Skip to main content

Clemons:

  1. 1-5 indictments are being issued. The source feels that it will be towards the higher end.
  2. The targets of indictment have already received their letters.
  3. The indictments will be sealed indictments and "filed" tomorrow.
  4. A press conference is being scheduled for Thursday.

This is obviously rumor. But for those of you who were seeking quantity, remember that quality is better. We know that many of the smaller fry have been flipping, which in turn works to bolster the case against those at the top ultimately responsible for the wrongdoing.

I just want two indictments for Fitzmas: Libby and Rove. The rest, even people like Hadley, would just be window dressing.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 01:54 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
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

  •  YAY! (3.50)

    Phillybits - A Showcase Of Political News And Thought

    by Stand Strong on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 01:50:25 PM PDT

    •  And the lucky five are (4.00)
      Libby, Rove, Hadley, Ari Fleischer and ?
      •  Cheney? Pretty please? n/t (4.00)

        "Ah, you come from one of those Americas. You have my sympathy." - Neil Gaiman

        by PatrioticallyIncorrect on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 01:54:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Wilson seemed to think so last night (4.00)
          Last night I attended a talk Joe Wilson gave at Stanford. He seemed to think that Cheney would be indicted today, and expressed this with considerable certainty before backtracking and using substantially weaker language.
        •  Whatever the opposite of window dressing is... (3.87)
          ...Cheney's it, at least in this context.

          A Cheney indictment for Fitzmas would be like getting a real, live pony for Christmas when you were seven years old.

          It's definitely at the top of my Fitzmas list - if they get Rove, Libby, and please dear Lord, Cheney, I don't care HOW many smaller fry they had to let go, to get them to turn state's evidence against the big boys.

          And the end of the fight is a tombstone white with the name of the late deceased, And the epitaph drear: "A Fool lies here who tried to hustle the East." --K

          by RT on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:02:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Unplug the Defibrilator! (4.00)
          Put Dick in the Dock.
          •  A Judge must be respected (none)
            A Judge you mustn't mock
            Or else you'll be detected
            And shoved into the dock
            You'll get a nasty shock
            When the jailer turns the lock
            In prison cell
            You'll give a yell
            To hear the hangman knock

            Norman Lindsey

            It's the Dishonesty, Stupid!

            by dabize on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:10:01 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  As someday it may happen (4.00)
              that a victim must be found,
              I've got a little list.
              I've got a little list.
              Of society's offenders,
              who might well be underground,
              And who never would be missed.
              They never would be missed! . . . ( G&S, Mikado)

              My personal wish list

              1. Cheney
              2. Rove
              3. Bolton
              4. Rummy (yeah, I know, he's not implicated)
              5. Rice
              6. Libby
              7. Hadley

              anyone more would be pure decadence.

              HomeFromIraqNow Trying to stop the war one signature at a time.

              by RevDeb on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:30:52 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Now about your execution........... (none)
                Will after luncheon suit you?

                Can you wait till then?

                I do hope that it will be something "lingering, but humorous" for them, and I wouldn't mind seeing boiling oil and melted lead, either.

                It's the Dishonesty, Stupid!

                by dabize on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:34:30 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Not yet, he ain't ... (none)
                but are there links (maybe through State and WHIG, or Franklin even?) to Rummy, Feith, and the rest of the Ministry of LoveOffice of Special Plans, or am I barking up the wrong scandal?

                "Do not offend the Chair Leg of Truth. It is wise and terrible!"

                by section29 on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:47:18 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  ..significant votes... (none)
                ..coming in from the place's Hughes last visited asking you add her to the list.  Just passing this on to you. Thanks.
              •  A "4" for the G&S song (4.00)
                He's got 'em on the list--he's got 'em on the list;
                And they'll none of 'em be missed
                they'll none of 'em be missed !

                "Let him that would move the world first move himself." --Socrates

                by joanneleon on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 03:10:03 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Bush would be in hell (none)
                out there all by himself, having to ad lib and think off the top of his head.Remember Chevy Chase doing the few monologues of "The Chevy Chase Show"? Like a deer in the headlights. Its the worst punishment you could give Georgie except maybe a stop loss tour on the frontlines in Iraq.

                "Patriotism is loving your country always and your government when it deserves it"-Mark Twain

                by fool me once umm on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 05:12:25 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Patrick Fitzgerald, the Mikado... (none)
                My object all sublime
                I shall achieve in time--
                To let the punishment fit the crime--
                The punishment fit the crime;
                And make each prisoner pent
                Unwillingly represent
                A source of innocent merriment!
                Of innocent merriment!

                Seriously, I could totally see Bush as Pooh-Bah, all arrogant and strutting until he is put in moral peril, when he suddenly becomes fawning and pathetic.  Oh yeah, Bush doesn't believe in evolution:

                 POOH:
                    Don't mention it. I am, in point of fact, a particularly haughty and exclusive person, of pre-Adamite ancestral descent. You will understand this when I tell you that I can trace my ancestry back to a protoplasmal primordial atomic globule. Consequently, my family pride is something inconceivable. I can't help it. I was born sneering.

        •  Correct me if I am wrong (none)
          But can Cheney legally be indicted?
          Because he is the VP, can he claim Executive Privilege but then face charges upon leaving office? Or can they get him now criminally?

          America was not built on fear. America was built on courage, on imagination and an unbeatable determination to do the job at hand-Harry S. Truman

          by wishingwell on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:09:07 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Yes! (none)
          It's about time for Dick to "leave to spend more time with his family."

          "The delusional is no longer marginal..." --Bill Moyers

          by queen crab on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 03:29:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I'm wondering about (none)
          that leak that just came out about Libby's notes verifying that he first found out about Plame directly from Cheney.  

          What was the reason for that leak and who leaked it?  Could it be that the prosecution did so to prepare the public and media for a possible indictment of Cheney?

      •  I think Libby flipped! (4.00)
        Replace Libby with Cheney.
        •  Something else Clemons said earlier: (4.00)

          This just in from a close friend who worked inside the pinnacle of Republican power in the Senate a few years ago, so while this is rumor -- it's Republican rumor, which makes it interesting:

          Steve, just heard from trusted friend that McCain was approached about serving as VP if Cheney has "health problems" or otherwise steps down.
          Beyond that, speculation that Miers will step down to be replaced by a Bork-like sub (even better, Bork himself...). In other words, Cheney takes a bullet, a titanic battle over SCOTUS ensued to change the subject. You didn't hear this from me, but feel free to pass on such unsubstantiated rumors.

          •  Oh, Hell yeah! (4.00)
            The one way we can beat McCain in 2008 is to make sure he's smeared with BushCo slime. Being the sitting Veep is one way to make sure that happens.

            Bush is the Disaster President: Iraq--He Lied & People Died; Katrina--He Clowned Around While People Drowned

            by el ganador on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:05:55 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  damn, a half full guy! (4.00)
              I read it half empty. Way to look on the bright side!
              •  yup (4.00)
                there's no upside for McCain in that senario--not unless Bush is planning on resigning.  

                To his virtues be very kind, to his vices very blind.

                by Jonathan Schwartz on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 03:33:18 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Right, what McCain as Veep says (none)
                  is that Bush hissownself is in trouble, and the Rep establishment is looking to McCain as a white knight to save the reputation of the Republican party. That's the only case I can see McCain doing it in where it's a net-positive for him. Inheriting Bush's mess with Bush still in the Oval is a lead balloon on any prospective '08 candidate.

                  Bush is the Disaster President: Iraq--He Lied & People Died; Katrina--He Clowned Around While People Drowned

                  by el ganador on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 03:39:11 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  I agree (none)
              I posted this a few times last week.
              And if Allen is the nominee, that stands a better chance as he is a HUGE Bush supporter and just as bad as the Bushco people.
              The scary thing about Allen is that he comes off as even more charming than Bush with somewhat more intelligence. I guess one of the Conservative magazines featured him on last week's cover as the Frontrunner for the Nomination. But if McCain beats him out because the GOP decides to go with an anti Bush, we have to be sure that in the General Election, we come out loud and clear and link him with Bush.
              But something tells me, Allen will get the nomination. I think the GOP will continue to nominate and back the right wing radical, pro Business, Pro Chicken Hawks.

              America was not built on fear. America was built on courage, on imagination and an unbeatable determination to do the job at hand-Harry S. Truman

              by wishingwell on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:12:20 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Allen: Please No (4.00)
                And as I have posted before, if you think Bush is an airhead, Allen's cranial cavity qualifies as a vacuum chamber. This man defines banal and inane.

                First hand knowledge from a VA Dem.

                •  Oh God! (none)
                  Then let us hope Allen is not the nominee.
                  As he could be as bad if not worse than Bush if that is possible. And can you see his campaign appealing to football fans as well as Nascar fans and being Mr. All American..blah , blah..more of that insane campaign BS.

                  America was not built on fear. America was built on courage, on imagination and an unbeatable determination to do the job at hand-Harry S. Truman

                  by wishingwell on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 04:19:31 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Plus... (none)
                  he can't make a point unless it is wrapped in a football metaphor.
              •  Still doesn't get him much (none)
                The scary thing about Allen is that he comes off as even more charming than Bush with somewhat more intelligence.

                Zero plus zero is still zero.

                Another member of the Lucky Sperm Club.  Allen, despite somehow graduating from law school, has to be one of the stupidest people in the U.S. Senate.

              •  Allen is not an idiot (none)
                He will not accept the VP job. He has a good chance of securing the republican nominatin in 2008. Serving as a VP under a G.W.B with 40% approval rating will only affect his chances in a negative way.
              •  I agree (none)
                I think McCain is a real long shot.  The GOP is controlled by two movements--social cons and, whatever the Kristol types are called.  Reaganites?  Neither of them like McCain all that much.  If Allen is the nominee, I think the GOP of finished for a while.

                To his virtues be very kind, to his vices very blind.

                by Jonathan Schwartz on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 03:37:27 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  " even more charming than Bush" (none)
                Interesting choice of words, given that a stump is more charming than Bush. And Kossacks aren't generally known for finding Bush to be remotely charming.

                What's the clangor and the clamor? Throw BushCo in the slammer.

                by MissAnneThrope on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 04:20:42 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  damn right (none)
              mission #1 of '08 will  be connecting the repub nominee to Bush.  

              I can't understand why their not pushing Allen?  Maybe they think McCain would replenish their political capital.

              To his virtues be very kind, to his vices very blind.

              by Jonathan Schwartz on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 03:31:52 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  In that case the proper Dem response (4.00)
            is to refuse to consider any nominations until the full extent of the Administration's criminality is exposed.
            •  sounds like (none)
              an 'extraordinary circumstance' to me........
            •  This is interesting! (none)
              Is this constitutionally permissible?  

              I think that any leverage the Dems may have to lance the boil of this administration's corruption must be used.

              And as long as it is within what the Constitution contemplates as far as balance of powers, I don't see that it can result in any kind of constitutional crisis.

              If the indictments do deliver a real body blow to the administration, there will be a sense of shock and awe, and the tendency will be to want to resolve things as soon as possible and restore a sense of leadership and order.  This is also extremely important.  

              But at the same time, if there are constitutionally permissible strategies that the Dems, and failing them, the People, can adopt that promote real truth-telling, those are the paths I'd like to urge our reps to follow i.e.: a "no-rug" strategy (as in - nothing to sweep the dirt under).  

              Reality addict - can't get enough of seeing it all clearly

              by writeout on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:54:43 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The key is to lance the boil of (4.00)
                the false perception of the Administration's legitimacy. Fitzgerald is certainly doing that, with respect to the hoaxes that led to war (though we don't know the details yet). Democrats in the Senate can simply refuse to consider any nomination from the White House until the full extent of the treason is revealed.
          •  gop gets mcain out of way in senate 2 push evil (none)
            •  think the wingnuts went crazy on Meirs, hold (none)
              on to your pants if McCain gets nod.

              'Though McCain would be great irony, having been slimed by Rove. Maybe too hand writing on the wall in August 29th, that's why he was eating cake with Bush while NO drowned. Coulda said something.

              Let's stop feeding greed. In fact, propose we make it a commandment: The greedy shall not be fed.

              by idredit on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:50:43 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  ...really, now... (none)
                ...can you actually see McCain functioning with that crowd for even a week without blowing a gasket?  If he agrees, I'm certain he'd ask for others to step aside and bring some of his own staff along.  These guys really do not like each other much, to put it lightly.
                •  dunno about that (none)
                  Steve Clemons TWN reported today "McCain was approached about serving as VP if Cheney has "health problems" or otherwise steps aside"

                  Now Clemons  is well connected and his sources are considered credible.

                  Let's stop feeding greed. In fact, propose we make it a commandment: The greedy shall not be fed.

                  by idredit on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 07:41:44 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Promises ... (none)
            Cheney must have been promised something for campaigning for bush in '04.  I think it must have been quiet support for his 2008 presidential candidacy.  This could be early payment.  

            Power corrupts. Again.

            by Bob Love on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:50:15 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  no way (none)
              Bush would have never given that.  I think it was more like a promise of no opposition from the Bush people.  Anyway, I wouldn't be surprised if McCain did it on his own to undo the damage of his flirtation with the Kerry people early in the campaign.

              To his virtues be very kind, to his vices very blind.

              by Jonathan Schwartz on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 03:43:04 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Brings up a good question... (none)
            Regardless of how speculative.... If McCain became VP...how would the "Gang of 14" fare?  

            Although the masters make the rules / For the wise men and the fools / I got nothing, Ma, to live up to. (Dylan)

            by teedz on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 03:09:05 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  I gave you a "4" for luck. n/t (none)

          "We have too many high-sounding words, and too few actions that correspond with them." Abigail Adams 1764

          by greeseyparrot on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:06:29 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Sealed indictments (none)
          mean Libby hasn't flipped but Fitzpatrick thinks he will for the next grand jury. I'd hate to be Cheney's cardiologist.
        •  could be (none)
          O'Donnell recently predicted that it would be three senior officials and one very senior official.

          To his virtues be very kind, to his vices very blind.

          by Jonathan Schwartz on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 03:29:06 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I would prefer (4.00)
        Libby, Rove, Hadley, Bolton and Cheney and with
        unindicted conspirator going to Bush.

        Then Lord I would be happy again.

        Don't blame me, I am still trying to figure out what is on the Blue dress :) eaglecries

        by eaglecries on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:12:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I wish it was (none)
          Rove, Libby, Cheney, Rummy and Rice
          ( I think in addition to Bush, these are the 5 axis of Evil and the big players ). But this is one case where probably Rice and Rummy are not involved. ...sigh.

          America was not built on fear. America was built on courage, on imagination and an unbeatable determination to do the job at hand-Harry S. Truman

          by wishingwell on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:14:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Mitchell, and Dean (none)
        and Nixon...

        Maybe the fifth will be unindicted.

        •  "Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Mitchell, and Dean... (4.00)
          it follows a pattern, if you know what I mean"--Gil Scott-Heron, "I Beg Your Pardon, America, but the pardon you gave was not yours to give", as he dubbed Gerald Ford "Oatmeal Man."

          Gil was right on, and it rings pretty true 30 years later...

      •  Indictment does not equal one defendant (none)
        ...well, apparently.   Posted in response to another diary, there was a comment which clearly indicated each indictment can name one OR MORE defendants.

        Let's hope.

      •  the fith is ... (none)

        Hitler?

        maby not,it must be DeWine? DeWine-DeLay.. Wine and Lay...where does that end? of cause in the Bush. umm So it is Bush.

        "Dean supporters don't drive 200 miles through 10 inches of snow to see a representative of his staff, they drive that far to see each other."

        by New Sweden on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:55:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I want Cheney. (none)
        Rove and Cheney. If it's not Rove and Cheney, my heart will break.

        "Lies, lies, lies, ye-ah... they're going to get you." --The Thompson Twins

        by modchick65 on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 06:13:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I'll believe it... (4.00)
      When I hear it from Fitzgerald. I'm tired of the gleeful "Fitzmas" atmosphere.
    •  Sealed indictments (4.00)
      That's interesting.  Presumably, public redacted versions will be made available on Thursday or there isn't much point in both filing indictments under seal and having a press conference.

      My guess is that there's classified information in those indictments.

      •  The death of a CIA agent/asset would qualify (4.00)
        for that level of secrecy.  It's what this whole thing's been about from the beginning.

        The rhetoric of the right wing is being fixed around the policy of disinformation.

        by MoronMike on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:08:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Probably the CIA's list (none)
        of Plame's contacts that have had fatal car accidents.
      •  Read below. (4.00)
        He could simply announce the five sealed indictments and that he's filed a motion with Chief Judge Hogan asking for his grand jury's term to be extended.

        Read below on the value of sealed indictments.

        If this rumor is true, Fitzmas will be late this year but will be the best Fitzmas ever.

        The Chimperor Has No Clothes

        by DC Pol Sci on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:13:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  PlameGate (none)
          PlameGate

          Oh the tangled webs politicians weave, Nixon had his Watergate, Bush Plamegate. Dirty political tricks of investigations, truth of prosecutors trickling public.

          Secret gossiping of destroying character, passing secrets to liberal papers reporters, for then they can blame the liberal press. Conservatives then jumping up to defend the CIA. Surely, some Democrat passed secret info. But sadly it is Bush's secret inner circle, damage control for the White House aides, saying they was innocent of deceiving us.

          How much more lies within the Iraq plan? How much deceit have they dealt America? Poker hand of marked cards of dishonesty, can they all take national security lie detector tests?

          Character assassinations of McCain, others, Texas six shooting get down dirty politics, Judge Roy Bean style of American justice, Guantanamo dictating of international law.

          Now it is time for the public media to arise, finding the truth within our secret government. Demanding our questions be answered in truth, for the weapon of mass destruction lies here. If lies are condoned in our constitutional values.

          The more secret a politician becomes, the more they have to hide in deceit, and the harder they fall.

        •  How long? (none)
          How long can the grand jury's term be extended?

          "This...this is the fault of that Clinton Penis! And that powermongering wife of his!"

          by CaptUnderpants on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 04:01:09 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  former prosecutor - sealed indictments (4.00)
        Are not revealed to the target, the evidence is not revealed (although both the names and the broad evidence usually comes out).

