to distance themselves from the White House?
- If there are indictments, what happens to the broader implications — about how the country was led into war? Will that issue surface and be looked at coolly or become enmeshed in partisan position-taking?
- What happens if officials are indicted? Will they quickly resign, cutting the political losses? Or will there be a clamor for them to resign, thus compounding any potential political damage?
- How will GOPers react? Will they adopt the line some Republicans were testing out — that this case involves an overzealous prosecutor and matters that are really not that important? How will they finesse not just reminders of their position during the Clinton years, but the reams of published and video quotes with ringing phrases about the importance of the rule of law and the evils of perjury?
- If Bush is faced with continued controversy on the Harriet Miers nomination AND indictments, will it influence him to change course on the way he has governed and move more towards attempts to build consensus and ease rather than accentuate national polarization?
In reality, no one knows what the decision is going to be. Maybe there won’t even be indictments. But that seems to be a less likely outcome given the day’s events, as the New York Times notes:
The special counsel in the C.I.A. leak inquiry met for more than three hours with the federal grand jury on Wednesday and later talked privately with the district judge in the case as the White House waited out another day in the expectation of possible indictments.
After the grand jury session, the prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, discussed the case for about 45 minutes in the chambers of Judge Thomas F. Hogan, the chief judge of the district court who has presided over the leak case, said the judge’s administrative assistant, Sheldon L. Snook.
The grand jury deliberations and the special prosecutor’s meeting with the judge ratcheted up fears among officials that Mr. Fitzgerald might have obtained an indictment from the grand jury, and was requesting that it be sealed. He could also seek an extension of the grand jury’s term, which expires on Friday. Randall Samborn, a spokesman for Mr. Fitzgerald, would not comment on the case.
But perhaps the most tantalizing part of the Times piece is this:
A series of interviews by F.B.I. agents on Monday revived the possibility that Mr. Fitzgerald might be considering such a charge. Several neighbors of Ms. Wilson and her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former ambassador, were asked whether they knew that Ms. Wilson, also known by her unmarried name, Valerie Plame, had covert status.
Several neighbors, some who have known her for years, said they did not know before Mr. Novak’s column that she worked for the C.I.A.
“They said they were basically tying up loose ends,” David Tillotson, a next-door neighbor, said of his interview by two agents. “They wanted to ask neighbors how well they knew the Wilsons and whether they knew what Valerie did.”
Mr. Tillotson said he and his wife, Victoria, thought Ms. Wilson was a business consultant and had no idea she worked for the C.I.A.
But, as the Los Angeles Times story suggests, most of what’s being published and discussed now is sheer speculation. The LAT notes that, even in meeting with the judge, there could be several reasons and options.
Meanwhile, some Bush administration supporters who are trying to blunt the impact of these news reports have been arguing several key points. But Media Matters notes that many of these arguments don’t hold up as factual.
And this tidbit from Steve Clemmons, who earlier noted that Fitzgerald had set up a website:
Fitzgerald’s people said that the investigation coming to a close and the website going up was just coincidence.
Well, news has just reached TWN that Patrick Fitzgerald is expanding not only into a new website — but also into more office space.
Fitzgerald’s office is at 1400 New York Avenue, NW, 9th Floor in Washington.
What I have learned is that the Office of the Special Counsel has signed a lease this week for expanded office space across the street at 1401 New York Avenue, NW.
Another coincidence? More office space needed to shut down the operation?
I think not. Fitzgerald’s operation is expanding.
CBS has this from Washington veteran David Gergen:
Former presidential adviser David Gergen told CBS News that “Washington is on a knife-edge today over the possibility of indictments.” He said the possible charges raise major issues for the administration.
“It’s not that the abuse of power here is anything like Watergate or Iran-Contra even,” said Gergen, now the director of Harvard’s Center For Public Leadership. “Rather it is, if indictments come, they may be of the people closest to the president and vice president of the United States. And they will re-open the wounds of Iraq, and people will ask the question, if indictments come, were we led into Iraq by criminal means?”
The Raw Story flatly predicts some key indictments are in the offing:
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….
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….
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.
This report is echoed by a report on another site, Sic Semper Tyrannis 2005, written by Richard Sale, long-time Intelligence Correspondent:
If no action is taken today, it will take place on Friday, these sources said.
I.Scooter Libby, the chief of staff of Vice President Richard Cheney, and chief presidential advisor, Karl Rove are expected to be named in indictments this morning by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald.
Others are to be named as well, these source said. According to U.S. officials close to the case an bill of indictment has been in existence before October 17 which named five people. Various names have surfaced such National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, yet only one source would confirm that Hadley was on the list. Hadley could not be reached for comment.
And the charges?
Although most press accounts emphasized that Fitzgerald was likely to concentrate on attempts by Libby Rove and others to cover-up wrongdoing by means of perjury before the grand jury, lying to federal officials, conspiring to obstruct justice, etc. But federal law enforcement officials told this reporter that Fitzgerald was likely to charge the people indicted with violating Joe Wilson’s civil rights, smearing his name in an attempt to destroy his ability to earn a living in Washington as a consultant.
The civil rights charge is said to include “the conspiracy was committed using U.S. government offices, buildings, personnel and funds,” one federal law enforcement official said.
Other charges could include possible violations of U.S. espionage laws, including the mishandling of U.S. classified information, these sources said.
There’s a lot more, so read the whole thing.
OUTLOOK: Something big is likely to break today or tomorrow. Possibly two White House bigwigs and a few non-White House big wigs will be indicted. The administration then must opt on how to deal with the political and legal fallout. In the past, its defense has been an aggressive offense — and, if that’s the case, the already high level of polarization could go up a few more notches.
UPDATE: The Plamegate case as seen as political sports.
UPDATE II: The Los Angeles Times reports on how the White House will try to deflect the heat if there are indictments, by changing the subject as much as possible and working to insulate the President from any suggestion of involvement. But, the Times reports, there are dangers:
“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.
NOTE: One of the most tiresome and insulting new media cliches is when a reporter says “so and so tried to change the subject” which usually means talk about something other than what the reporter wants. But if you read this Times piece you’ll see they REALLY want to CHANGE the subject.