New From John Dean

This was just posted at Findlaw.

John Dean has a very interesting, if not altogether encouraging, take on what is coming from Fitzgerald. Some highlights:

Something is going to happen, and, I think, fairly soon. It has been many years since my conversations with well placed friends in Washington have reflected the sort of inside-the-Beltway tension that is now mounting. This tension was not matched during the Whitewater/Lewinsky investigation, nor during Iran-Contra. But it is very reminiscent of the wait for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule in Nixon v. United States - the decision that famously forced Nixon to turn over his secretly recorded taped conversations -- and ended his presidency.

More from Dean below the flip.

While Dean concludes that Cheney could be indicted. He thinks it's unlikely.

While I may be letting the air out of some rising balloons, I think Fitzgerald's silence has fed speculation that postulates indictments way beyond the realistic potentials.

The really big fish in this case is the Vice President. And I have little doubt, based on my knowledge of the case, and of the way Cheney typically operates, that a case could be made against him.

But Fitzgerald is an experienced prosecutor, and that means only if he found himself confronted with an exceptionally egregious case (the equivalent of Spiro Agnew's taking payoffs from Maryland contractors in his Vice Presidential Office), would Fitzgerald consider indicting Vice President Dick Cheney.

Ultimately, Dean seems to be backing off from his view that the Espionage Act is likely to come into play. He feels that national security considerations will deter Fitzgerald and that if indictments are forthcoming, it will be because:

In short, I think the frenzy is about to end -- and it will not go any further. Unless, of course, these folks were foolish enough to give false statements, perjure themselves or suborn perjury, or commit obstruction of justice. If they were so stupid, Patrick Fitzgerald must stay and clean house.

Of course, this is all speculation at this stage, and it seems pretty clear that some indictments will be coming down. Dean is very smart and has been around the block, so I thought it was worth calling attention to his perspective.

•  I'm still in the "nothing these assholes have

  done in the last 5 years has been turned back on them so why now?" camp. I still think they will get out clean and use it to their advantage. I hope not, but what else can you expect?

  by bebacker on Fri Oct 21, 2005 at 07:06:56 AM PDT

  •  Part of me agrees

    but the rest of me wonders if there is a political dimensions to this that will cut the other way. set up for 2006 and 2008 is clearly underway. the people who would take over from this crew do not want to be associated with the mess they will inherit. one good way to accomplish that is a very public backlash specific to the Bush/Cheney crew that tarnishes only them but not the "real" GOP people that will put things right.

    by Seeds on Fri Oct 21, 2005 at 07:13:36 AM PDT

  •  I, too, have that feeling.

    But I'm hoping against hope to be DEAD WRONG!

    by beemerr90s on Fri Oct 21, 2005 at 07:40:53 AM PDT

    •  If only Rove and Libby are charged

      with misleading or conspiracy or whatever, that is nothing. Nothing! Why not the Niger Doc?! This is getting creepy and sad.

      by bebacker on Fri Oct 21, 2005 at 07:48:48 AM PDT

•  Bush becoming NIXON?????

  Did anybody see Jon Stewart comparing the Bono/Bush photo op to the Nixon/Elvis photo op? Rolled on the Floor, Laughed My Ass Off.

  by Buffalo Girl on Fri Oct 21, 2005 at 07:15:02 AM PDT

  •  Doesn't bode well for Bono... n/t

    by DCArchitect on Fri Oct 21, 2005 at 07:32:22 AM PDT

•  Dean could be right.....

  but I hope not.  Actually, I think his argument makes no sense.  

  If Cheney, Libby & Rove had admitted they did it all along, then maybe Dean could be right (yeah, we did it but it was for national security).  But they tried to hide what they did, which shows a consciousness of guilt.

  In addition, if Fitzgerald thought there was an excuse for their actions, would he have sought to put two reporters in jail?  Would he have gotten so many judges to go along?  These same judges cited serious national security concerns, and I think they were talking about the crimes committed, not the defense for those crimes.

  I'm not sure where Dean is coming from.  This quite a turn around from "Worse than Watergate".

  I think Fitz has the goods on them and there is only one way he won't go for it - if he thinks this is too much for the country to take.  Think about it - this scandal implicates both the executive and legislative branches of government, as well as the press.  This is truly the "tectonic plate shifting" that Josh Marshall predicted last year.  

  Is Fitz ready, willing and able to destroy the current government to save the republic?  I hope so.

  by landrew on Fri Oct 21, 2005 at 07:19:01 AM PDT

  •  I'm inclined to agree with you. . .

    though I think "makes no sense" is a little strong. The article is puzzling. My take on Dean's argument is that he expects Fitzgerald to be very restrained about indictments for a mutlitude of reasons, including but not limited to your notion of "too much for the country to take." I also wonder if Dean is perhaps being a bit of contrarian here and trying to lower expectations.

    by MMinNY on Fri Oct 21, 2005 at 07:25:17 AM PDT

•  What am I missing?