        The purpose is to continue the investigation while "banking" indictments to crimes you already know were committed.  It means there will be a new GJ and more investigation.

        Indictments are sealed for a set period (60 days I think) but the seals are extended as a matter of course until the total investigation is over.  Fitzmas may be waaaaaaay off now, maybe not even before the 06 elections.  So, we should hope, that if they are sealed, the info leaks or Fitz cleans it all up by the summer.

        •  So why the press conference? (none)
          If the point is to keep people in the dark, why say anything?
        •  presser (none)
          So the press conference would be to announce that he's extending the grand jury, then, I suppose?
        •  Well, someone better leak the $&#&@ names! (none)
          I don't want to wait #$@@&$ 60 days to open my Fitzmas presents! I want 'em NOW!

          No animals were harmed in the making of this comment.

          by Shiborg on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:27:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  patience, young jedi (4.00)
            Fitz knows what he's doing.

            If he thinks the best way to get the biggest charges is to lay down sealed indictments and extend the grand jury, then we should ALL support him.

            Look at it this way... would you prefer a Libby/Rover perjury/obstruction charge NOW, or would you be willing to wait a year to see Cheney charged with espionage?  I don't know about you, but my fingernails will keep on growing back as I chew them off, and I'll take the wait.

            "Mr Pres, what's your opinion on Roe vs Wade?" "I don't care how they get out of New Orleans!"

            by Leggy Starlitz on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:38:20 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Given your rant . . . (none)
            Would you take an oompa loompa instead?

            The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice. Martin Luther King

            by Cracker on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:48:29 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Why are these people getting (none)
          target letters, as has been reported?

          Don't you get target letters only if you are going to be called before the grand jury again?

          •  Target letter (none)
            is not a statement of indictment.  It is just letting them know they are being investigated.  

            However, if they indicted are taken into custody (i.e. arrested) then obviously they know they have been indicted.  But (I am pretty sure about this, honestly I never left a defendant hanging) there is no requirement that they be taken into custody other than limitations periods for the crimes.

            Most likely, however, the prosecutor would call in the indicted people and seek to make deals.

        •  jesus (none)
          you've got to be kidding.  

          Let me get this straight: you're saying sealed indictments aren't revealed to the defendents?  Or are you saying that its only revealed to the defendents and to no one else?

          To his virtues be very kind, to his vices very blind.

          by Jonathan Schwartz on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 03:51:15 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I would be overjoyed with sealed indictments (4.00)
          ..and willing to suffer 6 more months of sleepless night and strained eyes and type A fury raising my blood pressure if it means that Fritz will extend his investigation....

          So far this is the only game in town toward getting the evil cabal responsible for putting the US into this unholy mess which includes not just killing thousands of Americans but 10's of thousands or more of Iraqis and making the symbol of the US a picture of a hooded prisoner suspended in the air with wires attached to him.

          The senate gop majority has proved unwilling and the dems unable to investigate the dozens of plainly visible clues and leads into this war conspiracy and the poeple who created it...

          The only prayer we have left of rounding up the entire traitorous crew, connecting all the dots and house cleaning DC is the law, how far it can take us and what Fritz might have that will allow him to continue.

      •  bingo! i think he got it. (none)
      •  does anyone know if the Grand Jury heard the (none)
        classified stuff--and are they allowed to share that info after the grand jury is closed?

        To his virtues be very kind, to his vices very blind.

        by Jonathan Schwartz on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 03:46:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Of course the indictments are sealed (none)
        How tacky would it be to give unwrapped Fitzmas presents?  We have nice shiny Fitmas presents wrapped in nice shiny Fitzmas paper.

        And even better, with sealed indictments, the media will go ballistic.  The media gone ballistic may even do more to undo the Grinch (mis)administration than the actual indictments.

        Living proof that not every Southern white guy is stupid enough to vote Republican.

        by SouthernBlueNeck on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 04:33:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Indictments are always sealed (none)
        before they're filed.  They become public when the defendants are actually charged in open court.

        Not a big deal.

        •  Correction - "May" Be Sealed (none)
          Rule 6(e)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides as follows:

          4) Sealed Indictments. The federal magistrate judge to whom an indictment is returned may direct that the indictment be kept secret until the defendant is in custody or has been released pending trial. Thereupon the clerk shall seal the indictment and no person shall disclose the return of the indictment except when necessary for the issuance and execution of a warrant or summons.

          My experience is with state court, where indictments were almost always sealed until the defendant appeared in court.  In any case, I don't think the fact that indictment/s in this matter are/may be sealed has much significance.  

    •  what about BUSH and Cheney (none)
      If Libby and Rove both flipped, we could have this result: BOTH Bush and Cheney indicted.

      We need two witnesses to the conspiracy involving Bush and Cheney. As it stands, we know Libby flipped on Cheney. We know Libby was also close to the President, and probably kept Bush in the loop, too. (Hear Libby mention his responsibility to the President around the 7:15min mark in this 2002 interview with Diane Rehm.)

      My gut instinct tells me that Rove knew the "get out of jail free card" was his to play a couple weeks ago. Rove went into the grand jury room under a lot of legal jeopardy, and he knew it...

      I'd quite happily settle for just those two indictments, Bush and Cheney...

      "[I]n all due respect to your profession [journalism], you do a very good job of protecting the leakers." -- Bush on Oct 7, 2003

      by QuickSilver on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 03:14:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Overreaching (none)
        The Bush crime family would never go down over something like this. They're like a stage IV cancer that needs much more aggressive therapy. But Rove and Cheney would be a good, healthy start.

        "The delusional is no longer marginal..." --Bill Moyers

        by queen crab on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 03:41:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  yeah that if anything is certainly true (none)
          The kind of institutional support Bush has always relied on is still there.  That will always be his fall back.  Bush will never be indicted--never.  Fitzgerald has to know better than that.  

          To his virtues be very kind, to his vices very blind.

          by Jonathan Schwartz on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 03:55:39 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Not Possible... (none)
        A sitting president cannot be indicted for conduct during office.  Period.  He is essentially the personification of the executive branch.  The President must be removed from office FIRST (impeached, then convicted) before any criminal action is possible.  That's why Ken Starr issued a report...not indictments.  You don't think he wanted to?

        This doesn't apply to a VP...as noted in posts above.  A VP can be indicted, as Spiro Agnew was.

      •  Rove would never flip... (none)
        ... he owes his existence to the Bush family.  I can't see Scooter flipping on Dick either.

        My own 2 cents: Libby is indicted on obstruction of justice.  Hadley will plea bargin and take an indictment, but on lesser charges.  Fitz is going after Bolton, and Fleisher flipped on Bolton to avoid being charged.  

        Prediction:  Libby, Bolton, with Hadley on a lesser charge.

        The big question is whether he gets Rove.  My instincts tell me that Fat Karl has covered himself pretty well and that Cheney's staff will be decimated, leaving Rove in place. I sure hope I'm wrong.

        •  I believe Rove is a coward (none)
          to the core of his being. And yes, we KNOW Libby has flipped -- he gave his notes to Fitz, right?

          I think things will get leveraged up against Bush soon enough, perhaps through impeachment. But I believe Bush will ultimately fall because of this.

          "[I]n all due respect to your profession [journalism], you do a very good job of protecting the leakers." -- Bush on Oct 7, 2003

          by QuickSilver on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 06:13:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  LOOK AT CLEMONS!!! (none)
      From Talkleft, via Clemons at The Note...

      RUMORED....
      Cheney to resign
      McCain to step in
      Miers to back out
      Bush to nominate a knuckledragger to take the heat away...

      it's all HERE

      http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001029.html

  •  Cheney (4.00)
    Does the higher end mean Cheney?
    •  I sure hope so (4.00)
      ohboyohboyohboyohboyohboy!

      Phillybits - A Showcase Of Political News And Thought

      by Stand Strong on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 01:51:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  No, I think it (4.00)
      means the higher end of the numbered spectrum, as in closer to 5.

      I couldn't tell if you were being snarcy there or not, so I decided you weren't :)

      Whatever and Ever, Amen - Ben Folds Five

      by shelbyGT on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 01:52:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I think it means closer to 5 than 1 (none)
      •  Oh, I get It.... My Bad (none)
        I was so excited I guess i misread it.
      •  Yeah, But (none)
        it could mean one person with 5 indictments.

        "I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him." Bush on Osama-3/13/02

        by chuco35 on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:00:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  One person multiple charges (none)
          Now that's a interesting take - the prosecutor slams one of the insiders (Libby?) - making him the fall guy for the whole bunch of conspirators.
          J

          If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. (Romans 12:18)

          by JStrader on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:12:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  No. (none)
          An indictmennt can list several crimes. So, I assume one person per indictment. This is from this via TWN

          "The indictment lists the crimes the defendant allegedly committed and describes the facts the government believes support those allegations. It is a roadmap to what the prosecution intends to prove at trial. Grand jury indictments are returned to the district court - usually to a magistrate judge - in a sealed court hearing. Indictments generally are unsealed after a defendant is arrested."

          •  You're Right (none)
            Each of the 5 people would have an indictment with multiple counts within each indictment - treason, perjury, obstruction, and rape of the country, for example.

            Thanks for the correction. Now, who would the five traitors be -- Rove, Libby, Bolton, Wurmser, and, and, and, Chaney.

            "I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him." Bush on Osama-3/13/02

            by chuco35 on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 04:04:10 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  asdf (none)
      I read it as the higher end of 1-5, meaning closer to 5 indictments than 1.
    •  Kind of hoping no on Cheney... (4.00)
      I'd rather see everyone around Cheney fall, but I'd rather not see him resign. I'm not sure about the logistics of filling a new VP slot, but I'd rather not have it be a launching pad for a Presidential campaign (Condi, for a far out example).

      I'd rather keep to the crooks that we know.

      ...Whirlpools whirl, and dragnets drag...

      by dss on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:03:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  good point (4.00)
        As much as we loathe Cheney and with good reason, someone like Allen as VP, or McCain could be a problem as they could use this as experience ( to offeset the Senator running for President curse) towards a nomination. As we know the GOP will support a VP running before anyone else.

        America was not built on fear. America was built on courage, on imagination and an unbeatable determination to do the job at hand-Harry S. Truman

        by wishingwell on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:18:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Cheney being crippled and exposed (4.00)
        in lurid and damning testimony could occur regardless of whether or not he's indicted.

        The entire amoral cabal will be on trial, in a sense,no matter who's pasty overfed face is actually on the stand.

        And who knows what might come out in testimony, especially if the hot breath of a conviction starts bothering the neck of a fall guy.

        I'm the ultimate pessimist.  And I'm getting encouraged.  I think it's safe to hope.

        And for the metaphysically inclined, remember, a whole group of really angry Vodoun priestesses have Bush Inc in their radar following the New Orleans debacle  : )  Hey, I'm open to all help!

      •  Reason to hope Cheney not indicted (none)
        If paired with a resignation, Bush would probably get away with pardoning him.

        At that point, pardoning the people below Cheney then becomes more understandable at some level.

        Should any be pardoned? Absolutely not, particularly when coupled with the likely lack of follow up by Congress.

        I just don't see Bush letting Cheney be put on trial.

        •  Bush will be sure to do whatever is best for (none)
          himself first.  Everyone else, everything else is a far second for this Fortunate Son.  Hell, if 2000 dead soldiers and who knows how many others dead or maimed in his little Iraq adventure don't bother him, do you really think Cheney rotting away in prison would?? (hmmmm. doesn't bother me a damn bit)  

          "What do I want? Absence of mood swings and some stability in my life" -L. Simpson

          by FindingMyVoice on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 03:42:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  However, getting Cheney out ASAP would (4.00)
        be good for the country and the world: thinking about all the saber rattling going on with Syria and Iran.

        If you could stave off the neocon grand schemes of "reshaping the Middle East" then the political risks of a new VP are worth it, in my opinion.

      •  Anyone who becomes VP... (none)

        has the problem that all of the Bush mistakes become their mistakes.  As VP, they have little power to correct any of them unless this person can influence Bush to change policy, but we all know how stubborn Bush is.

        Anyone thinking that being a replacement VP is a stepping stone to the WH might want to consider that it could also be the 1st step into a big bucket of hot tar.

      •  Eh (none)
        I hope that if the Vice President of the United States committed treason, he be indicted.

        Politics be damned.

        -- E pur si muove.

        by asdfasdf on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 05:05:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Misunderstanding.... (none)
      ....I think there is a misunderstanding about the number of "indictments" versus the number of defendants, meaning, persons indicted. A single indictment can name an entire gang, involved in a criminal conspiracy. Defendants can be named individually, provided, I think, that there is some common scheme to the crime. The NUMBER of indictments is irrelevant, unless the source is also misusing the term "indictment" and means to indicate the number of defendants instead.

      "What luck for rulers that men do not think." - Adolf Hitler

      by Bensdad on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:30:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  He's dead to us now (none)
      Scrowcoft is talking about Cheney:

      He said he had once considered Vice President Cheney "a good friend," but "Dick Cheney I don't know anymore."

      Meni, midi, mici: the writin' is on the wall.

      Kossacks: a large population of Medieval exegetes who each day grapple with the fabulistic opportunities of the early third milennium.

      by DCDemocrat on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 03:27:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Are you saying (none)
        that the Repubs are starting the kiss of death routine for this Fredo Administration?

        My pet peeve is people with pet peeves

        by Blue the Wild Dog on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 04:11:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  for Cheney at least (4.00)
          though Scowcroft was hard pressed to say anything good about Bush at all.

          Kossacks: a large population of Medieval exegetes who each day grapple with the fabulistic opportunities of the early third milennium.

          by DCDemocrat on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 07:10:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  mene, mene, tekel, parsin (none)
        "Mene, God has numbered the days of your kingdom and brought it to an end; Tekel, you have been weighed on the scales and found wanting; Peres:  Your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians." - Daniel 5:25-26

        Works for me.

        "The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation." - Pierre Trudeau

        by fishhead on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 04:43:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Whig (none)
    Whatttta about whig???
  •  The envelopes please- (4.00)
    And this generations co-winners for leading assholes in the state are....

    "I went down yesterday to the Piraeus with Glaucon the son of Ariston..." -Socrates

    by polnorth on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 01:51:49 PM PDT

    •  keep in mind that they are SEALED (4.00)
      what does that mean? It means this: http://www.davidcorn.com/archives/2005/10/sealed_indictme.php

      >>"Two words we should think about: sealed indictments." That was said to me by a trustworthy Washington reporter who has been covering the Plame/CIA leak case. He wasn't making a prediction; he was raising a possibility. It could be that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald might choose to file sealed indictments before the grand jury expires at the end of next week. That would mean that the names of the indicted would be unknown to the public--unless the information leaked.

      Why would Fitzgerald do this? Perhaps he has not finished investigating. It could be that recent developments--Judy Miller's testimony, Karl Rove's return to the grand jury, the Daily News story that indicates Rove and George W. Bush discussed the leak (and Rove's involvement in the matter) two years ago--have provided him additional leads to chase down. (The Daily News story--see the items below--does raise important questions.) In such a case, Fitzgerald might want to bank several indictments, impanel a new grand jury, and keep digging. This is--needless to say--speculation. But anyone waiting anxiously for indictments should keep this scenario in mind.<<

      Mother Nature are Terrorists

      by donailin on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:05:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Please be the higher end (none)
    I think I'll be glued to the TV the next couple of days!!!!!!!
  •  Thursday press conference + Halloween = (4.00)
    Five day Fitzmas Holiday weekend.  
  •  going down (none)
    Holla, holla, holla.  We still have to wait 2 more days.  karl and scooty better start learning how to make a shank out of a toothbrush. could the VP get one?  that seems like the wildcard to me.
  •  re (4.00)
    I hope the whole Cabal gets CHENEYED!

    Steve Holt says "Steve Holt!"

    by cookiesandmilk on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 01:52:24 PM PDT

  •  Higher end of 1-5 or in the admin? (none)
    I need to know!
  •  Oh My god, I can't stand the suspense (4.00)
    Yeah, oh hip hop hurrary!!!

    Pro-Choice and Proud of It!

    by powwow500 on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 01:52:27 PM PDT

  •  Wednesday (4.00)
    If both the indictments are announced and the Sox win the World Series on Wednesday, it just may be the greatest day of my life.

    I am an ILL State Assassin. Legalize Qualo. Those in Chicago - listen to Boers & Bernstein on 670 AM The Score 2-6 M-F. You'll be glad you did. Vote Hackett

    by Larry Horse on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 01:52:29 PM PDT

  •  DiggityDang (none)
    Diggy-diggy dang-dang!

    Let's DO THIS!!

    Mother Nature are Terrorists

    by donailin on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 01:52:40 PM PDT

  •  May be right - may be wrong (none)
    But the information content is zero, and the speculation content is 100%.  

    Think of what the DC gossip columnists' e-mail boxes and phone logs must be like at the moment:  filled and smoking with tips from "uber-insiders".  But like the weatherman, do they just have a 50% chance of being right?  

    I say we should hold off on these speculative and "hot" posts until there _is_ a press conference.

    sPh

    •  Josh Marshall Posted this... (none)
      Quote:

      Steve Clemons reports that the target letters have been received, indictments to be filed tomorrow, press conference Thursday. Steve sources his post to an "uber-insider source", and I'd call it quite a fair description.

      Unquote.

      He'd call it "quite a fair description". I guess he knows the source.

      How readily you become slaves - Augustus Caesar

      by mftalbot on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 03:53:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  SEALED??? (none)
    So, we don't get to know what's in them????  Do we at least find out WHO is charged and WHAT they are charged with???? I'm not well versed in criminal legalese, but if someone can explain what all this means, I'd appreciate it. I mean, what will we get to know, and what won't we get to know?
  •  why? (4.00)
    who got a blowjob?
  •  So worth the repost (4.00)

    Phillybits - A Showcase Of Political News And Thought

    by Stand Strong on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 01:52:58 PM PDT

  •  Where? (none)
    Is the Rove Frog Marching picture?
  •  Please please let it be 4 or 5 (none)
    I assume the # of indictments equals the # of indicted people.

