John Dean, the former White House counsel to President Richard Nixon and a key Watergate whistleblower, now says in a column that after he’s read the Plamegate indictment that came down naming “Scooter” Libby he believes the Bush White House faces a far more serious problem than he thought at first glance:
Now, however, one indictment has been issued — naming Vice President Cheney’s Chief of Staff Lewis “Scooter” Libby as the defendant, and charging false statements, perjury and obstruction of justice. If the indictment is to be believed, the case against Libby is, indeed, a clear one.
Having read the indictment against Libby, I am inclined to believe more will be issued. In fact, I will be stunned if no one else is indicted.
Indeed, when one studies the indictment, and carefully reads the transcript of the press conference, it appears Libby’s saga may be only Act Two in a three-act play. And in my view, the person who should be tossing and turning at night, in anticipation of the last act, is the Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney.
Dean details why he believes Cheney is in the Special Prosecutor’s crossfire:
Federal prosecutors excel at these “plain, concise and definite” statement indictments – drawing on form books and institutional experience in drafting them. Thus, the typical federal indictment is the quintessence of pith: as short and to the point as the circumstances will permit.
Again, Libby is charged with having perjured himself, made false statements, and obstructed justice by lying to FBI agents and the grand jury. A bare-bones indictment would address only these alleged crimes.
But this indictment went much further – delving into a statute under which Libby is not charged….
But, as Fitzgerald also noted at his press conference, great care needs to be taken in applying the Espionage Act: “So there are people,” he said, “who argue that you should never use that statute because it would become like the [British] Official Secrets Act. I don’t buy that theory, but I do know you should be very careful in applying that law because there are a lot of interests that could be implicated in making sure that you picked the right case to charge that statute.”
His further example was also revealing. “Let’s not presume that Mr. Libby is guilty. But let’s assume, for the moment, that the allegations in the indictment are true. If that is true, you cannot figure out the right judgment to make, whether or not you should charge someone with a serious national security crime or walk away from it or recommend any other course of action, if you don’t know the truth…. If he had told the truth, we would have made the judgment based upon those facts….”
Finally, he added. “We have not charged him with [that] crime. I’m not making an allegation that he violated [the Espionage Act]. What I’m simply saying is one of the harms in obstruction is that you don’t have a clear view of what should be done. And that’s why people ought to walk in, go into the grand jury, you’re going to take an oath, tell us the who, what, when, where and why — straight.”
In short, because Libby has lied, and apparently stuck to his lie, Fitzgerald is unable to build a case against him or anyone else under Section 793, a provision which he is willing to invoke, albeit with care.
And who is most vulnerable under the Espionage Act? Dick Cheney…
And he explains why — and then he makes some predictions:
It appears he is trying to flip Libby – that is, to get him to testify against Cheney — and not without good reason. Cheney is the big fish in this case.
Will Libby flip? Unlikely. Neither Cheney nor Libby (I believe) will be so foolish as to crack a deal. And Libby probably (and no doubt correctly) assumes that Cheney – a former boss with whom he has a close relationship — will (at the right time and place) help Libby out, either with a pardon or financially, if necessary. Libby’s goal, meanwhile, will be to stall going to trial as long as possible, so as not to hurt Republicans’ showing in the 2006 elections.
So if Libby can take the heat for a time, he and his former boss (and friend) may get through this. But should Republicans lose control of the Senate (where they are blocking all oversight of this administration), I predict Cheney will resign “for health reasons.”
In other words, if what Dean says is true, what we’ll see over the next few years will be Democrats, independents, and perhaps Americans via opinion polls wanting to get some answers and GOPers being stuck in the position of trying to stall any serious investigation in the hopes that they can run out the clock, get re-elected and keep the mess from coming up in the future.
If that’s the scenario, would it work? It’s starting to feel as if it WON’T.
The reason is that if this is indeed what’s in the offing — and all of this is stricly assumption and scenario — those whose who might try to bottle it up could have problems. It would MUCH be easier if the war was going smoothly, the press wasn’t angry over feeling that perhaps they’ve been too soft on the administration, Democrats hadn’t begun pushing back hard, Harry Reid had retired, and opinion polls were showing Bush & Co with a solid rock of support.
In other words, some of the pillars of power (either due to HAVING power or others NOT EXERTING the potential power they have, thus making those in power more powerful) have now been pulled out from under this administration.
Well, then, wouldn’t Cheney’s popularity pull him through? Hardly.
Poll shows Cheney is less popular than George Bush — seemingly scoring only a few points higher than jock itch and yeast infections.
So IF Dean’s scenario proves true, a huge furor could surround Cheney, great controversy…and Dean’s final part of his solution would make sense. To remove a symbol and make a fresh start, Cheney could resign due to health reasons.
Then whom could Bush pick to replace him? Condi Rice? John McCain? Harriet Miers?
UPDATE: Andrew Sullivan is starting a new Cheney Watch feature — but not for the reason you may think.
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.