Skip to main content

Well, we Plamegaters continue to be on pins and needles, waiting for Fitz to drop at least one shoe.  Meanwhile, we seize upon and over-analyze (over-speculate is probably more accurate) every scrap of information that leaks. A good example is the recent Waas piece, which "reported" a previously-known meeting between Judith Miller and Scooter Libby; the only thing new was the actual date, as opposed to "a few days before...." etc.

Now there is something tantalizing from another case. David Corn is pretty excited about the Franklin espionage indictments, because of the implications for Plamegate:

The Franklin indictment is a sign that Rove and any other White House aide involved in the Plame/CIA leak might be vulnerable to prosecution under the Espionage Act.

Corn notes, as have many others, that the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.
was narrowly drawn, and to win a conviction Fitzgerald would have to prove that Rove or any other leaker knew that Valerie Wilson was working under cover at the CIA.

However, Corn argues, that after Franklin, Rove's main worry

is section 793 ["transmission of national defense information"]. Rove did communicate classified information which could be used "to the injury of the United States" to a person "not entitled to receive it."

The reason that 793, the espionage statute, may take Rove down is that
...section 793 does not say a violator must be aware he or she is passing on information that could cause harm to the United States if exposed. It only sets as a criterion that the violator "willfully" communicates this information. I assume that means a purely accidental slip of the lip would not be a crime. But Rove--who told at least two reporters about Valerie Wilson's CIA position--cannot argue he was not "willfully" communicating this information to others.
Fitzgerald seems not to worry too much about ruffling a few feathers when he is on the track of evildoers, so I imagine he will use whatever works. Recent leaks about a Libby/Miller meeting are hard to interpret but a close reading would suggest they come from the Miller camp, and would seem to suggest that Miller is losing sleep in jail; one of the most prominent parts of jail is the noise, lots of yelling going least on the men's side. New odors periodically appear from unknown sources, overlaying the baseline Pine-sol/Ammonia/urine cachet. Hairs from unspecified species show up on your "meal" tray. Sadistic jailors appear on weekends. Many of your "classmates" are manipulative drug users who are not unfamiliar with weapons of personal destruction. Virginia cockroaches don't bite but they are not fun to snuggle up with.  Fitz has certainly informed Miller that is would be wasteful to buy any plane tickets for October.  Public opinion has turned against Miller, and the NY Times may soon do the same. If they release Miller's notes, Miller has nothing to trade for leniency. Speculation that Bush would fire Fitz has cooled. All in all, Judith Miller is holding a losing hand. Her ability to make a deal may be time-limited. Meanwhile Russert, Novak, Cooper, et al are in cooler climes, with pina coladas.

My seat of the pants prediction: Miller will blow up soon, claiming something has changed. For example, she can say that since Libby's identity is now known (having been leaked by her lawyers, heh, heh), maintaining confidentiality is moot. I know, what about ethics? But folks, this IS Judith Miller, after all....

Meanwhile, we are waiting for more morsels.....

Originally posted to seesdifferent on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 08:01 AM PDT.


When will Fitz drop the first shoe

49%39 votes
7%6 votes
7%6 votes
0%0 votes
2%2 votes
24%19 votes
3%3 votes
5%4 votes

| 79 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  tips, favorite jail stories? n/t (4.00)

    Be a Carville, not a Colmes

    by seesdifferent on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 07:52:11 AM PDT

  •  I voted 1 (none)
    simply because I don't think Fitz will be allowed to drop any shoes.
  •  Reporters should start baiting Libby and his att'y (none)
    To pull a Luskin and give Miller an out to testify

    Oh when the frogs. . Come marching in. . Oh when the FROGS COME MARCH-ING IN!

    by pontificator on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 07:59:03 AM PDT

  •  Your first paragraph (none)
    is among the best I've seen on dkos.  The rest is just more over-speculation.  

    Remember that we have zero, zip, nada, nothing from Fitzgerald about what he is or isn't doing.  We have no real idea if he's after Rove (in fact, we have claims that he's not).  All we have is speculation and rumor and based on things that are "obvious".  However, it is also "obvious" that the Iraq war was based on a lie and we are still over there, so I wouldn't count on obviousness to predict what happens next.

    Complaining about the government but failing to run for office (or at least vote) is morally equivalent to cheerleading the war and failing to enlist.

    by RequestedUsername on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 08:02:04 AM PDT

    •  The Franklin Case Is Not Speculation (none)
      The Franklin case is not speculation.  The indictment in the case was unsealed for a while so we know what it says.  It also is significant that the Franklin case is based upon Form 312 (a form that Karl Rove had to sign, too).

      It also is known that the Court of Appeals opinion in the Miller case was redacted to remove the factual information that the Special Prosecutor submitteed in support of his position.  The opinions of the Court of Appeals make it clear that the judges found this factual information compelling.

  •  Having just recieved my very own GJ Summons (4.00)
    I have recently learned that GJ's issue indictments, NOT the prosecutor.  Fitzgerald will never "drop a shoe" since he can't.  But the Grand Jury certainly may, whether or not Fitzgerald is still on the job.

    The fact that Cooper noted the significant number of questions posed to him BY THE GRAND JURISTS in addition to those posed by Fitzgerald indicate a tantalizing prospect of a "runaway" GJ.  It sometimes happens that a Grand Jury outreaches the prosecutor, delving into a deeper and broader investigation than the prosecutor had been pursuing.  Here's hoping that this is just such a jury!

    You're in a bad spot here, Scott...(Terry Moran - 7/11 WH briefing)

    by ovals49 on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 08:41:33 AM PDT

  •  I think that (none)
    I don't think this is simply a few notes and conversations on Miller's part. I think Miller and her lawyer know she did something that will get her prison time and destroy her career if it comes out. Otherwise she would have caved by now.

    If this speculation is true and she's going to deal, she would have to provide Fitzgerald with information that would not only get her out of jail on the contempt charge but also immunity on any other charges Fitzgerald will make. That will probably involve providing the dope on some big names, maybe even bigger than Rove and Libby. Then, she also has to think about some kind of livelihood afterwards. If she brings down all her republican buddies, she'll have no support when all of this is over.

    From Fitzgerald's perspective, he can just wait another month and see what happens. If she caves, he has the information and could even put her on the hook again if she really did do something illegal. If she wants immunity, he can probably hold out for all the big names. If she won't take that deal, she stays in jail and he can do more investigating on his own. If she doesn't cave, he can have the grand jury issue indictments and keep her in jail. He can keep her there on contempt for 18 months. She would be there until after the 2006 elections. But that's a long time to fend off the cockroaches, guards, and bunkmates.

    Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

    by TerraByte on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 10:29:15 AM PDT

    •  Doesn't her GJ expire in October? (none)
      I thought there was some speculation here that Miller is attempting to wait out the current GJ and hope another one isn't empaneled and/or Fitz is fired or 'reassigned'. If she is truly at risk for prison time, wouldn't this be the smart thing to do? Wouldn't Fitz have to question her before the new GJ and then get another contempt ruling from the judge? Doesn't the current contempt ruling by the judge expire with the GJ unless it's turned into a criminal contempt charge? I'm not a lawyer, but my ex-wife was a prosecutor in CA, and I thought this is the way federal GJs work. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
      •  a new GJ must be empaneled (none)
        it is my understanding he can call her again. In any event, he can also charge her with criminal contempt of court, as opposed to the civil contempt charge she is serving for now. I think it is a foregone conclusion that one way or the other, she is either droppin the dime or doin the time.

        Be a Carville, not a Colmes

        by seesdifferent on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 01:05:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site