    3 would be:

    Rove
    Libby
    Cheney

    Who would be the other 2 ?

    Bush
    ? ? ?

    I will, excuse the phrase, achieve orgasm if Cheney and-or Bush are hauled off.

  •  Time for some bubbly (4.00)
    I need to have the girl go out and pick some up to make sure it's nice and cold for tomorrow.

    I'm thinking something French, just to spite the neocons even more.

  •  sealed indictments... (none)
    does that mean the details, i.e. who is indicted and what they are being charged with, won't be released for some time?
    •  Yup. (4.00)
      It also means the investigation isn't over yet.  You seal indictments when you are trying to get people to squeal.  They know they've been indicted; nobody else knows.  You, the prosecutor, have leverage:  if they give you what you want, you dismiss the indictment and indict the bigger fish.

      Bargaining leverage.

      If true, it is exceptionally good news, but Fitzmas will be delayed.  Since he already has more than enough to hang Rove and Libby, there is only one possible interpretation.

      The Chimperor Has No Clothes

      by DC Pol Sci on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:06:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  "nobody else knows"--even in DC? (none)
        I would predict that we'll know who is named in those sealed indictments within two weeks of them being filed.

        Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work, and then they get elected and prove it.

        by David J on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:14:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  If it leaks... (none)
          ...it won't be from the court, and it probably won't be from their lawyers, since the whole point of the sealed indictments is to not let the public know the person has been indicted to try to get them to turn state's evidence.

          The Chimperor Has No Clothes

          by DC Pol Sci on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:27:15 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  p.s. -- (4.00)
            But if you want a prediction from a guy with a year of law school, 15 years in Washington, and a thoroughly inside-the-Beltway mentality, there will be rumors flying all over the place, with the non-indictees under huge amounts of pressure wondering if someone who has the goods on them is one of the people named in the sealed indictments and thus whether they're about to go down.

            In terms of Bush administration officials starting to squeal and leak and piss all over each other, it may actually be better than Fitzmas.

            Sealed indictments mean even more nut-cutting time than open indictments.

            The Chimperor Has No Clothes

            by DC Pol Sci on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:34:19 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  it is called "hardball" big time! (none)
      •  Fitz is the master (none)
        no wetness behind the Fitz ears. Has played more than a few gangsters against each other.

        "Fitz, don't fail me now !!" ~~Mantan Moreland, bug-eyed actor in "King of the Zombies", 1941

        by seesdifferent on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 05:28:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  what time tomorrow? (none)
    if they come tomorrow, will we hear tomorrow or Thursday? I know no one here really knows...but maybe they do...hmmmmm......

    "Decisions that send men and women to die should not be made in a secret way." Lawrence Wilkerson

    by missreporter on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 01:53:31 PM PDT

  •  asdf (none)
    Anyone seen Cheney around lately?  If the targets have received their letters, then they will be huddled with their lawyers right now.
  •  Big Yay! (none)
    But Thursday? The one day I actually get to get something accomplished this week without a 1 year old tearing around here, argh!

    Curious to see what kind of spin starts coming out of the Blight House tomorrow. Thank [insert deity here] for at least the beginning salvo of justice.

    •  Orange alert! (none)
      Fitz is throwing Shrubya a bone - gives him a day to throw out an Orange alert and seem presidential!
      •  Funny... (none)
        ...early this morning as I was trying to summon the energy to get out of bed, approximately 6 jets flew over (northern tip of Manhattan) at 3 minute intervals - very low & loud - the same sounds we heard so often right after 9/11. I was thinking "The indictments have come down, the country is on red alert for a terrorist attack, the airports are on lockdown, and the military jets are patrolling the skies!" Then I turned on the radio and no mention was made of indictments or low-flying planes.    
  •  Gulp... (none)
    I'm not sure I can hold my breath that long.

    Please five....or ten....do I hear 20!

    No, don't be greedy...where's my remote...what's Kos got?....somebody tell me something already!!!

    To help pass the time:

    New on EWM: White House Sets Job Fair

  •  Lucky 5? (4.00)
    Libby, Rove, Cheney, Bush, Bolton. Maybe there is some karmic force that does exist in the universe.
  •  Wow. (none)
    I take three minutes to write a diary, and it's already on the frontpage and in two other diaries.

    ~slumps off to delete diary~

    hehe just kiddin .... Happy Fitzmas everybody!

    So do you think those who got letters today will start talking tonight?

    Conservatives love America like four-year-old kids love their mommies. -Al Franken

    by leftilicious on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 01:56:12 PM PDT

    •  the tension level is so high (4.00)
      that I think the info will leak like a sieve.

      if target letters are already in people's hands, then their staffers know, and they have probably been told to inform a communication tree of people so that the GOPropaganda machine can start getting its spin together.

      by tonight a lot of people will know and someone somewhere is going to send a fax or an email that our side will find out about.

      my bet is that we will know who the indicted people are well before the time of the press conference Thursday.

      All I want for Fitzmas is my country back.  I'm disappointed at 5 instead of 22 for a number of indictments, but so long as Karl Rove is one of them everything else is icing on the cake.

      Any hope left for unindicted co-conspirators at the very top?

      Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.

      by TrueBlueMajority on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:06:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Argh! (none)
    He has to have the press conference the one day this week I have meetings and can't watch it live? :: whimper ::

    Do sealed indictments mean they're delivered sealed tomorrow and opened, or announced, by Fitz at the press conference...or do they stay sealed for some unspecified amount of time?

  •  Sealed: bleah (none)
    I'm pretty sure if they are sealed then all we will know is that there are indictments, not for who or what.

    However, if the letters have gone out, then there is a large number of people for each target person who know what's going on with their principal (staffers, lawyers, friends/relatives, etc).  I'd imagine they will start leaking.

  •  As Fred Sanford would say (4.00)
    "This is the big one, Elizabeth!"  I might have to unblock Faux News from my cable box if this news is true.  

    "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." -Abraham Lincoln

    by Dr Van Nostrand on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 01:57:03 PM PDT

  •  Rumors, rumors, rumors (none)
    On Ed Schultz's show today, he said he heard a rumor that McCain was approached about being VP is Cheney has to step down for 'health' reasons.

    This seems like a fake rumor the right would start, but I'm so excited about all of this I can't contain myself.

    •  Did you hear Gergen on "Ed?" (3.88)
      David Gergen said, paraphrasing, that no way does this CIA Leak scandal rise to the level of Watergate, meaning Watergate was much worse.  Excuse me???  A two-bit break-in followed by a coverup is a bigger deal than (1)lying us into war, (2)outing a NOC CIA agent, (3) in so doing, wrecking a WMD-hunting team that had taken years and years to build, (4) probable conspiracy among top White House officials to penalize a war critic, and (5) probable perjury and obstruction of justice to prevent all of this from unraveling?  

      Uh, right, David.  What did they pay you for that one?

      •  I had the same reaction (none)
        and wondered if he was reciting talking points because he stumbled quite a bit. I don't know much about him.
        •  Gergen is generally well-respected... (4.00)
          ..and very credible.  The dude has worked for, what, four presidents?

          But boy, did he blow THIS one.  If Treasongate is what most of us think it is, it totally trumps Watergate.

      •  Nixon's lies (none)
        and his administration corruption did not result in invading another country. Granted, Nixon continued with Vietnam and lives were lost but we were there all ready. In this case, all of this involves Iraq and the needless loss of life of not only our own military but thousands and thousands of innocent civilians.

        America was not built on fear. America was built on courage, on imagination and an unbeatable determination to do the job at hand-Harry S. Truman

        by wishingwell on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:26:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Bombing of Cambodia... (none)
          was Nixon & Kissinger's crime against humanity and who knows how many innocent civilians died. Maybe you're a young person and didn't know that??

          Really, really sorry if I sound snappish. The stress is getting to me! I think I'll take the suggestion above and do Tylenol PM tonight...

          •  But that isn't what Watergate was about.... (none)
            It was about Nixon making sure he got re-elected, by gathering as much dirt as he could on his opponents.  It had little or nothing to do with Vietnam, unless you count the Ellsberg/Pentagon Papers aspect, which led to The Plumbers..but by the time the Watergate story broke, the Pentagon Papers had been published and were old news.
          •  I stand corrected (none)
            As now I do remember, you are right..I am not too young, time just had a way of me forgetting that. But I still maintain this is all worse than Watergate.

            America was not built on fear. America was built on courage, on imagination and an unbeatable determination to do the job at hand-Harry S. Truman

            by wishingwell on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 04:16:05 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I do agree (none)
              I agree with you that this is worse than Watergate, and the cabal is more evil, and the potential seems more terrible.

              I was just quibbling because Nixon was evil too and so many people died...and it seemed bad then too because we didn't know how it would turn out!

              I have this depressing feeling that we (Americans) never learn anything at all.

      •  will it's gergen! what else can you expect? (none)
    •  Allowing Janet Napolitano (none)
      to appoint a Democrat to the Senate in his place?  I highly doubt it.

      "If you [just] wanted to reduce ignorance, you could ... abort every Republican baby in this country, and your ignorance rate would go down."

      by Major Danby on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:09:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Ed Schultz's rumor is also (none)
      reported on The Washington Note.  Steve Clemons attributes it to "a close friend who worked inside the pinnacle of Republican power in the Senate a few years ago".
  •  Froggie went a callin' he did ride, uh-huh (4.00)

    You go to war with the indictments you can prove, not the ones you'd like to prove. -Billmon

    by Joon on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 01:58:48 PM PDT

  •  Plame Affair Endgame-Let's Make a Deal... (none)
    The Bush Administration demanded total loyalty from the people and the press on the war.
    Now, as the Plame affair enters its endgame, the conspirators turn on each other in clusters,
    like those aspens...They are loyal to no principle, no law, and no country. Will Bush next appear with Cheney's head on a pike, a tribute for 2,000 Americans dead in Iraq?
  •  People should know what Fitz did in the Ryan case (4.00)
    Gov. Ryan was not indicted until 59 people had already been convicted!  Ryan was the 66th person charged in the case.

    So Fitz may indict a few now, flip some and get Cheney and Bush later.  He might get Cheney right now and Bush later.

    The Ryan case shows us how he works.

    The indictments don't conme all at once--and the Big Cheese is always last.

    "I submit that the citizens of this state expect honest government from the secretary of state or the governor," U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald said during a news conference this afternoon at the Dirksen Building in downtown Chicago. "They deserve nothing less."

    ...

    The 91-page indictment charges that lobbyist Larry Warner, a close friend of Ryan's, collected cash from state vendors and landlords and funneled it to Ryan and another lobbyist. Warner already has been charged in the case and has pleaded not guilty.

    The indictment also charges that Ryan himself directed payments totaling more than $300,000 to prominent lobbyist Donald Udstuen, who earlier pleaded guilty to corruption charges.

    "It was cronyism, where contracts were given to people acting on inside information," Fitzgerald said.

    ...

    The investigation, dubbed Operation Safe Road, initially focused on bribes exchanged for licenses for unqualified truck drivers when Ryan was secretary of state. It expanded into a broader investigation of political corruption that snared several of his top aides and associates.

    "It was not opened up as an investigation of George Ryan, it was opened up as an investigation of licenses for bribes at the secretary of state's office," Fitzgerald said.

    Fitzgerald said today was the last day that the current grand jury was impaneled.

    Ryan became the 66th person charged in the investigation; 59 people and his campaign committee have been convicted so far.

    Former Gov. George Ryan indicted

    •  Good Lord... (4.00)
      This could carry on well into 2006.  I knew it could be big, but I guess it really hadn't occurred to me that it could be BIG.

      OK, enough excitement for one night.

      •  2006 though... (4.00)
        Could help the Democrats even more with the November election. That means people will not forget. That is my positive spin of the day.
        Let it take us into 2006, all the better for our Democrat candidates.

        America was not built on fear. America was built on courage, on imagination and an unbeatable determination to do the job at hand-Harry S. Truman

        by wishingwell on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:28:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Might add that Fitz can extend the Grand Jury (3.66)
      In fact, he can extend it another 18 months.  Walsh took seven years on Iran Contra!

      These indictments might just be the beginning.  If they are sealed, we would likely be looking at that.  Flippin Fitz would need the time for Flippin Neo-Cons.

      Hey, can we categorize Neo-Con Flipping as a manufacturing job like burger-flipping??

    •  Absolutely right (4.00)
      This is exactly what he did to Ryan.  This plus the fact that it is true that the indictments will be sealed, this is better than Fitzmas, we have all died and gone to heaven.  This means indictments in place plus an ongoing investigation to snare bigger and better fish, i.e. BUSH and CHENEY.
    •  Cronyism... (4.00)
      man if he goes after this bunch on THAT he'll be sealing indictments until he's 80 years old.
    •  He charged 66 people in one investigation? (none)
      Damn.  Fitzgerald sure thinks big, doesn't he?
      •  Ryan convicted by public opinion before indictment (none)
         
        Ryan was believed guilty by most Illinois residents years before the first indictment.  He was so toxic that Dubya turned Illinois blue by merely declining to fire him during the 2000 campaign.  Five years later, Ryan got his chance in court.

        (It should be noted that this is an indication of Dubya's loyalty to underlings -- he effectively consigned a large, contested state to the Democrats to stand behind his campaign manager, Gov. Ryan.  A red Illinois would have made Florida irrelevant in 2000.)  

        Fitz is only 44, so if anything the limit on his investigation will be Dick Cheney and Karl Rove's health, not his own.

        Democrats countering the partisan meme can note that Fitz has also been lavishing attention to the Daley Administration in Chicago.  

    •  I love Fitz. (none)
      He is a genius.

      "Lies, lies, lies, ye-ah... they're going to get you." --The Thompson Twins

      by modchick65 on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 06:59:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Don't pay too much attention to quantity (4.00)
    My dissapointment led me to look up the Larry Franklin indictment.  It had 5 counts and 3 defendants.  I diaried it here if anyone wants to check it out.  Made me feel better.
    •  Thanks, Cousin Vinny (none)
      I asked about this in another diary before this one made the front page.
    •  just a quick primer on indictments (4.00)
      there are several types of indictments, actually.

      A "duplicitous" indictment is an indictment charging more than one offense per count (i.e. 5 instances of perjury)

      A "joint" indictment charges two or more people with the same offense (i.e. conspiracy involving 10 people)

      There is also the possibility of a "barebones" indictment, just setting forth the statute violated (doubt he'd use that)

      Now here's my question.  When an indictment is 'sealed', no one can disclose that the grand jury has returned an indictment. So if they are sealed, what will Fitz say on Thursday?  "No comment"?  It doesn't seem consistent.

      •  Are you sure? (none)
        He can't even announce that the grand jury has returned sealed indictments?  I haven't taken the second half of criminal procedure...

        He may, then, only announce that his investigation is continuing and that he has asked Chief Judge Hogan to extend the term of his grand jury...

        The Chimperor Has No Clothes

        by DC Pol Sci on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:43:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Georgia is correct. (none)
          Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)(4):
          Sealed Indictment.

          The magistrate judge to whom an indictment is returned may direct that the indictment be kept secret until the defendant is in custody or has been released pending trial. The clerk must then seal the indictment, and no person may disclose the indictment's existence except as necessary to issue or execute a warrant or summons.

          Something doesn't add up.

          The Chimperor Has No Clothes

          by DC Pol Sci on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:47:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  He might say... (none)
        ..."I filed x number of sealed indictments." and walk off the stage.  Fitzgerald is not a prosecutor who plays to the cameras.
      •  Here's my question (none)
        and it's a self centered one.

        I have $250 on the Tradesports.com bet for Rove's indictment.  The language of the contract says "Rove indicted before 12/31/05".  Now, if the indictment's sealed and Rove's been indicted at year end, but no one knows it, what happens to the contract?

        Hey, I want Rove indicted and I want to make some money on it, too.  Is that so wrong?

        By the way, the contract is still trading at about 60% odds, no real change today, which is kind of strange.

        "He not busy being born is busy dying" - It's Alright, Ma (I'm Only Bleeding)

        by chicagochamp on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:54:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I say we smoke (none)
        one of them there "joint indictments" on Thursday night!!

        He may look like an idiot and talk like an idiot but don't let that fool you. He really is an idiot - Groucho Marx

        by AlyoshaKaramazov on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:56:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks g10 (none)
        So the "superseding" indictment in the AIPAC case was a "duplicitous joint indictment" probably incorporating earlier indictments (hence "superseding")
  •  My only regret (4.00)
    The indictments might draw attention away from tomorrow night's Iraq war vigils. The death toll now stands at 2,000 American soldiers killed in Iraq, and there will be vigils around the country tomorrow evening.

    American Friends Service Committee list of locations (more than 400):

    http://www.afsc.org/2000/all_locations.php

    MoveOn.org location finder (more than 600):

    http://political.moveon.org/event/events/index.html?action_id=29

  •  no. of targets per indictment? (none)

    I read on another diary here, that a single indictment can contain charges for more than one person.

    For example, one indictment for crime A, with persons P, Q, R, and S indicted for that crime in the one indictment.

    Is that correct or incorrect?  And if it's correct, is it commonplace or unusual?   Input from attorneys here eagerly welcomed.  

    Also, can an indictment of the sort referred to above also contain unindicted parties, for example unindicted co-conspirators?  

    Clarifications on points of this type can help to get our expectations on a realistic footing.

  •  Five (4.00)
    Cheney Cheney Cheney Cheney and Cheney

    That's five by my count. If it's only one, then Cheney. If it's two, then Cheney and Cheney... well, you get the idea.

    (Or Rove, Hadley, Libby, Fleischer, and Cheney in that order, with an unindicted W)

  •  On the outside (4.00)
    I am sober, calm, reflective and to some degree sombered by the potential that yet another president's administration will likely cause us to bear yet another national disgrace.

    But on the inside, I'm yelling GOTTCHA!! GOTTCHA!! GOTTCHA!!! as loudly as my inner child can muster.