  On one hand, Dean seems to indicate that the tension in Washington is rising to Watergate levels, then he seems to say "nothing to see here." Is he just hedging his bets or what?

  hink

  by MrHinkyDink on Fri Oct 21, 2005 at 07:22:46 AM PDT

  •  And I had thought...

    from previous posts, that Dean was a major proponent of the indictment-worthiness of this matter.  It just seems as if he's suddenly veered off-course.  I'm hoping he's writing as an outsider and not as someone with inside knowledge.  All of the "news", "leaks", and "rumors" - seem to be indicating some major DC gotterdamerung.

    It's also hard for me to accept the "country canna take it, Captain" approach.  Fitzgerald has proceeded this far, very aggressively...it's hard for me to imagine his looking at some major breach of national security and turning his back because the country is too sensitive.  

    Who knows, though, eh?

    by mayan on Fri Oct 21, 2005 at 02:25:16 PM PDT

•  Been wondering about this

  Dean commented on Fitz evaluating national security as a component of the conspiracy:

  ...But national security is a very gray area. Was the Bush/Cheney White House operating in the best interest of the country, or did they have a private agenda (oil fields in Iraq)?...

  Has it occurred to Fitz that the Energy Task Force documents, protected so zealously by Cheney, may answer this question?

  I'm surprised Dean didn't mention them, particularly since Cheney protected them under executive privilege.

  by Rayne on Fri Oct 21, 2005 at 07:24:00 AM PDT

•  Ha!

  Dean is saying they ARE taking them all down.  Heh.  Cheney obviously did shit a LOT more egregious than what Dean describes, and CLEARLY everybody perjured themselves and obstructed the investigation with their lies.  This is just a funny little article saying they're all going down.

  by reef the dog on Fri Oct 21, 2005 at 07:27:14 AM PDT

  •  When he said this:

    In short, I think the frenzy is about to end -- and it will not go any further. Unless, of course, these folks were foolish enough to give false statements, perjure themselves or suborn perjury, or commit obstruction of justice. If they were so stupid, Patrick Fitzgerald must stay and clean house.

    That was my conclusion.

    by wrights on Fri Oct 21, 2005 at 07:35:40 AM PDT

  •  Nope

    Here's what he's saying:

    In short, I cannot imagine any of them being indicted, unless they were acting for reasons other than national security. Because national security is such a gray area of the law, come next week, I can see this entire investigation coming to a remarkable anti-climax, as Fitzgerald closes down his Washington Office and returns to Chicago.

    Read: They may have broken the law when they did the hack job on Wilson; but if they can claim to have acted out of national security concerns, they will go scott free.

    Note I don't share Dean's view. I don't think there's any plausible way they could make a case that outing Plame was in the interest of national security. It just doesn't fly. But, like it or not, that's clearly what Dean is saying.

    by brainwave on Fri Oct 21, 2005 at 07:44:33 AM PDT

    •  This admin has used 9/11 and national

      security as a blanket for all of their criminal deeds. there is a reason for it. Any illegal act can be argued away by national security concerns. Hence, no BIG indictments.

      by bebacker on Fri Oct 21, 2005 at 07:52:31 AM PDT

•  Are they that stupid?

  I think you can hardly overestimate the stupidity of this bunch. Did they perjure themselves during the investigation? I'd put money on that.

  by elmo on Fri Oct 21, 2005 at 08:15:16 AM PDT

•  This Is Good To Keep Us Sober

  A lot of us have been getting too giddy, wanting to believe every 'leak' posted on Raw Story.  We've started to believe indictments are a 'sure thing'.

  Although I don't agree with everything Dean says here, I am glad he is pointing out that everyone is getting carried away with speculation.  At best, there is slightly over a 50/50 chance for indictments.  

  by lenlarga on Fri Oct 21, 2005 at 08:56:27 AM PDT

•  Speculation abounds, so I will add my 2 cents

  Fitz has already sent target letters to Libby and Rove.  He will indict them on perjury and obstruction of justice.  He will also use the testimony of lesser known underlings like Hadley and others to throw a conspiracy charge at the whole group. The crime that is the object of the conspiracy will be 1 or 2 Federal statutes covering the protection of classified information having national security import.

  Charging 3-5 people with perjury makes no sense unless there is a context or motive to commit perjury.  The motive was clearly to discredit Wilson by any means necessary.  Therefore, conspiracy is likely in order.  If he got Rove to rat out Libby, it is also possible that Cheney is implicated and could be named as an unindicted co-conspirator.

  Keep one other thing in mind:  the reason that life was breathed into this investigation was because of a ruling by a Republican appeals court which concluded that a serious crime had been commmitted in treasongate and they instructed Fitzgerald to find those responsible and hold them accountable.  They gave explicit backing to anything he might do, and implicitly urged him to err on the side of being aggressive in order to impart a lesson to others.  This is what has created real fear among Republicans.  

  by khyber900 on Fri Oct 21, 2005 at 09:22:24 AM PDT