    The New York Times: All the news that's fixed to print

    by GOTV on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:00:57 PM PDT

  •  TONIGHT (4.00)
    The night when Bushie grabs his bottle of Jack and starts talking to the portraits on the walls ala Nixon.....
    •  Yeah! (4.00)
      Reports are coming out, according to some of the news I saw last night, that Bush is increasingly irritable and having outbursts. I think one Aide reported that Bush would just look over his glasses and stare at someone he thought was wrong or dumb in a meeting. NOw he strikes out and is very moody. Also, there are rumors of fights between Cheney's staff and Bush's staff and Scooter and Rove almost going fisticuffs.
      And then someone said that there is a rumor that Bush and Rove are fighting and Bush is pissed at Karl..

      America was not built on fear. America was built on courage, on imagination and an unbeatable determination to do the job at hand-Harry S. Truman

      by wishingwell on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:32:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Has Tweety (none)
    Started off the show with this?
  •  Quick primer on sealed indictments. (4.00)
    Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(4)

    Sealed Indictments. The federal magistrate judge to whom an indictment is returned may direct that the indictment be kept secret until the defendant is in custody or has been released pending trial. Thereupon the clerk shall seal the indictment and no person shall disclose the return of the indictment except when necessary for the issuance and execution of a warrant or summons.

  •  1-5 Indictments? (none)
    Is this the number of charges, or is this the number of people who will be indicted? Scooter Libby could be indicted on multiple counts (perjury, conspiracy, etc.).

    So is it multiple counts against 1 person, or indictments against multiple individuals?

  •  Ok, So the big boys are going down. (4.00)
    Now what?  We can either delight in the downfall, take our eye off the ball, and lose 06...

    OR

    Lament the poor state of affairs in Washington, work our tails off, win back the House and Senate, and start impeachment hearings...

    AND

    Commit to ourselves and fellow citizens to never, EVER allow an "Emperor's New Clothes" mentality with ANY Democratic administration:  the accountability moment is EVERY MOMENT.

    Peace out, God bless, and keep your fingers crossed for the Cheney frog march!

    Pray for my Beloved Country

    by lubarsh on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:02:14 PM PDT

    •  good point (4.00)
      Democrats have to emerge from this with a clear message offering a positive, good alternative to the Republicans. The Republicans can look corrupt but we need to persuade some of those lifelong Republicans who are not right wingers that they have a place to go and be welcomed. We need to offer the swing voters and Independents and moderates a place to go. We do not have to lose our progressive principles but show why progressives are not nut cases and not radical.

      America was not built on fear. America was built on courage, on imagination and an unbeatable determination to do the job at hand-Harry S. Truman

      by wishingwell on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:35:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Freepers (4.00)
    Freepers are probably betting on:

    Wilson, Plame, Miller, Clinton, and Clinton. A lot of them really believe that Wilson and Plame are the leakers, Miller just cause she is a "liberal" "journalist", and Clinton and Clinton just cause Fitzgerald should be investigating real crimes like Blowjobs, Whitewater, and Travelgate cause they just been investigated thoroughly enough.

    •  Oh, I am SO looking forward... (none)
      ...to reading the inevitable Reporting From The Dark Side that will be found here after those indictments are handed down :)
    •  LOL! so true (none)
      Freepers are hoping somehow Clinton persuaded his adopted brother , Georgie, through Papa Bush..to tell Rove and Scooter to leak like a faucet..LOL..

      America was not built on fear. America was built on courage, on imagination and an unbeatable determination to do the job at hand-Harry S. Truman

      by wishingwell on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:36:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Uber-Insider Source? (none)
    Steve Clemons attributes this report to an "uber-insider source."  Anybody got any idea who that might be?
  •  people or charges? (4.00)
    Is it five PEOPLE getting indictments, or 5 charges for one or more people? It could be two people (ROVE, LIBBY) with a total of five charges.

    Reading the posts by Josh on the Italian forgery articles, and the Wilkerson thing in the LAT has made me much less celebratory about this justice coming down. I'll be relieved, but the extent of the corruption is just SO BAD I am losing my Fitzmas spirit altogether. There's something very depressing about seeing it so baldly spelled out and confirmed, even though I've known to a large degree that this was what was going on.

  •  I, Richard Cheney, (4.00)
    shall resign the Vice Presidency, effective at noon tomorrow.  President Bush will be sworn in as Vice President at that hour in this office.

    As I recall the high hopes for America with which we began this second term, I feel a great sadness that I will not be here in this office working on your behalf to achieve those hopes in the next 2 1/2 years. But in turning over direction of the Government to President Bush, I know, as I told the Nation when I nominated him for that office 6 years ago, that the leadership of America will be in good hands.

    •  sounds good... (none)
      But something within me worries that a presidential nominee could be among Darth Cheney's replacements ala Allen or someone like that ...who is looking towards 2008..that is troublesome.

      America was not built on fear. America was built on courage, on imagination and an unbeatable determination to do the job at hand-Harry S. Truman

      by wishingwell on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:38:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Hoping for something Tectonic (none)
    An obstruction charge isn't going to be sufficient fuel for any major fire.  But I hold out hope Fitz's decisions hinge more on the damage assessment than how someone's behavior fit into the legal code.  As I see it, that's the wild card here.  If rumors on damage assessment are accurate, then these charges can't be dismissed as a technicality.

    My chief concern is Kay Bailey's statement.  I can't believe she would be out there saying what she has been saying if she did not have fairly solid information that the indictment would be for obstruction and the damage assessment would not be in play.

  •  5 sounds about right ... (none)
    Based on what we've heard from the lawyers and others ...

    From the VPs office ... Libby, Hannah, Wurmser
    From the White House ... Rove, Hadley

    ... possibly with Cheney as an unidicted co-conspirator.

    •  Hannah and Wurmser have already made deals... (none)
      so I don't think that they would be indicted more likely they would admit guilt to offense X and then receive a sentence in exchange for flipping. So I am not certain they would have to be indicted.
    •  there is nothing to prevent Cheney (4.00)
      from being indicted.

      Personally, I think he will be indicted.

      You go to war with the indictments you can prove, not the ones you'd like to prove. -Billmon

      by Joon on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:15:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  May keep us waiting longer (none)
    According to David Corn, sealed indictments would "mean that the names of the indicted would be unknown to the public--unless the information leaked."

     That would only add to our frustration and speculation.

  •  The Right wing machine (none)
    Will start roaring and ripping as soon as the shit hits the fan. From NY Daily News "Team Bush was finalizing its campaign to discredit and undermine special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's conclusions, sources told the Daily News."
  •  I WANT CHENEY! (4.00)
    Please, God, give me Cheney....

    "I ain't no stinkin' monument to justice."

    by menodoc on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:07:05 PM PDT

  •  Josh seems to know Steve's source (none)
    From TPM:

    Steve Clemons reports that the target letters have been received, indictments to be filed tomorrow, press conference Thursday. Steve sources his post to an "uber-insider source", and I'd call it quite a fair description.

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

    by pontificator on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:08:23 PM PDT

  •  Take Step Back -- (none)
    I want just want the guilty people indicted -- no matter what their names are

    Libby, Rove, Hadley, Cheney, Worsmer, Hannah

    Whoever

    It's the law. Not the name.

  •  Justice web site (none)
    In just the past hour the web site that I have refreshed all day blinked..........
  •  Bill Kristol on Dailly Show (none)
    Im sure people have talked about this already but he flat out said that he thought indictments were coming.  He was distancing himself from it and could only muster that Bush was a "pretty good president."

    I think we need to destroy this meme as well because the revisionists will want to say that Bush meant well, did some good things and had a few bad eggs in his administration.  Step one, i think is to say that if the indictments come, bush is done with getting anything done.  Not only because his political capital will be spent, but in a functional way, his entire way of doing things (bullying, lying, etc) has been exposed.   Rove and Cheney are out of business and criticize them all you like, they did get some things done- evil things- but things done nonetheless.  Who will get anything done now?

    "If he who bases his hopes on human nature is a fool, he who gives up in the face of circumstances is a coward." -Albert Camus

    by jcbhan on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:09:42 PM PDT

    •  Comparisons (4.00)
      Hitler wasn't all bad.  Afterall, he liked puppies.
    •  Precisely (none)
      As I can see the right wingers saying that Bush is innocent, naive, not so smart, was taken in, was used, was a victim of Rove, Cheney, Et al...where in reality, we all know nothing was done without Bush's knowledge. Bush may escape punishment but it will still be hell for him as long as the pressure is kept on and people turn away. Now we have to link all of these to Republicans and do not let them escape as remember in 76, people were scared off of Republicans but in 80..went back in record numbers and since.

      America was not built on fear. America was built on courage, on imagination and an unbeatable determination to do the job at hand-Harry S. Truman

      by wishingwell on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:42:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  someone should put Buffy (none)
      ..on Bill Kristol..if anyone needs a wooden stake thru his heart Kristol does.
  •  Ooooh! I can hardly wait! (4.00)
    It's like knowing you've got presents under the tree and you can't even go and shake them!

    Remote controls? Check.
    TV ready to go? Check.
    VCR ready tto go with fresh tape? Check.
    Radio on NPR? Check.
    Frankenbot's browser open to dkos? Check.

    I can't wait!

    Maker's Mark for toasts?  Better run out and get some more. (Better to be over than under prepared I say!)

    Oh, Fitzmas Day,
    Oh, Fitzmas Day,
    We're waiting for you eagerly!

    "I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts." Will Rogers.

    by Rogneid on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:10:24 PM PDT

  •  5 is good, (none)
    45 would be better! It all depends on who's getting them and for what !
    I thought the right always favored the Law'n Order crowd ? I guess now they're the "no laws and disorder bunch" !

    Rich people make money using other peoples money... Republicans start wars using other peoples children.

    by fedupinca on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:10:42 PM PDT

  •  Questions (none)
    What does it mean that the indictments are being "filed" tomorrow?  Does that mean they are presented to the grand jury?  Or has the grand jury already returned sealed indictments, and the "filing" tomorrow is just an administrative matter?

    Any prosecutors out there who can put Steve's info in to plain English?

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

    by pontificator on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:14:02 PM PDT

    •  here's the procedure (4.00)
      1.  Fitz presents his case to the grand jury.
      2. They decide whether to "Return" an indictment.
      3.  The indictment is read in open court.

      Now, after that, it depends.  If Fitz moved to seal, then the indictment is sealed and no one knows they jury indicted.

      But, with respect to your "filing" question.  Unless required by statute, indictments don't have to be  "filed".  They are effective the moment they are read in open court.

      Filing basically means, when it gets handed to the court, it gets literally filed, and the defendant gets notice and all that.

      Returning and filing, for our purposes, are likely simultaneous i think.

      •  However.... (none)
        ...of course, if it's going to be a sealed indictment, it will NOT be read in open court.  I have been in court when sealed indictments have been read.  They lock the doors, put something over the windows, and only the prosecutor, the judge, the courtroom clerk, the court reporter (that's me...court reporter in the process of transformation to lawyer) and possibly one of the judge's law clerks.

        The Chimperor Has No Clothes

        by DC Pol Sci on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 06:08:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  What about this spin cycle: (none)
    Cheney & Cabal, Inc. get indicted, Bush comes up with a load of b.s. about how he has to wield the Big Broom, big fat clean-up and installs a V.P. who spends the next three years running for 2008 Prez?  Which could obviously be McCain, and there we are.

    That's one theory, and one that really takes the glee off all this jubilant celebration.  Can anybody make me feel better?

    That's one small step for man, and one giant %#&* air for mankind...

    by mogulking on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:15:11 PM PDT

    •  I Don't Know... (none)
      I think that could be a problem, but the inverse is possible too. Any potential replacement VP would have to think about being tarnished by Bush & Cheney if they accepted.

      McCain couldn't run as an outsider, and triangulate between the Republicans & Democrats if he was the VP.

      •  add to that (none)
        the fact that there is no love lost between Bush and McCain after what Bush did to him during the 2000 primaries.

        You go to war with the indictments you can prove, not the ones you'd like to prove. -Billmon

        by Joon on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:28:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Nixon/Agnew redux... (4.00)
        ...if Cheney's indicted, he'll resign, maybe McCain is chosen (I still like Giuliani for various reasons).  The GOP meme will be whomever is veep is a step toward open government, can't possibly be tainted with the corruption brush, etc., etc., and will probably then be tasked with "cleaning house"  The surprise will be when Fitz finally finishes up his investigation  a little less than a year from now, directly implicating Bush.

        Look for the new veep who's been "investigating" on his own to also find concrete evidence deep in the bowels of the WH that directly pins this all on Bush and his cronies.  The new veep will have by then assumed the mantle of leadership in the public's and press's eyes and may even himself call on Bush to resign.

        Bush will be forced into resignation by the GOP faithful in a moment worthy of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar (with the new veep as Brutus), just in time for the midterms, the GOP will pin all negatives on Bush and Congress will distance itself big time, pledging undying loyalty to the new prez, and allowing the GOP to maintain control of Congress in '06.

        New prez will have a 2 year incumbency advantage for '08, plus the opportunity for reelection in '12, giving him an effective 10 year term.

        People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

        by viget on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:30:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  In a way.... (none)
          If Cheney goes, as delightful as that sounds, the RNC will be spouting the new VP as the answer to all its problems.....and that could be a problem.
          Remember Ford, that election with Carter was too close for comfort. Ford criticized Nixon and fled from that administration but his only big failure that led to his demise was pardoning Nixon.
          So what is scarier this time is no doubt Bush will serve his term and the  NEW VP will not do any pardoning and have blood on his hands.
          Maybe we are better off seeing Cheney twist in the wind for a year or two longer..as I am afraid the new VP will come in trying to be the Saviour of the Party..and that is bad.

          America was not built on fear. America was built on courage, on imagination and an unbeatable determination to do the job at hand-Harry S. Truman

          by wishingwell on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:45:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  New VP/prez doesn't have to pardon right away... (none)
            ...sure some people will go to jail (maybe even Rove), but you can bet that the trials of the big fish like Cheney and Bush will end up in the SC, after years of delay.  Presumably there will be arguments on how witnesses can testify against Bush and Cheney, how far executive privilege goes with document requests, etc, etc. especially if the identity of a "killed" NOC CIA agent is central to the case.  These trials could well go on past a decade, by which point Cheney will likely be dead, and the public will have moved on.  If Bush's still in hot water, the prez, whenever his term is up, will pardon him, once there are no political consequences.

            I predict neither Cheney or Bush will ever see the inside of a jail cell.  Hell, Kenny Boy's still at large, right?  Does he even HAVE a trial date set yet?

            Rove, however, that's another story.

            People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

            by viget on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:53:47 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Of course... (none)
          ...under the constitution (22nd Amendment), a president can serve no more than ten years total.  Therefore, it can't work the way you said it would-if Bush resigns before January 21, 2007, the new president could only run for one additional full term.
          •  Not necessarily true (none)
            The XXII says that you can't be elected President more than two terms, or one if you've served more than two years of someone else's term.  Hence, the common claim that you can't be President more than ten years.

            However, there are other ways to become President than via election (and hopefully we'll be seeing one soon as a result of all these Republican shenanigans).

            The XXII says nothing about eligibility to be President, only about eligibility to be elected President.

            One could, theoretically, become Vice President any number of times (via appointment or even via election - the XXII says nothing about the VP, and the XII merely says that the rules for eligibility to be President carry over to eligibility to be VP (such as being 35 years old).  The XII says nothing about rules of eligibility to be elected President carrying over to eligibility to be elected VP.  

            But even if you interpret XII as saying that rules for eligibility to be elected carry over from the President to the VP (which, again, a strict reading does not warrant), there is still no rule saying that a two-time elected President cannot be appointed VP, and thereafter (theoretically) become President again (upon the elected President's death or resignation, for example).

            It's certainly quite possible that the courts would decide against this, but again, reading the Amendments strictly doesn't really warrant them doing so.

            -- E pur si muove.

            by asdfasdf on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 04:58:37 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  This is Bush we're talking about here (none)
          He'll probably nominate the family gardener.

          "The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation." - Pierre Trudeau

          by fishhead on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 04:48:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Hopefully, voters will be really "done" (none)
        with this party no matter who is the V.P.  Would we want to vote the Shrub's "babysitter" to Prez?  Perhaps that's far-fetched, unless the Dems do something really stupid like run Hillary.  

        That's one small step for man, and one giant %#&* air for mankind...

        by mogulking on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:31:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Uh that could happen (none)
          Hillary could very well be our candidate and if the Republicans run someone who succeeds in charming the pants off the electorate and convincing them they were taken in by Bushco and fooled, we could be screwed.
          But I will remain optimistic and not think about that.

          America was not built on fear. America was built on courage, on imagination and an unbeatable determination to do the job at hand-Harry S. Truman

          by wishingwell on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 03:11:09 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  And besides being on the squeeky clean clean-up (none)
        crew, he will have extricated us from Iraq, which one couldn't fail at being successful at, no matter what the outcome for Iraq.  A regular hero, landslide.  The question mark would be the economy, which has been driven off a cliff and "some assembly required," beyond anybody's policies or abilities.

        That's one small step for man, and one giant %#&* air for mankind...

        by mogulking on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:40:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Worked great for Gerald Ford (n/t) (none)
      •  how true. (none)
        There's no knowing, yet, how deeply the stench of this permiates the oval office. Also, we don't know, really, how Bush is going to react. A good deal of the nasties that Nixon tried out happened after the Watergate investigation was underway. It's possible that the Texas Cowboy might step from one cowpie into another and, eventually, have to ride away into the sunset.

        I suspect part of the reason he's not releasing the Meiers papers is because there is stuff relating to George and this particular mess in them.

      •  Having worked for the Carter Campaign (none)
        That race was still tight and too close for comfort coming down the stretch.

        America was not built on fear. America was built on courage, on imagination and an unbeatable determination to do the job at hand-Harry S. Truman

        by wishingwell on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 03:12:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  former CIA analyst Mel Goodman on Democracy Now (4.00)
    here's a link to the interview:
     http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/25/1412248
    Mr. Goodman says the real issue is not the leak but taking the country to war on lies and that Fitzgerald's the real hero doing the work that should have been done by congress and the press
    •  how telling it is... (none)
      ...that a US Attorney is a better investigative reporter on Iraq than the NY Times' chief reporter on Iraq.

      Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work, and then they get elected and prove it.

      by David J on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:31:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  We know that is the larger issue and cotnext (none)
      But as to the Plame case, it is what is a crime that can be proven under the law.

      cheers,

      Mitch Gore

      Nobody will change America for you, you have to work to make it happen

      by Lestatdelc on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 03:22:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I totally, absolutely (none)
      agree with Goodman....we have a coup being carried out by the law because the responsibility to the constitution and democracy in the house and senate is non existent.

      The press I no longer expecr anything from, they are nothing but corporate whores, whose heads swivel faster spewing more bile than Linda Blair's.

  •  No pretzels tomorrow (none)
    I sure hope the preznit doesn't fall off the wagon and eat some pretzels alone on a couch tomorrow! Let's watch for the makeup on Thursday and see.

    No more public scatology!

    by sgere on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:16:21 PM PDT

  •  Hadley (none)
    Hadley is the key to the bigger picture...don't give up on him...

    TexasDemocrat
    Giggity giggity giggity...Iraq's a Quagmire

    by TexasDemocrat on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:18:27 PM PDT

  •  so anywhere from 1-5 people will be (none)
    indicted.  Now the question is, how many counts on each indictment?

    Give me Liberty or give me death!

    by guyermo on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:19:54 PM PDT

  •  keep in mind (none)
    given earlier reports, 5 indictments might mean 17 flippers.
  •  On the first day of Fitzmas, my Patrick gave to me (none)
    five Republican indictees!

    Looking forward to days 2-12!

    The public wants what the public gets, but I don't get what this society wants -- Paul Weller

    by jamfan on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:20:51 PM PDT

  •  A few thoughts... (4.00)
    Clemons has excellent sources; I would tend to trust his reporting. In any event, reporting from various sources (here, Raw Story, David Corn, etc.) seems to be coalescing around the notion of several serious indictments issued, but not anywhere near a full egg carton's worth.

    Like georgia10 and others I would strongly caution against reading too much into the numbers of indictments -- but if you're thinking there's going to be the much-vaunted "22" number, you're almost certain to be disappointed.  22 indictments would suggest that Fitzgerald was successfully able to penetrate a WHIG-wide conspiracy to leak classified information and cover it up; I think that is extraordinarily unlikely, at this point.

    But keep this in mind: as David Corn pointed out several days ago, the first round of indictments may not necessarily be the last. In fact, I would count on the case only really beginning after the first indictments are issued, once the various players have been locked into their various roles, and are facing the more concrete possibility of convictions.

    Reports that the indictments will apparently be sealed does, indeed, point to a continuation of the investigation past the initial round of indictments. As Corn says:

    Why would Fitzgerald do this? Perhaps he has not finished investigating. It could be that recent developments--Judy Miller's testimony, Karl Rove's return to the grand jury, the Daily News story that indicates Rove and George W. Bush discussed the leak (and Rove's involvement in the matter) two years ago--have provided him additional leads to chase down. [...] In such a case, Fitzgerald might want to bank several indictments, impanel a new grand jury, and keep digging. This is--needless to say--speculation. But anyone waiting anxiously for indictments should keep this scenario in mind.

    It may be speculation, but I think it's informed speculation backed up by the current known facts of the case. There is a flurry of activity, the past month, surrounding Miller's testimony and suddenly-prevalent leaks relating to Libby, Cheney, and other key figures. There are several likely explanations: something may indeed have recently shaken loose, or nervous defense lawyers may simply be looking to try their cases in public before they try them in front of a jury, or Fitzgerald may be explicitly leaking certain features of the case in order to pressure potential targets for further cooperation. But in any event, Fitzgerald may feel the need to wrap up a few key indictments before the expiration of the current grand jury, then continue forward if the need arises.

    And even if that doesn't happen, we've seen that even the hint of indictments has been blood in the water for hungry journalists looking to finally probe pre- and post-war actions within the White House. So while it is likely we will see a handful of indictments this week, according to news reports, expect those indictments to merely be the starting point for deeper investigations -- maybe by Fitzgerald, but more likely by the media using these indictments and trials as a "hook" for launching the deeper reporting they categorically failed to accomplish in the runup to the war.

    •  Could the indictments be sealed (none)
      for the same reason that pages were redacted from Judge Tatel's opinion, namely, that they involve classified matters?
      •  indictments can be sealed (none)
        the law says, "for any legitimate prosecutorial objective or if the public interest otherwise requires it."

        Not sure if all the redacted testimony would even be part of the indictment, but if it WAS, would seem a good reason to seal it.

      •  By far the most common reason I've seen (none)
        for sealed indictments, personally, has always been to protect the secrecy of an ongoing investigation. You don't want to tip your hand if you're in the middle of something bigger.

        Or when someone is a flight risk, though I can't imagine that coming into play here...  (heh).

        Given that the grand jury in this case is set to expire at the end of the month, I don't see it as unreasonable speculation to assume that Fitzgerald wanted to get in these indictments with this grand jury before that expiration, but expects to continue the investigation, perhaps with a new grand jury, as the situation warrants -- especially if new information suddenly falls out of those that have been indicted.

        I suppose it's technically possible, maybe(?) that the indictments would be sealed for reasons of containing classified information, but I really, really can't see it happening, because they'd have to be unsealed eventually anyway, presumably. More logical would be to have unsealed indictments that possibly rely on redacted evidence, as in Tatel's opinion.

        So perhaps a lawyer or two can enlighten us on any other possibilities we're not thinking of, but I can only presume these indictments are sealed because of a distinct probability that more are on the way.

        •  Here is a good explanation (none)
          I like this explanation from a lawyer-commenter on TWN:

          Of course the most-likely scenario is that the prosecutor perhaps did not want to deliver the so-called "target letters" (he is not required to do so) because of the over-whelming amount of leask that have been occuring recently and is just sealing the indictments in order to give himself time to give those named in the indictments notice thereof. Given the magnitude of the case and the press coverage related to it I wouldn't be at all surprised if this last scenario is the one that plays out. Fitzgerald seems like the type of guy who would be diplomatic and courteous in delivering the news to those indicted in order to possibly allow them to avoid the press frenzy that would ensue if he filed unsealed indictments.

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

          by pontificator on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 03:05:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yeah, (none)
            The more I think about it, the more I'm thinking this is probably it. The simplest explanation is the best.

            That implies, of course, that we're probably going to get to hear the whole deal on Thursday, in a press conference. They're just sealed right now until the eager recipients have been properly dealt with.

            Luckily, we only have to wait about 48 hours to find out if this suspicion is correct. :-)

    •  If Fitz impanels another GJ. . . (none)
      What wouldn't be unusual is for Fitz to file a few indictments, say in his press conference that this is only the beginning, and then emapanel another grand jury and continue the investigation.  

      My concern  is that there would then be growing pressure on Bush to issue blanket pardons to shut this thing down.  The Repubs know they can't survive 18 more months of Fitzmas, and their only way out would be the proverbial "nuclear option," -- blanket pardons.

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

      by pontificator on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:32:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Blanket Pardons? (none)
        I know Nixon was pardoned before he was indicted, but he was a specific person, and the nature of his crimes was pretty well established. I'm curious about whether blanket pardons could be issued in this context, since they would lack specificity.

        I suppose Bush could pardon Cheney, Rove, Libby, Wurmser and whomever else for any crimes they may have committed, but I don't think that would be a politically viable option, even if it's a legally permissible strategy. Notwithstanding my diary yesterday about Bush coming unglued, I don't think he's that unglued.
        •  It depends on what crime was committed... (none)
          because if it is Treason, they CAN'T be pardoned. It's the one exception.

          How do you prove that a particular crime was committed by a particular person? Why, you hold a trial.

          Guilty of anything but Treason = Pardon possible.
          Guilty of Treason = The Big House.

          So how do you pardon them pre-trial and be certain that Treason was not committed?

          I know, I know - more bizarre things than that have happened in the last 5 years. We are, after all, deep in the woods in Wonderland where all the rules are transient.

          We must have stem-cell research. How else will Congress and the media grow spines?

          by bablhous on Wed Oct 26, 2005 at 12:00:09 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  But nukular for whom? (none)
        Remember how Clinton's pardons at the end of his term blew up into a major scandal unto themselves, fueled by the usual right wing screaming machine?

        Surely, with the way things stand now for Bush, pardoning his cronies who have actually been INDICTED as a result of an investigation into whether there was a serious breach of national security, including, possibly, lying about intelligence to justify an unjust war, would just explode in his face?  

        Surely the media have, by now, grown sufficiently tired, angry and pissed off with this administration not to let that fly?  

        Surely McClellan, faced with the task of defending these pardons, will simply self-combust?

        Surely?

        (I know, I know. . .)  

        Reality addict - can't get enough of seeing it all clearly

        by writeout on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 03:04:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Disgusting! I think all... (4.00)
    of your glee is shamef... hahahaha... sorry... couldn't keep a straight face... Glory f***ing Hallelujah!!

    "We have too many high-sounding words, and too few actions that correspond with them." Abigail Adams 1764

    by greeseyparrot on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:22:13 PM PDT

  •  I'm warmin' up to empaneling another GJ (none)
    If Fitz seals indictments tomorrow, announces on Thursday (hopefully naming names) then at the latest he'd get a new GJ on Friday. Though I'd think he announce that also on Thursday.

    Anyway, with a new GJ, and under seal indictments, we're lookin' at this going through the 2006 season, and hopefully a trial underway a month or two before elections!!

  •  anyone (none)
    working on making tshirts with bush's face and caption "Unindicted" or "Co-conspirator" or both?
  •  technical question (none)
    If an individual is indicted on, say, perjury and obstruction of justice, is that two indictments or one?  Just trying to figure out what "1 to 5" indictments means.
    •  As is mentioned repeatedly upthread, (none)
      you can have more than one count and more than one person named in one indictment. So 5 indictments could mean more than 5 charges against more than five people. But it might not.

      Conservatives love America like four-year-old kids love their mommies. -Al Franken

      by leftilicious on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:35:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Indictments! Indictments! Indictments! (none)
    Please let it be Bush. Please let it be Cheney. If I was religious, I'd be praying right now.
  •  The Culture of Corruption - Hall of Shame (none)
    Sounds like we are about to add a few new members:

    Already in da Hall:

    Tom Delay

    Progressives - stay UNDECIDED on 2008

    by AustinSF on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:27:09 PM PDT

  •  I do believe in spooks.. (none)
    I do believe in spooks, I do believe in spooks, I do believe in spooks.

    Fitzmas is coming, the goose is getting fat...

    Kos,
    I had an argument with a neocon colleague this morning. He said that the Dems are just as hypocritical as the Repugs since they said in 1999 that perjury and obs. of justice weren't high crimes. I said "no they didn't. All they said that they weren't impeachable offenses". I want to nail these Repugs to the wall on being hypocrits but don't want it to bite me back. Any info on this, anyone??? Should we trumpet these charges or be quite and wait for the legal system? Strategery, anyone?

    The left should be on the left, not the center or the right. The Democrats are none of the above.

    by ThanxAl on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:32:04 PM PDT

    •  It is like comparing apples and oranges... (none)
      This is far different, point out to the winger that the crimes are different and involve national security. Clinton lying about an affair did not rise to that level, is what most of us were saying..the level of impeachment that is.
      If Clinton faced charges after leaving office, there are many Democrats who would not have been outraged because it was not impeachment. That is my take.

      America was not built on fear. America was built on courage, on imagination and an unbeatable determination to do the job at hand-Harry S. Truman

      by wishingwell on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 03:17:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  High Crimes As Impeachable An Offense (4.00)
      One of the confusing thing about this is that the term "high crime" in relation to an impeachment sounds like it is talking about behavior that is (1) criminal and (2) "high" in the sense of it being a serious crime.  However, that is not what that phrase means at all.

      Just by way of background, I actually know something about this because when I was (briefly) in our State Legislature, we impeached the State Treasurer.  Through that experience I learned that conduct does not have to be "criminal" to be a "high crime," and conversly, behavior can be criminal without being a "high crime."   A "high crime" for the purposes of impeachment is a job related act that seriously puts the wrong doer in a bad light such that his or her removal from office is warranted.  Pretty vague.

      Maybe some examples will help.  In the case of the State Treasurer, he was investigated because his office lost almost 300 million dollars in pension money due to very risky trading in bonds.  After the investigation, it was clear that many different fiduciary standards of care were violated.  Furthermore, the Treasurer himself seemed to have kept himself deliberately in the dark about what was going on and was completely ignorant of the basics of investment and trading (all investment transactions were done by underlings).  In the end, the Treasurer was impeached for "high crimes" even though neither he nor anyone from his office did anything illegal.

      On the other hand, if you look at Nixon's situation, he House voted NOT to impeach Nixon on the basis of his filing false tax returns.  Now, depending on the intent and the amount, filing false returns can be a serious crime.  However, the HOR apparently thought that this was not job related, thus not impeachable.

      So, if you look at Clinton's situation, if he lied under oath, that may very well have been a "crime."  If any of the people involved with Plame investigation lied under oath, or even lied to a Federal Investigator, a sepate crime, they can be indicted and convicted.  However, in my opinion because Clinton's action really had nothing to do with his performance of his duty, it may have been a criminal act, but it was not at all the type of "high crime" that should lead to a President's impeachment.  

      •  My Understanding... (none)
        ...is that the Constitution was intentionally vague on this point, essentially ceding that power to the HOR to determine what is impeachable and the Senate to determine if removal from office is warranted.  Different congresses have different definitions of what constitutes unfitness to remain in office.  Understandable since the framers would have no way of determining what civil and criminal law would look like in, say, 50, 100, or 1000 years.  It's quite possible that Jeff., Mad., et al, intended for in to be considerably easier to remove Exectuive officers (i.e., high crimes and misdemeanors).

        You know, checks and balances and shit.

        However, as we've had two highly partisan impeachments and both failed in the Senate, precedence is presumably everything.

        Contrary to popular belief, the Customer is occasionally wrong, and never Right.

        by Mr Customer on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 04:02:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Washington Note site seems to be down (none)
    Maybe we're overwhelming it!

    Come up, sweet site, so I may read your details!

  •  Rice spent hour on phone with Cheney today (none)
    I just watched an interview that Rice did with CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) After the interview the reporter mentioned that it almost didn't happen because Rice received an emergency phone call from Cheney. They asked the white house what the call was about (couldn't they have asked Rice?) the White House said it was about a policy matter. That seems unlikely.
  •  A watched pot never boils... (none)
    but I just can't help but look anyway. How about one teeny-weensy leak? Just to keep me happy for the next hour until I need another fix? Time is so slow today....

    Just bring it on already!

  •  I just turned the television from Hardball (none)
    I don't need to waste my time listening to Noral Stupid'Dummy trying to talk with her lips firmly pressed on George W. Bush's behind.

    "Make the truth your litmus test."

    by independentchristian on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:34:33 PM PDT

  •  Funny thing.. (4.00)
    No one believes that Libby would take the action to out a CIA operative without coordinating with Cheney, but no one has any trouble believing that Cheney would do so without talking to Bush.
  •  Source is Good (none)
    I think the source is good based on the comment of Josh Marshall, Clemons' good friend--Steve sources his post to an "uber-insider source", and I'd call it quite a fair description. Sounds like Josh has been told who it is and agrees with the description uber-insider.
  •  Norah O'Donnell on HB reports that (none)
    WH strategy to indictments is to go after Wilson ("not clean in all this").  

    WAPO trashed Wilson yesterday.  So, I guess we're in for more of this.  

    •  Who did Joe Wilson vote for in.. (4.00)
      ...1988, 1992, 1996, and 2000?

      Yeah, Joe Wilson is a leftist.  Yeah, right, RepubliCONS. *sarcasm*

      If Joe Wilson wants to throw the GOP's crap back in their faces, he ought to come right out and say, "listen, to say that I am "partisan" is a bunch of BS!  I voted for GHWB in 1988 and 1992, Bob Dole in 1996, and GWB in 2000.  Of course I didn't vote for him in 2004 after he proved that he was unworthy of my vote by lying this country to war, smearing me, and going after my wife!

      What kind of man would allow people to attack his integrity, and especially his wife"?

      If he said that, it'd be the end of the story, period.  Anything else Bushco said would make them look even more like a bunch of fools.

      It is beyond stupid to attack Joe Wilson on the grounds of partisanship.  This is clearly a man of principle.  He was willing to take on people who he voted for.  Who he had once supported.

      THAT IS WHAT THE DEMOCRATS NEED TO BE SAYING.

      And no, he doesn't need to be a "Democrat."  It's the right freaking thing to do!

      "Make the truth your litmus test."

      by independentchristian on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:53:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  They're convinced it's Wilson (none)
      So I certainly hope the indictment information leaks like a sieve - just to wipe their wacky conspiracy theories out.  However, after spending too much time schadenfrueding all over Freeperville, I'm worried that what if we're wrong - did tonight's blogs from the left specifically say "administration officials?"

      Please, Fitz. Those are the only two words you need to give us on Thursday, to silence the insane right wing spin machine. Administration officials.

      What's the clangor and the clamor? Throw BushCo in the slammer.

      by MissAnneThrope on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 04:43:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Let Libby and Rove (none)
    Think about every underhanded, despicable and vile strategy they've ever employed behind bars.
  •  A Way To Explain Sealed Indictments? (none)
    Everyone is assuming that Fitzgerald has given up on filing charges under a violation of the original intelligence act, or espionage act for leaking the name. One way to explain the sealing of indictments, is if they contain classified information. A violation of those 2 acts above, and the information of the charge would qualify.

    Could Fitzgerald be about to file on something more than perjury or Obstruction Of Justice?

  •  1-5 indictments does not limit.... (none)
    the number of folks who are in trouble.

    1-5 indictments could be of folks who are targets that have not entered into deals in exchange for offering information against others.  Those who entered into plea deals can be charged by information by the prosecutor, without the need for the grand jury to determine whether probable cause exists for an indictment.

    Thus, you could have 1-5 indictments going to folks like libby, rove, hadley (and maybe even Cheney), and then others like Wurmser and Hannah, who have cooperated would get charged by information and then immediately enter a plea as part of a deal.

    •  I Wonder Though (none)
      ...if the indictments are sealed and Fitzgerald is under no obligation to name names, then what obligation do those who received target letters have? Are they really going to step up and identify themselves as one of the indicted? I mean, if their names aren't known, whoever "they" are, have no reason to leave their office -- they can maintain for as long as possible they are not involved in any of this, can't they?  
  •  This week on MTP? (4.00)

    [Hat tip to "Toons for Our Times"]

    You go to war with the indictments you can prove, not the ones you'd like to prove. -Billmon

    by Joon on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:47:29 PM PDT

  •  Compassion For Cheney and Rove (none)
    Ive always said I was a bleeding heart liberal.  Well, here is the final proof.

    I feel a fair amount of compassion for both Cheney and (even) Rove.

    Yes, I know that they lied us into a war.  But I honestly think they had good intentions when they did so.  I honestly think that whole crowd: (1) thought it was in our nation's best interest to take over Iraq; (2) did not trust the American people enough to think that if told the truth, we would support their interests; thus, (3)they thought it was a good idea to lie to us "for our won good."  Look, Ive been against the War from the beginning and Im not defending what they did.  Lying should almsot never be condoned.  Yet, I think it makes a difference that their motives were to do the best for the USA.  At least I think it does.

    Less morally defensible, in my opinion is outting a covert operative.  This is a horrible offense.  It is wrong morally (as well as legally) to do that whether it is done by a Democrat in the 1970s, by Republicans in the 2000s or someone else in the future.  It is wrong.  Here again though, I think this is more a matter of stupidity then pure evil.  I dont think the "target" of their effort was Plame, but Wilson.  I think they wanted to discredit Wilson, not hurt Plame. Im not saying outting a CIA operative is "ok" if that is only a by-product of some other goal.  Even negligently disclosing classified info is-and should be-a crime.

    And if there crime is lying during an investigation, that is wrong too.

    So if Cheney or Rove or Libby or whoever is guilty of an indictable offense, I hope they are indicted and convicted.  If warranted, I hope they serve jail time.

    Yet, I still feel for them too.  I am sure that Cheney, Rove and Libby think of themselves as honorable men.  To face inmrisonment, to have their names dragged through the mud of history for all time is an unpleasant prospect to say the least.  I dont know, but my feelings are really mixed about this.  I "hate" Cheney and especially Rove.  As one who read Bush's Brain, I think Rove is a cancer on our body politic.  Still, I just dont feel any real joy in this.  If they're guilty they should be convicted, but I am not going to rejoice over it.

    By the way, I dont mean this as a criticism of the general tone of glee here.  In a matter like this, to each his own.

    •  If you read, truly read (none)
      what these people have done, you might not have such empathy.

      I think you're an idjit, but hey, you're entitled to your opinion.

      •  I think Im Pretty Clued Into (none)
        what they did.  Yet, I stand by my statement.  So, ya, I guess Im an idjit, lol.
        •  Let your heart bleed (none)
          for all the dead soldiers, dead Iraqis, and grieving families that their "good intentions" caused instead.

          If they're guilty they should be convicted, but I am not going to rejoice over it.

          Rejoice over the fact that being convicted with (hopefully) prevent them from further damaging our country.
    •  THEY May Think They're Honorable And... (none)
      ...that their actions are just.  But I and most others here think they're close to evil for having used what they KNEW was shaky intelligence to take America into an unnecessary war.  War results in death and usually a lot of it (and so has this one).  You only go there when you absolutely have to.  We didn't have to.  They took us there.  To me, that makes them evil and this normally hawkish liberal will not rest until everyone known to have been involved in the war plot have been punished.  So, NO -- not a damn bit of sympathy for these bastards, and I'm angry that you would suggest it's something we should consider. And yes, let the people here be gleeful.  It's not glee at the misery of others in general; it's a special glee reserved for a few people who we were afraid would get away with another of their outrages.
      •  As I Understand Your Argument, (none)
        you say that (1) that they took us into an unnecessary war on shaky intelligence, to which I agree; (2) war results in death (which I agree, obvioulsy); and (3) you only go there when you absolutely have to (which I also agree). What I disagree with is your assertion that the other side has to be evil given all this information.

        Here is what I mean.  Obviously, Cheney, Bush (to the extent that he has an opinion) Rumsfeld, et al do not agree with us in terms of the 3rd provision above.  They apparently believe that even if a war is not required, it is still a good idea if more good then bad would come of it.  Do I agree with this?  No.  But I dont think such belief is evil either.

        Let me ask you this.  Let's suppose by some miracle, that somehow everyhing works out for the best in Iraq.  That because of our intervention, Iraq becomes over time a functioning democracy.  Let us further say that Iraq's democratization leads to democracies flowoing throghout the arab and moslem worlds. And as a result of this, millions of future lives are saved because people in that area of the world turn away from violence and terrorism and embrace peaceful change.  If this would occur, and this is the present rational for the Iraq war, then would the fact that the war was unnecessary and started by liars still make the whole thing evil?  

        You may say, "but this will never happen," but that is besides the point.  If it by some miracle could happen, would that make the warmongers less evil?

        •  are they evil? (none)
          Your question boils down to this:  does the end justify the means?

          The warmongers used dishonest means and even treasonous means and they knew full well what they were doing.  And that is what makes them evil.

          You are attributing motives to them about what they believe but you don't know what was truely in their minds and hearts when they decided to deceive.

          Nothing good comes out of anything started with deception.  And in a democracy, a handful of government officials deciding what is "more good" for all of us, is not acceptable and should never be tolerated.

          "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little safety will deserve neither and lose both." Benjamin Franklin

          by glynis on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 05:11:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Let's suppose, that by some miracle... (none)
          ...pigs could fly.

          Does that mean Karl Rove isn't one?

          The Chimperor Has No Clothes

          by DC Pol Sci on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 06:22:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Agreeing with Glynis... (none)
          No it wouldn't make the warmongers any less evil.  They, at the very least, mislead us into an unnecessary war, no matter its outcome.  And if one would want to argue that the 17,000 American dead and wounded and 100,000+ Iraqi dead (and God know how many wounded) might be worth say, someday, having a stable Middle East, then I'd ask why we have such an interest in a stable ME.  There's only one reason -- to assure the continuation of a stable supply of oil.  And, if we were to put as much effort into finding utility in alternative sources of energy, we wouldn't worried about a stable ME, would we?

          Sounds like you think there is a possibility that flowers will bloom in the ME because of our war on Iraq.  Do you?  If so, what are you basing that on, other than hopes and wishes?

    •  They are evil (none)
      Go watch the Canadian Broadcasting network's Unauthorized biography of Dick Cheney  Then go watch "Bush's Brain."  If you are still feeling sorry for those slimeballs after that, then you haven't bee paying attention.

      Moralizing is the first refuge of a sociopath--Grand Moff Texan

      by YankInUK on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 03:07:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  honorable (none)
        ",and it most be so for Brutus is an honorable man"

      O world,no world,but mass of public wrongs,confused and filled with murder and misdeeds

      by Brian B on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 03:45:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You're a good person (none)
      As a practicing Christian I admit I'm really having a problem not feeling a lot of Schadenfreude right now. I know it's never a good thing to revel in other's misfortune. But Rove and Libby (and the rest of Bushco) have been very arrogant in thinking they and only they know what's best for the country.

      I admire your good heart.

      Bushco, putting the mock in democracy.

      by Southern Bell on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 03:53:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The Road to Hell... (none)
      is paved with good intentions (and littered with sloppy intelligence analysis).



      The problem with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur. -- GW Bush to PM Tony Blair Snopes "debunk": Not Persuasive

      by PJBurke on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 06:46:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Resignations? (none)
    So if the indictments are under seal and the indicted ones are unknown, does that mean people who've been indicted get to keep their government day jobs?  Surely the indicted individuals will still resign, so we'll at least know who they are, right?

    Anyone?

    Trout

  •  What If Bush Immediately Pardons Anyone Indicted? (none)
    Given the brazenness of this administration, and the way so many Americans have lept to the defense of bold, albeit wrongly decided, policy, what would happen if Bush were just to pardon anyone indicted immediately after the indictments are issued.  What if he said:

    "Thanks for the investigation.  We have important work to do.  There may have been missteps, but these are hardworking, dedicated public servants, and I know their hearts.  They love America, and have done their best for 5 years.  We're at war and don't have time for these distractions."

    What would America do?  

    •  asfd (none)
      I'm no constitutional scholar, but don't pardons only apply to actual convictions? Meaning in this instance that there'd have to be a trial and a verdict handed down before a pardon could be issued - I mean, surely you can't actually pardon a charge, and it's not even that yet, it's a piece of paper listing charges!

      you make me lose my buttons oh yeah, you make me spit; I don't like my clothes anymore...

      by Jaffa on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 03:00:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  nope, you can pardon pre-trial (none)
        Remember, Nixon was pardoned, and had never been tried or even impeached.  
      •  Honestly, I think that ordinarily they should be.. (none)
        technically, to pardon prior to conviction is to interfere in the judicial branch and shortcircuit the administration of justice. After conviction, a person would be considered in the Executive's branch's custody and could thus be pardoned.

        However, this interpretation discounts other uses of the pre-emptive pardon, such as Jimmy Carter's pardon of draft dodgers and George Washington's pardon of the lower-level participants in the Whiskey Rebellion. I think pardons were also handed out after the Civil War. In any event, in these cases the pardon power was used to help bring the country back together after rebellion or times of great national division. So, not all pre-conviction pardons are necessarily bad.

        But, I would certainly argue that it was misused in Watergate and Iran Contra, as well as this instance if it comes to that.

  •  Song for Dick the Dick (edited for applicability) (none)
    You can wrap it up in ribbons,
    You can slip it in your sock.
    But don't take it out in public
    Or they will stick you in the dock,
    And you won't come back.
    •  For his pal Georgie (none)
      A Song for the Sensitive, the Idiot Song.

      From the Album, Monty Python Live at Drury Lane,
      Transcribed by Tak Ariga
      <oldeng@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu>. Aug/87

      How sweet to be an Idiot,
      As harmless as a cloud,
      Too small to hide the sun
      Almost poking fun,
      At the warm but insecure untidy crowd.
      How sweet to be an idiot,
      And dip my brain in joy,
      Children laughing at my back,
      With no fear of attack,
      As much retaliation as a toy.

      How sweet to be an idiot, how sweet.

      I tiptoed down the street,
      Smiled at everyone I meet,
      But suddently a scream,
      Smashes through my dream,
      Fie fye foe fum,
      I smell the blood of an asylum,
      (Blood of an asylum, But mother I play so beautifully, listen. ha ha)
      Fie fye foe fum,
      I smell the blood of the asylum,
      Hey you, you're such a pennant,
      You got as much brain as a dead ant,
      As much inagination as a carvan sign.

      But I still love you, still love you,
      Oooh how sweet to be an idiot,
      How sweet. how sweet. How sweet.

      "Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win."
      -Sun-tzu, The Art of War.

      by I like Ike on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:58:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I was unpopular in school (none)
    but I never started a war to gain a few brownie points with the cheerleaders.

    This crew had No Good Intentions - except to stay in power (cushioned with lots and lots of cash).

    We will not rest or tire until the won on terror is war.

    by Sprinkles on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:54:58 PM PDT

  •  "Cheney didn't know she was a NOC ..." (none)
    This is not a defense.

    If Cheney received the information that she worked for the CIA from a classified source then he had to know it was classified information?

    That's the way compartmentalized information works.

    If it has been disclosed to Cheney that she worked for the CIA, it had to be determined that he had the need to know and therefore it would have had to be disclosed to him that it was classified.

    Further, it would have been required that he tell Scooter that it was classified if he told him.

    Someone broke the information out of the secure catagory. That person broke the law.

  •  can we get an open thread? (none)
    it's been since this morning.

    "Decisions that send men and women to die should not be made in a secret way." Lawrence Wilkerson

    by missreporter on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 03:01:01 PM PDT

  •  What worries me isn't the number (none)
    ...of indictments, or the crimnal counts or number of people within them, but this:

    Those familiar with the case state that Fitzgerald likely will not seek indictments that assert officials leaked Plame's name illegally.

    cheers,

    Mitch Gore

    Nobody will change America for you, you have to work to make it happen

    by Lestatdelc on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 03:02:29 PM PDT

  •  re: Sealed Indictments (none)
    An attorney-commenter on TWN has what seems to me be a reasonable explanation for sealing the indictments and then holding a press conference:

    Of course the most-likely scenario is that the prosecutor perhaps did not want to deliver the so-called "target letters" (he is not required to do so) because of the over-whelming amount of leask that have been occuring recently and is just sealing the indictments in order to give himself time to give those named in the indictments notice thereof. Given the magnitude of the case and the press coverage related to it I wouldn't be at all surprised if this last scenario is the one that plays out. Fitzgerald seems like the type of guy who would be diplomatic and courteous in delivering the news to those indicted in order to possibly allow them to avoid the press frenzy that would ensue if he filed unsealed indictments.

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

    by pontificator on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 03:03:19 PM PDT

  •  BREAKING: CBS To Report Fitzgerald Will Make..... (none)
    ...Decision Known Tommorow

    http://thinkprogress.org/2005/10/25/decision-tommorow/

    "CBS' JOHN ROBERTS: Lawyers familiar with the case think Wednesday is when special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald will make known his decision, and that there will be indictments. Supporters say Rove and the vice president's chief of staff, Scooter Libby, are in legal jeopardy. But they insisted today the two are secondary players, that it was an unidentified Mr. X who actually gave the name of CIA agent V alerie Plame to reporters. Fitzgerald knows who Mr. X is, they say, and if he isn't indicted, there's no way Rove or Libby should be. But charges may not focus on the leak at all. Obstruction of justice or perjury are real possibilities. Did Rove or Libby change statements made under oath? Did they deliberately leave critical facts out of their testimony or did they honestly forget? Some Republicans urged Rove to step down if indicted. Not a happy prospect for president Bush."

  •  Press conference (none)
    If the CIA damage assessment is as damaging as rumored, is there any way Fitz can hint at it without actually revealing classified information? Something like "We are extending the grand jury to continue investigating actions that led to loss of intelligence assets"...? Or is even that too much in terms of classified info?

    If the announcement of sealed indictments itself will have the players scrambling to flip, imagine the frenzy if combined with the implication that the death penalty is in play.

  •  Forget Fitzmas (none)
    Tomorrow's my birthday. What a great present this would be!
  •  ..couldn't resist... (none)
    ..so here it is again:

  •  Constitutional question (none)

    I think it can be safely said that however many indictments issued, whatever the final trial sentence, come 2008, Bush is going to issue last minute pardons.

    Can then, Democrats take this up in the Senate and Congress to block those pardons on basis of national security?

    At that point, it will make it worth to make it a partisan fight. Democrats can fight the pardons because they can argue these pardons would undermine national security and bring down CIA personnel morale.

    •  Power of pardon is absolute. No review (none)
      by Congress or SCOTUS.

      Need a Con Amendment to exclude pardons of government offcials or campaign contributors.

      Fighting them here, so we don't have to fight over there.

      by NorCalJim on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 03:27:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The Rove/PlameGate Scandal Resource Center (none)
    Get the latest PlameGate news, briefings, timelines, statutes and other essential documents:

    "The Rove/PlameGate Scandal Resource Center."

  •  Rove and Libby (none)
    I only allow myself to sometimes occassionly maybe believe it might happen that Rove and Libby get indicted.

    And it would be a victory not for Dems but for the American people.

    If it's true that lying and defaming people to further a cause is something everybody does in Washington, then politicians from the Bush right on down the line deserve the low opinion the majority of citizens have about them.

    Spinning is one thing, trying to make your case against your opponent by willfilly misinterpreting his/her stance on a position is one thing, but out and out lying about someone and using the media the way Bushco has done is amoral and it should not be tolerated.

    Bushco, putting the mock in democracy.

    by Southern Bell on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 03:20:31 PM PDT

  •  Karlito, Scooter, Hadley, Rice Cakes, Mr.Big Time (none)
    and in the bonus round, Bushie as unindicted co.

    Fighting them here, so we don't have to fight over there.

    by NorCalJim on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 03:22:54 PM PDT

  •  Mr Cheney regrets... (none)
    He's unable to lunch today, Madam;
  •  Rove, Libby, Wurmser and Hanah (none)
    Others might be named unindicted co-conspirators:

    Cheney
    Hadley
    Matalin
    Bolton

    "We must all hang together or assuredly we will all hang seperately." - Ben Franklin

    by RandyMI on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 03:27:58 PM PDT

  •  Lou Dobbs, I'm going to SCREAM!!! if... (none)
    ...one more person mentions "securing the borders with guns and the military!!!"

    The most effective way to secure the borders it through THE BOARDROOM!!!

    I'm sick of this stupid junk, and ignorant people in this country believe that the only way to solve any freaking problem is through force!

    The borders were even less secure during the 60s and 70s and illegal immigration wasn't as bad as it is now because of unions and the fact that companies weren't hiring them like crazy for their cheap labor!

    The problem is the boardroom, not the freaking borders!!!!!!!

    *HEAD STEAMING*

    "Make the truth your litmus test."

    by independentchristian on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 03:29:00 PM PDT

    •  Word of advice, avoid Lou Dobbs (none)
      If that kind of talk bothers you, he DOES IT EVERY SINGLE NIGHT.... nonstop, like a crusade.  He has been saying the same thing on his show for over 2 years and has presented the whole immigration issue in a completely one-sided, biased way that hypes the negative stereotypes of "aliens" and makes it seem like they are to blame for all our problems.

      So yea, you might want to steer clear of Lou Dobbs, for the sake of your blood pressure.

      The people of New Orleans got left behind

      by diplomatic on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 03:35:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Lou Dobbs: What is that foaming at the mouth? (none)

        That's one small step for man, and one giant %#&* air for mankind...

        by mogulking on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 03:56:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  To be fair... (none)
        ...he attacks everybody for it-Republicans and Democrats, the illegal immigrants and those who employ them.

        But he is a one topic guy.  He alternates between stories on illegal immigrants stealing Americans' jobs in America and stories on foreign workers stealing Americans' jobs overseas via offshoring.  He's basically an ultra-nationalist, a la Pat Buchanan, although possibly with less racism.

      •  It's not Lou Dobbs I'm angry at. He's one of the (none)
        few Republicans I have any respect for.

        It is the ignorance behind the whole argument against illegal immigration, that it is a problem because of a "lack of adequate force," i.e. policing and border security.

        It is an economic issue directly tied to NAFTA and the Central America Flee To America bill (CAFTA).

        If you make it illegal for companies to hire illegal immigrants, they will be jumping back over the fences next week!  It has nothing to do with not enough guns on the borders.

        But this GOP dominated culture that we live in constantly fools the GULLABLE into thinking that every problem in society is caused by not enough manpower and force.  That people keep falling for it and you can't convince them otherwise literally gets my blood boiling!

        People always believe the lie, always.

        "Make the truth your litmus test."

        by independentchristian on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 05:17:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Bill Clinton did it! (none)
    @ this pt. in the Bu$HCo nightmare I won't be surprised if they indict Bill Clinton.

    "It's better to die on your feet then live on your knees"

    by Blutodog on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 03:29:59 PM PDT

  •  Up to 5 indictments? My dream list: (none)
    1. Karl Rove
    2. George Bush
    3. Dick Cheney
    4. Libby
    5. Robert Novakula (yes eventhough he sold his soul for immunity, I hope they get him anyway haha)

    That would be the equivalent of a White Fitzmas.

    I'm holding out hope for some bombshell revelation that this thing is a lot more serious than anyone of us have imagined.  What if the White House personally forged the Niger document? Oh, we can dream...

    The people of New Orleans got left behind

    by diplomatic on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 03:33:48 PM PDT

  •  CBS News will report Fitzgerald to make intentions (none)
    Link

    CBS' JOHN ROBERTS: Lawyers familiar with the case think Wednesday is when special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald will make known his decision, and that there will be indictments. Supporters say Rove and the vice president's chief of staff, Scooter Libby, are in legal jeopardy. But they insisted today the two are secondary players, that it was an unidentified Mr. X who actually gave the name of CIA agent V alerie Plame to reporters. Fitzgerald knows who Mr. X is, they say, and if he isn't indicted, there's no way Rove or Libby should be. But charges may not focus on the leak at all. Obstruction of justice or perjury are real possibilities. Did Rove or Libby change statements made under oath? Did they deliberately leave critical facts out of their testimony or did they honestly forget? Some Republicans urged Rove to step down if indicted. Not a happy prospect for president Bush.

    Any guesses on the identity of Mr. X?

    UPDATE: This bit from the CBS segment is also interesting -

    SCHIEFFER: John, I am very interested in Mr. X. Is there any clue or hint as to whether he be - maybe someone who outranks Libby and Rove or would he be a lower-ranking official?

    ROBERTS: The best guess is that Mr. X, even though his name is not known and some people are just speculating on who he might be or she might be, is somebody who is actually outside the White House, and in that case would be of a lower rank that both Rove and Libby.

    "We must all hang together or assuredly we will all hang seperately." - Ben Franklin

    by RandyMI on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 03:33:49 PM PDT

  •  Fleitz, Fleitz, Fleitz (none)
    dispatched to leak the info.  Put up to it by Bolton, who was put up to it by Libby, who was put up to it by Cheney.  (Maybe another layer or two of buffers, but you get the picture.)  Looks like he is Mr. X who is Miller's "source" and the source for Novak that Novack described as "not a partisan gunslinger."

    No way this guy leaks info like this, for any purpose (particularly not to protect the reputation of Cheney) without the people above him telling him to do so.  But per the plan, he is the actual leaker and, by design, lined up to be the fall guy.

    •  Well... that is my surmise, anyway (none)
      Guess we'll find out tomorrow
    •  Certainly a strong possibility, (none)
      smitty.  Does anyone know why Fred Fleitz was working at WINPAC in the CIA, and acting as chief of staff for John Bolton at the same time?  Presumably, this was while Bolton was Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, and part of his job then was WMD prevention.  And WINPAC is the bureau at the CIA that analyzed WMD's (and the bureau that Valerie Plame Wilson worked for).  So, I can see Fleitz advising Bolton about WMD's, but not acting as his chief of staff.  They all seem to be in it together as co-conspirators.  I wish they'd all get indicted, but I doubt they will.
  •  "Obviously rumor" (none)
    Well, yeah.

    Any source that says "1-5 indictments" is either being coy to mess with our heads (not likely) or doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.  If you're on the inside, and you say they're coming tomorrow, then you'd know the precise count.  This really doesn't tell us anything.

  •  Googling "Sealed Indictments" (none)
    From David Corn

    Sealed Indictments in the Leak Case?

    "Two words we should think about: sealed indictments." That was said to me by a trustworthy Washington reporter who has been covering the Plame/CIA leak case. He wasn't making a prediction; he was raising a possibility. It could be that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald might choose to file sealed indictments before the grand jury expires at the end of next week. That would mean that the names of the indicted would be unknown to the public--unless the information leaked.

    Why would Fitzgerald do this? Perhaps he has not finished investigating. It could be that recent developments--Judy Miller's testimony, Karl Rove's return to the grand jury, the Daily News story that indicates Rove and George W. Bush discussed the leak (and Rove's involvement in the matter) two years ago--have provided him additional leads to chase down. (The Daily News story--see the items below--does raise important questions.) In such a case, Fitzgerald might want to bank several indictments, impanel a new grand jury, and keep digging. This is--needless to say--speculation. But anyone waiting anxiously for indictments should keep this scenario in mind.

    http://www.davidcorn.com/archives/2005/10/sealed_indictme.php

    Well-behaved women seldom make history - Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

    by jaysea on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 03:38:58 PM PDT

  •  Just as (none)
    Fitzgerald's home state's White Sox are beating up on George Bush's home state's Astros.

    I can see the Spike Lee movie collage 20 years from now.

  •  Shakespeare for Dummies (none)
    is the title I would give a historical account of the Bush II administration.

    "The delusional is no longer marginal..." --Bill Moyers

    by queen crab on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 03:45:48 PM PDT

  •  A Tasty Morsle form Political Wire (none)
    Meanwhile, a former high level Bush administration official told Political Wire that "people are turning on each other" at the White House. Lawrence Wilkerson is likely just the first to come out publicly against the administration.

    "We must all hang together or assuredly we will all hang seperately." - Ben Franklin

    by RandyMI on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 03:48:50 PM PDT

  •  We didn't know she was a NOC.... (4.00)
    She worked at the CIA, for God's sake.  They had a duty to find out if she was under cover before outing her.  They had the highest duty to pick up the damn phone and find out.  These are people entrusted with our gravest secrets and the lives of our agents and soldiers in harms way.

    I damn well insist they be charged with constructive knowledge that she was a NOC; if they knew she was a CIA employee and want to claim they just acted in reckless disregard of whether she might be under cover.  Bottom line?  They either knew, or acted in reckless disregard of the lives of our agents and our national security.  And these are our self styled national security gurus.

    I'm sick of this rush to the bottom in spinning at all costs.  What the hell happened to responsibility?  How on earth can someone of Cheney's experience in government claim that he knew she worked at CIA and thought it was A-OK to expose her to the world, without even asking if she was involved in confidential work.

    Bad enough here, but even worse in going to war; they want to hide under the lowest possible standards.  'We knew their were questions about Niger uranium and aluminum tubes, but no one could prove it wasn't true.'  Where the hell is the bar here?  What's the burden of proof on going to war?  Nukes were the 'smoking gun' reason to invade another country. If they are going send us to war, 'the hardest decision a president has to make', they better be damn we sure of their facts.  In fact, I'd say if you're going to wage a pre-emptive war, you'd better have your main reason right beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Of course they knew she was a NOC and I hope Fitzgerald has proof of it.  But I'm sick of hearing all these apologists spewing 'they didn't know she was NOC."

    Did you really expect good governance from those who scorn government?

    by Job52 on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 03:50:52 PM PDT

    •  Could not agree more... (none)
      This is key -- that she works at the CIA is enough to ask about her status.  This is not rocket science.
    •  Cheney... (none)
      didn't just have experience in government, he was Secretary of Defense.  He has to be VERY familiar with the CIA and the role of NOCs.  In fact it's a safe bet that the Defense Intel Agency had a number of NOCs when Cheney was SecDef.

      He can't even claim he didn't know, the fact is he SHOULD have known.

      I think Cheney's goin' down.  (-fingers crossed and knocking on wood-)

      The most important thing about life is to stay amused by it.

      by Paulie200 on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 04:04:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Hey Kos (none)
    I hope you're making plans for the traffic you know your going to expereince. I bet it rivals the night before the election.

    "We must all hang together or assuredly we will all hang seperately." - Ben Franklin

    by RandyMI on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 03:51:15 PM PDT

  •  The CIA says there was damage.... (4.00)
    From today's Situation Room on CNN:

    BLITZER: All right, Jeff, hold on a second. David Ensor, our national security correspondent, is still here. I know you've been looking into this question. The CIA -- does the CIA believe that there was damage done to U.S. national security as a result of Valerie Plame Wilson's name being leaked?

    ENSOR: I'm told that in the day that it was leaked, there was a quick look done, as there would routinely be at whether there was damage. Officials simply won't go into the details. But I did speak to one official who said yes, there was damage. This woman had a long career and she was posing as someone else and all those people who saw her now know she wasn't the person they thought that they were dealing with. So there was damage.

    BLITZER: Thought they were dealing with an energy consultant and she was really a CIA spy.

    ENSOR: Exactly

    This, if true, certainly ups the ante.

    •  Treason!!! (none)
      And yes I support the death pentalty. I want to see them in the chair!

      "We must all hang together or assuredly we will all hang seperately." - Ben Franklin

      by RandyMI on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 03:54:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sounds like a 'techicality' to me (none)
        /snark

        I did not receive $ from Ketchum, U.S. Department of Ed or HHS to write this---though I wish I had.

        by Volvo Liberal on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 04:01:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Make that a "technicality" (none)

          I did not receive $ from Ketchum, U.S. Department of Ed or HHS to write this---though I wish I had.

          by Volvo Liberal on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 04:02:20 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Start polishing up... (none)
            ...the guillotine!!
            •  Gee, if we're going to get extreme... (none)
              ...how about the old English penalty for treason?  The sentence went thusly:

              "That you be drawn on a hurdle to the place of execution where you shall be hanged by the neck and being alive cut down, your privy members shall be cut off and your bowels taken out and burned before you, your head severed from your body and your body divided into four quarters to be disposed of at the King's pleasure."

              (for the record, I'm opposed to any form of capital punishment, let alone this one)

              The Chimperor Has No Clothes

              by DC Pol Sci on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 06:33:00 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Blair... (none)
                ...should be dealt with that way...
              •  Federal crime (none)
                I believe the method used for federal crimes is lethal injection, such as in the case of Timothy McVeigh.
                •  Uh, of course it is... (none)
                  The old English sentence was last used in the late 1700s.

                  The French were even worse, as evidenced by the 1757 sentence handed out to the attempted regicidist, Robert Damiens:  "the said Robert-François Damiens has been convicted of having committed a very mean, very terrible, and very dreadful parricidal crime against the King. The said Damiens is sentenced to pay for his crime in front of the main gate of the Church of Paris. He will be taken there in a tipcart naked and will hold a burning wax torch weighing two pounds. There, on his knees, he will say and declare that he had committed a very mean, very terrible and very dreadful parricide, and that he had hurt the King. . . . He will repent and ask God, the King and Justice to forgive him. When this will be done, he will be taken in the same tipcart to the Place de Grève and will be put on a scaffold. Then his breasts, arms, thighs, and legs will be tortured. While holding the knife with which he committed the said Parricide, his right hand will be burnt. On his tortured body parts, melted lead, boiling oil, burning pitch, and melted wax and sulfur will be thrown. Then four horses will pull him apart until he is dismembered. His limbs will be thrown on the stake, and his ashes will be spread. All his belongings, furniture, housings, wherever they are, will be confiscated and given to the King. Before the execution, the said Damiens will be asked to tell the names of his accomplices. His house will not be demolished, but nothing will be allowed to be built on this same house."

                  Now, you understand why treason is so carefully circumscribed in the U.S. Constitution and why we have an Eighth Amendment.

                  The Chimperor Has No Clothes

                  by DC Pol Sci on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 07:04:30 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

    •  The CIA monument to the fallen (none)
      has a star, but no name, right after the leak. A fallen covert agent, betwwen two well publicized names. No explantion...

      It was in someone's diary..sorry to steal. Can't find it.

      This is something to consider.

      Just as no US soldier wants to be the next POW because of our gov'ts horrible torture policies, some other covert agent has made the ultimate sacrifice so the bushies (I will not capitalize) can smear a critic.

      You only regret the things you don't do.

      by DailyLife on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 04:08:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'll call your five, and raise you ten! (none)
    EOM

    "I ain't no stinkin' monument to justice."

    by menodoc on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 03:56:33 PM PDT

  •  asdf (4.00)
    Did you that everytime a republican gets indicted, an angel gets its wings?
  •  I am too worked up. (none)
    I haven't been this anxious about politics since election eve.

    Jesus was a victim of the death penalty.

    by coigue on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 03:59:55 PM PDT

  •  Mr X (none)
    Maybe it's Gannon.  heh.  Fall guy.  
  •  BREAKING!!!!!.......DRUDGE REPORTING (none)
    that ABC news has double sourced that Libby has been offered up his indictment.
  •  Check out Drudge (none)
    Drudge is reporting that ABC News has 2 sources that have confirmed that Libby has been indicted. Nothing on the ABC News website yet.
    •  Drudge is fake (none)
      He is dying to get something unique on his site about this scandal because he has been sooooo behind.  This story was pure crap.  I am loving it, watching Drudge suck wind on the biggest story to hit Washington since Clinton impeachment.
  •  2000 American to die (none)
    At CNN I just read about the National Guardsman who was the 2000th US soldier to die. I know he's one of many but reading his story made me start crying.

    Bushco, putting the mock in democracy.

    by Southern Bell on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 04:14:18 PM PDT

  •  Green Day (none)
    This news is making me crank "September Ends" as loud as I can. I think, after seeing the video, it seems appropriate.

    "We must all hang together or assuredly we will all hang seperately." - Ben Franklin

    by RandyMI on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 04:18:54 PM PDT

  •  Does anyone have Cokie Roberts phone #? (none)
    I need to ask her when she's going to start screaming:

    "Rule of law, Rule of law."

    Remember that? If she doesn't I will remind!

    You only regret the things you don't do.

    by DailyLife on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 04:20:46 PM PDT

  •  My Suggestion (4.00)
    I suggest no party on Fitzmas. If we have indictments, maybe we should the grave of a local soldier killed in Iraq, lay a rose and tell him or her, that we just might get back the country they signed up to fight and die for.

    "We must all hang together or assuredly we will all hang seperately." - Ben Franklin

    by RandyMI on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 04:23:27 PM PDT

  •  Indict for war crimes-then Rumsfeld can frog march (none)
    Fitzmas will not be complete without taking the thread down from
    forgery, leading to
    falsified intelligence, prompting
    crime of aggression (followed by belligerent occupation) followed by
    war crimes (grave breaches of Geneva Conventions)
    torture and other crimes arising from the Iraq "campaign".
    Then backtrack from Abu Ghraib to Guantanamo via a Geoffrey Miller indictment.

    "No one else could ever be admitted here, since this gate was made only for you. I am now going to shut it."- Franz Kafka, "Before the Law"

    by normal family on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 04:23:28 PM PDT

  •  Just read the Raw story (none)
    and a couple phrases got my attention "arena of lying to investigators" and "at least two indictments".  Why not say perjury?  Then I remembered that whole dog and pony questioning Bush and Cheney had with Fitz.  They went hand in hand and weren't under oath.  
    http://tinyurl.com/ab2se heres the story

    eating popcorn at the end of days

    by Fernando Poo on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 04:30:06 PM PDT

    •  This is what they got Martha Stewart for (none)
      Not the crime itself, lying to the government about it.

      Apparently, Figtzgerald spoke at the time in favor of the Martha Stewart prosecution:

      http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=1473

      Personally, I thought at the time of Stewart's conviction that this was a bit of a stretch, and I still do. But Stewart's conviction proves this legal tactic can work.  If Fitzgerald can't get anybody directly, all indications are that he will try this route.

  •  Nothing under the Fitzmas tree? Wa-a-ah!! (none)
    I woke up this morning with memories of little bluebirds still fresh in my mind.  Damn good drugs on Fitzmas eve, but no substitute for the real thing, right?

    Sneaking downstairs in my well-padded, fluffy blue bunny suit, I hoped to see a whole pile of indictments nestled under the Fitzmas tree, but...
    Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

    Bounding in a single great hop to the foot of the tree, I find nothing but a little note saying, "Saint Fitz will bring gifts tomorrow," with a little heart in color crayon.

    My floppy bunny ears wobbled as my body shook with tears.  

    "No idictments?  But I want indictments, I want 'um I wann 'um I wann 'um!!"

    My housemaid, Seniorita Rosa, rushed to my side in her skimpy French maid outfit.  

    "Oh, senior Jimbo," said she, "Don' jou worry, honey, there gonna be plenty indictments tomorrow."

    She hugged me consolingly, her full, inviting breasts just inches from my wiggly bunny nose.

    "Well, maybe you're right," I mumbled, wondering which part of her a naughty bunny would nibble on first.  "Can we go upstairs and play?"

    Senorita Rosa pouted and wiggled a finger in my face.

    "No, senior," she said. "Rosa must clean up all the cooking oil from the downstairs basement first."  She rolled her eyes.  Such a messy bunny!

    Chastised, I started to hop up the stairs, but then thought better of it and just walked.  What's the matter with this country, I thought, and when will we get back to a normal existence?

    I can tell you one thing: Pat Fitzgerald better come up with some juicy indictments pretty damn soon, or there'll be one angry, 250-pound bunny to deal with.

    Chew on that one, Mr. Prosecutor!

    Impeach the Duffelbaggers!

    by jimbo92107 on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 04:37:45 PM PDT

  •  If you want the full Republican spin (none)
    on this....just visit Carol Platt's site

    Today, a Washington Post story is headlined: "Wilson's Credibility Debated as Charges In Probe Considered."

    Really? What's the debate -- especially in instances like some of those laid out in the story:

    Wilson told The Washington Post anonymouslyin June 2003 that he had concluded that the intelligence about the Niger uranium was based on forged documents because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong." The Senate intelligence committee, which examined pre-Iraq war intelligence, reported that Wilson "had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports." Wilson had to admit he had misspoken.

    That's a delicate way to put it. Where I come from, that's called "lying." Same goes for his assertion that his wife had nothing to do with sending him to Niger.

    Any claims made on Wilson or Plame's behalf by the CIA are completely unconvincing. It's long been clear that the agency is nothing more than an anti-Bush outfit, and it's long past time for a little investigating on what seem suspiciously like partisan political activities, agendas, and leaks emanating from the CIA

    I'm not going anywhere. I'm standing up, which is how one speaks in opposition in a civilized world. - Ainsley Hayes

    by jillian on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 04:45:30 PM PDT

  •  But the biggest indictment (none)
    of them all won't be one of them

    http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/

    The WH mantra....protect BubbleBoy at all costs.

  •  BREAKING OVER THE LA TIMES (none)
    Link

    As his investigation nears a conclusion, special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has returned his attention to White House adviser Karl Rove, interviewing a Rove colleague with detailed questions about contacts that President Bush's close aide had with reporters in the days leading up to the outing of a covert CIA officer.

    Fitzgerald has also dispatched FBI agents to comb the CIA agent's residential neighborhood in Washington, asking neighbors again whether they were aware -- before her name appeared in a syndicated column -- that the agent, Valerie Plame, worked for the CIA.

    The questioning, described by lawyers familiar with the case and by the neighbors, occurred as Fitzgerald was thought to be readying indictments in the long-running inquiry into the leak of Plame's identity. It is a felony to knowingly identify an undercover agent, and the renewed questions this week suggested that the prosecutor remained focused on the breach of that secrecy.

    The inquiry has reached deep into the White House and focuses on Rove and Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby.

    A deputy prosecutor called Rove's colleague this afternoon and interviewed him in depth about statements Rove may have made to reporters about the case, a lawyer familiar with the case said.

    "It appeared to me the prosecutor was trying to button up any holes that were remaining," the lawyer said.

    "There is a lot of speculation that is going on right now. There are many facts that are not known," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said today. "The work of the special prosecutor continues, and we look forward to him successfully concluding his investigation."

    Translation: He's still going after the Big Burrito!

    "We must all hang together or assuredly we will all hang seperately." - Ben Franklin

    by RandyMI on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 04:52:42 PM PDT

  •  I don't like stupid questioners... (none)
    ...like this woman on a commercial on CNN saying, "I'd like to ask OIL COMPANIES what is being done to make us less reliant on oil."

    You'd like to ask "OIL COMPANIES" that?

    They want you to buy oil for goodness sake!

    Wow.  And you wonder why the Republicans keep winning.  Because people always believe the "LIAR."  It never fails, they always do and they always will.  People will always believe a lie before they begin the truth.  They cannot help it.  It must be something entrenched in them every since "EVE."

    So, she trusts the "OIL COMPANIES," and she's exactly the type that thinks that oil barons in the White House is no big deal at all, as if "fascism" (the merging of government and business) is impossible.

    The biggest problem in this country is ignorance.

    Abraham Lincoln: "America will never be destroyed from the outside.  If we falter and lose our freedoms it will be because we have destroyed ourselves...

    ...I am a firm believer in the people.  If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis.  The great point is the bring them the real facts."

    Sorry Abe, they ain't going to believe the truth until they are forced to believe it.  They will always believe the lie.  As it is, this country's days are numbered.  Ignorance will lead to the destruction of the United States.

    "Make the truth your litmus test."

    by independentchristian on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 05:00:22 PM PDT

  •  Hate for this administration (none)
    In our joy for Fitzmas, our despise of this administration, and our grief for the state of the nation and our fallen troops let us not gloat over the coming indictments.

    For Richard Nixon did give us some very true words when he resigned office:

    Those who hate you don't win unless you hate them, and then you destroy yourself.
    -Richard M. Nixon

  •  CNN POLL (none)
    check it out, its on plame, great news for us
  •  Whether Cheney "Knew" (none)
    Assuming the story is correct that Cheney was told of Valerie Plame's employment by the CIA by George Tenet (and MSNBC just had a story claiming Tenet denied telling Cheney that and claimed he has not testified to the Grand Jury), then that defense is impossible.

    Again, assuming the NYT story is correct and Tenet DID tell Cheney, Tenet would certainly know Plame's position when he briefed Cheney. He would have also known her status was considered an official secret.

    Thus, it is IMPOSSIBLE, repeat IMPOSSIBLE, that Tenet did not convey Plame's status to Cheney. It would also likely be illegal. One person approved to have classified SECRET information must brief the person they are conveying that information to (and also make sure they have approval) so that person knows to safeguard the information up to appropriate secrecy regulations.

    So, it is completely, totally implausible Tenet would have briefed Cheney on Plame and NOT mentioned her status.

    Arguments I have seen, likely floated by the right, that even if Cheney DID tell Libby the info he got from Tenet, maybe he didn't know Plame was a NOC are absurd. Completely and totally absurd. The sad thing is, I have seen the media repeatedly couching this particular possible "defense" when mentioning this story.

    Pathetic.

    GDoyle

    "Deserves got nothing to do with it"-William Munny, "Unforgiven"

    by GDoyle on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 05:15:03 PM PDT

  •  No More Pardons (none)
    John Conyers is asking for our help:

    No More Pardons

    TELL THE PRESIDENT: NO MORE PARDONS FOR TRAITOR-GATE CRIMINALS
    Convicted Previously of National Security Crimes
    Elliott Abrahms is Newest Figure in Traitor-gate

    Did you know that Elliot Abrahms, pardoned by the first President Bush for the Iran-Contra crimes he committed under the Reagan Administration, now works for the Bush White House? And has been implicated in the leak of Valerie Plame's covert identity? Fitzgerald may well successfully prosecute senior White House officials. Insist that anyone convicted in this case be ineligible for a presidential pardon. Demand that the President not pardon any criminals in his administration who compromise our national security!

    http://tinyurl.com/9gj7e

  •  Did anyone notice the (none)
    sealed indictments???  (Lost patience reading the thread and jumped to a comment, so if this is repetitive, many apologies.)  But if they are sealed, we don't get to open our Fitzmas presents until "LATER".  BUMMER!!

    Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official... ~Theodore Roosevelt

    by caseynm on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 05:22:08 PM PDT

  •  question? (none)
    If someone, say Rove, were charged with 2 crimes, say conspiracy and obstruction, would that be one indictment or two.
  •  Fitzgerald combing Plame's neighbors (none)
    Is an obvious attempt to lock up any possible loop holes that Rove/Libby might try to jump through. Basically, saying, "Well, her neighbors knew what she did, they could have leaked it to the press."

    Sadly, CNN has a poll saying most people don't believe Plamegate means anything. Rove and Libby going down may be fun for us Dubya haters, but I don't think this will have "legs" outside of the die hard political watchers. No sex, no sale.

    •  huh (none)
      did you read the poll correctly
    •  That's not what it said at all (none)
      This is what it said:

      (CNN) -- Only one in 10 Americans said they believe Bush administration officials did nothing illegal or unethical in connection with the leaking of a CIA operative's identity, according to a national poll released Tuesday.

      Thirty-nine percent said some administration officials acted illegally in the matter, in which the identity of Valerie Plame, a CIA operative, was revealed.

      The same percentage of respondents in the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll said Bush administration officials acted unethically, but did nothing illegal.

      Good news for us.

    •  Blue... (none)
      Read again this excerpt regarding that poll:

      "Thirty-nine percent said some administration officials acted illegally in the matter, in which the identity of Valerie Plame, a CIA operative, was revealed.

      The same percentage of respondents in the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll said Bush administration officials acted unethically, but did nothing illegal.

      The poll questioned 1,008 adults October 21-23 and has a sampling error of plus or minus 5 percentage points."

      In other words, 78% of those polled say they think members of the administration did either something illegal OR unethical.  Either way, it's not good for the administration.  Most of those polled think members of the administration did something wrong.

      You go to war with the indictments you can prove, not the ones you'd like to prove. -Billmon

      by Joon on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 06:11:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  What does 1-5 mean? (none)
    1-5 means that there is one big fish and 4 small fish.

    In other words, we have:
    Cheney, Rove, Libby, and two others.

    Rove, Libby and the two others can allways make a plea bargin and get out.  However, Cheney (being the big fish) will be indicted for sure.

    If 5 are indicted that means that the Cheney indictment will be weak... if 1 is indicted (just Cheney) that means that the indictment will be strongest because the prosecution has the help of the 4 small fish ratting out the big fish.

    Trust me, Fitz has not left the decision of who has commited a crime for the last three days of his term.  But the possiblity that some of the small fish will escape in order to get the big fish is still there.

    Regards,
    Jamie

    --jamie "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism" - Thomas Jefferson

    by jamie ahmad on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 05:36:18 PM PDT

  •  It all started (none)
    with a botched two-bit break in.

    Or 30 years hence, shall we say...

    a botched two-bit forgery...

    "To have striven so hard, to have molded a public personality out of so amorphous an identity, to have sustained that superhuman effort only to end with every weakness disclosed and every error compounding the downfall--that was a fate of biblical proportions. Evidently the Deity would not tolerate the presumption that all can be manipulated; an object lesson of the limits of human presumption was necessary. "

    Henry Kissinger  (Super K)

  •  more questions (none)
    I'm not an attorney (nor a criminal).  Please help with language.  What does "sealed" (as in "sealed and filed tomorrow") mean?  

    Once indictments have been filed, is the info available?

    Can more than one person be named in a single indictment?

    I have been told that grand jury proceedings are secret.  Does this mean that all of the info (including documentary evidence) is off limits?

    Will Fitz be asking the grand jury to vote tomorrow or has that already happened?

    How many people are on a grand jury?

    Are indictments voted with a majority or a percentage of the jurors agreeing?

    Could someone give us a step-by-step overview of this process?

  •  still more questions (none)
    Is it possible that some of the little fish already got plea bargins?

    If plea bargins are filed does that as an indictment?

    Where and how is a plea bargin done?

    •  yes. (none)
      It's not only possible, but likely that some of the smaller fish took pleas and could do some time.  They will escape indictment.

      I could be wrong, but I think they more or less know they're caught and decide they don't want to go through a trial.

      They flip, turn state's evidence and do some time, but get lighter sentences than they might have.

      You go to war with the indictments you can prove, not the ones you'd like to prove. -Billmon

      by Joon on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 05:58:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well (none)
        they can't do time without being indicted, even if they cop a plea. They will probably be indicted on lesser charges.
        •  isn't an indictment (none)
          a formal accusation (which is then tried)?

          Why couldn't these lesser players just admit wrong doing and be charged, but never formally indicted?

          You go to war with the indictments you can prove, not the ones you'd like to prove. -Billmon

          by Joon on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 06:24:29 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yeah, I guess (none)
            I thought you meant that there would be no formal charges. Technically speaking, tho, if there is no indictment, the defendant is entitled to a prelminary hearing on probable cause, and you always run the risk of a judge throwing the case out. Most prosecutors prefer to use a grand jury for iffy cases, I think.

            Then again, if you have a plea deal all ready to go, I guess you wouldn't have to worry about a preliminary hearing. . .

            Know what? I've had way too much wine tonight. Just forget I ever said anything about this.

            As you were. . .

            •  Defendant can waive indictment (none)
              And plead to an information prepared by the prosecutor.  It's often done in plea bargain cases in the D.C. federal court.

              The Chimperor Has No Clothes

              by DC Pol Sci on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 06:37:52 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  But my point (none)
                was that there has to be either an information or an indictment (though I realize that I didn't state that very clearly). I thought the poster was saying that they would escape formal charges, and my point was that, to plead guilty, there has to be a charge to plead guilty to.
  •  Retread's Redux (none)
    If We Hadn't Outed Plame II

    I could while away the hours
    Remembrin' Gennifer Flowers
    And the Smearin' of McCain
    But Fitzgerald will be callin'
    And our heads will all be fallin'
    If we hadn't outted Plame!

    I'd be shredding every lib-ral
    With ev'ry single scribble
    And causing lots of pain
    Instead of cell doors clinkin'
    We'd still be the heirs of Lincoln,
    If we hadn't outted Plame!

    Oh, I could tell you why
    The name did get around,
    I could say what Fitz has found
    That miserable effing Hound

    Now I'll be just a nuffin'
    My hands they will be cuffin'
    And I'll probably go insane
    I can't dance or be merry
    Shoulda gone to work for Kerry,
    Oh, If we hadn't outted Plame!

    The problem with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur. -- GW Bush to PM Tony Blair Snopes "debunk": Not Persuasive

    by PJBurke on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 05:41:29 PM PDT

  •  hope for a better ending (none)
    I'm beginning to feel the way I felt watching the exit polls on Election Day last year. Came home from work thinking Kerry had won. Have the nagging feeling that I this may turn out the same way. Hope not.
    •  I understand what youre saying (none)
      It could very well be possible that rove has been feeding outright lies to some of these papers in an attempt to throw things off. I wouldnt put that past him. But, I really hope this is all real, and not false hope like the exit polls.

      "To any sheriff or peace officer of the State of Texas; Greetings: You are hereby commanded to arrest: Thomas Dale Delay" -Warrant for Tom Delay

      by who threw da cat on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 06:07:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Cheney Gang (none)
    Cheney Gang

    original song "Chain Gang" Written by Sam Cooke and Charles Cooke

    ooh! raah! ooh! raah!

    I hear somethin' saying

    ooh! raah! ooh! raah!
    ooh! raah! ooh! raah!

    Well, don't you know

    That's the sound of sick men working on the Che--ney Ga-a-ang
    That's the sound of sick men working on the Che--ney Gang
    All day long they're singing

    ooh! raah! ooh! raah!
    ooh! raah! ooh! raah!

    Well, don't you know
    That's the sound of sick men working on the Che--ney Ga-a-ng
    That's the sound of sick men working on the Che--ney Gang

    All day long they work so hard
    'til the sun is going down
    Working on conspiracies
    and trying to bring their enemies down

    You hear them scheming their lives away
    Then you hear somebody say

    That's the sound of sick men working on the Che--ney Ga-a-ng
    That's the sound of sick men working on the Che--ney Gang

    The problem with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur. -- GW Bush to PM Tony Blair Snopes "debunk": Not Persuasive

    by PJBurke on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 06:04:02 PM PDT

  •  A MUST Re-read... (none)
    If you haven't done so already, that is.

    dday's masterful 'Twas the Night Before Fitzmas

    Since it is the Night Before Fitzmas



    The problem with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur. -- GW Bush to PM Tony Blair Snopes "debunk": Not Persuasive

    by PJBurke on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 06:17:05 PM PDT

  •  "Twas the night before Fitzmas (none)
    texifornia

    'Twas the night before Fitzmas,
    And members of the House,
    Knew that Scooter was a liar,
    and Cheney was a louse.
    The indictments were prepared by the Grand Jury with care,
    We hoped the Bush crimes would soon be laid bare.
    Then through the media there arose such a clatter,
    That even Fox News said this was a matter.
    Charge Scooter, charge Cheney, and that fat Karl Rove,
    Patrick's investigation will yield a treasure trove.
    So as Karl was frog-marched,
    And Scooter locked in chains,
    I am strongley reminded,
    That here the people reign.
    Look past Fitzmas day,
    When the Bush Regime collapses,
    And the Wing Nuts can only say,
    "At least he cut our taxes".
    The teeth you hear gnashing,
    Are on the political right,
    Merry Fitzmas to all
    Carry on the fight.

    texifornia

  •  CBS:Rove and Libby aren't the primary focus (none)
    Its a Mr. X. Via Think Progress via Crooks and Liars.

    I read some guesses. Chalabi was mentioned. Riddle me this:

    What was a man, claimed later by the Bush Admin as an Iranian spy, doing in the President's inner circles in the first place? Where were the investigations? Hangin' with the WHIGS? And Chalabi was wanted in Jordan facing 20+ years at the time, wasn't he?

  •  with apologies to Frank Sinatra (none)
    It's beginning to look a lot like Fitzmas
    Everywhere you go
    Take a look in the Times and the Post, Indictments brewing
    Progressive activists all aglow

    It's beginning to look a lot like Fitzmas
    Bush's polls have hit the floor
    But the prettiest sight to see
    Is the Cheney that will be
    Behind a prison door

    Handcuffs and chains
    Scooter Libby is down the drain
    Is the wish of every one

    Bush advisers will talk
    And will go for a perp walk
    To watch it will be such fun

    All the people can hardly wait
    for jail terms to start again.

    It's beginning to look a lot like Fitzmas
    Everywhere you go
    There's presents from the Grand Jury
    One for Karl Rove as well
    The sturdy kind that hold up in court.

    It's beginning to look a lot like Fitzmas
    Soon the prison doors will shut
    And the thing that will make them ring
    Is the hearty laughs you bring
    Right within your gut.

    It's beginning to look a lot like Fitzmas
    Bush's polls have hit the floor
    But the prettiest sight to see
    Is the Cheney that will be
    Behind a prison door

    Sure it's Fitzmas once more.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site