J. Dean 10/21No Indictments 11/04--More to Come

John Dean predicted, much to my dismay, that no one would be indicted.  However, this week he has done a 180.

In his introduction he asserts that:

Having read the indictment against Libby, I am inclined to believe more will be issued. In fact, I will be stunned if no one else is indicted...the person who should be tossing and turning at night...is the Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney

 

There's more...

Lets pretend that the odds are in his favor since his last prediction turned out to be incorrect.  

One thing reporters have been very surprised by is the length and complexity of this indictment.  It is called a "speaking indictment" and reads more like a spy novel than a legal document.

As Dean explains

Typically, federal criminal indictments are absolutely bare bones. Just enough to inform a defendant of the charges against him.

 

Both the United States Attorney's Manual and the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution allow an indictment to be short and sweet.  

I personally find this interesting considering how "by the book" Fitzgerald appears.  Because he is proceeding with an amazing amount of caution, this elaborate indictment serves an important purpose.  Dean concludes by explaining first that:

Fitzgerald has clearly thrown a stacked indictment at Libby, laying it on him as heavy as the law and propriety permits. He has taken one continuous false statement, out of several hours of interrogation, and made it into a five-count indictment. It appears he is trying to flip Libby - that is, to get him to testify against Cheney -- and not without good reason. Cheney is the big fish in this case.

Unfortunatly, Dean does not believe Libby will ever flip on Chenney and goes on to elaborate on Libby's legal strategy.

It has been reported that Libby's attorney tried to work out a plea deal. But Fitzgerald insisted on jail time, so Libby refused to make a deal. It appears that only Libby, in addition to Cheney, knows what Cheney knew, and when he knew, and why he knew, and what he did with his knowledge.

Will Libby flip? Unlikely. Neither Cheney nor Libby (I believe) will be so foolish as to crack a deal. And Libby probably (and no doubt correctly) assumes that Cheney - a former boss with whom he has a close relationship -- will (at the right time and place) help Libby out, either with a pardon or financially, if necessary. Libby's goal, meanwhile, will be to stall going to trial as long as possible, so as not to hurt Republicans' showing in the 2006 elections.

The question now is will Libby's strategy be successful.  Will he break under the pressure from his family? Although all these guys claim to be loyal to a fault, deep down they are all selfish bastards and will save their skin before they save each other or their precious Republican Party.

•  I think you mean he pulled a 180...

  ...not a 360.

  A 360 means a full circle, ending up right back where he started.

  (sorry to sound so snotty, this is just one of those misused phrases that irks me to no end, along with "I could care less" instead of "I couldn't care less"...)

  by Brainwrap on Fri Nov 04, 2005 at 06:16:07 PM PDT

  •   He pulled a 540 n/t

    by Land of Enchantment on Fri Nov 04, 2005 at 10:13:06 PM PDT

    •  Stop it!

      You're making me dizzy!

      by sxwarren on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 04:45:22 AM PDT

•  Careful

  reading of the indictment is very interesting and revealing. I think if Libby falls on the sword, Cheney will make sure he is taken care of through generous donations of his friends to Libby's defens fund (which I think they have just set up).

  As to the "speaking" nature of the indictment, I think Fitzgerald had 3 motives.

  1. As you explained, to really tighten the rope around Libby - possibly to make him flip, as has been suggested.

  2.To let Rove know that he is examining closely the stories related to reporters that were spread around by him and Libby

  3. To try to the best of his ability, within the scope of the law and the 4 corners of the indictment, to LET the AMERICAN people have some insight into what went on.

  I say #3 because Fitzgerald was very clear that he understood that many people want to know who did what, when and why. He understands people's frustration at this dragging on for so long. He understands our frustration regarding the classified nature of material.

  And because he is a decent person he made it a speaking indictment that facilitated #3 even as it suited his objectives regarding reasons #1 and #2. Especially if his understanding is that he would not be writing a report.

  by dmmteacher on Fri Nov 04, 2005 at 06:21:18 PM PDT

  •  Legal Defense Funds are an unregulated way

    to make political contributions.  Probably subject to gift taxes for individual contributions over $11k.  Contributions to libraries are tax exempt and entirely unregulated.

    This whole business of "charitable contributions" is a really slimy part of the current political landscape.  Today's rebroadcast of Senate Indian Affairs committee hearing was instructive.  Abramoff's tax accountant testified (no client privelege there?) and there was a lot of discussion about the ways non-profits were used.  One of the non-profits one or another of the tribes was directed to donate to was a training center for snipers in Israel.

    Yipes!!

    by Land of Enchantment on Fri Nov 04, 2005 at 10:17:43 PM PDT

•  Great Post

  Great Post Lawstudent922.  I've been making the point that I think Karl Rove will be forced to resign whether he's indicted or not.  The political liability he represents to the president, the GOP, the nation, and the world is just too great to imagine all these folks tolerating the ongoing damage and risk he does every further day by staying in. I am voting less than a month, but have been surprised by how many think he can survive this.  

  But I just posted a new poll to find out what others think.  I would be appreciative and delighted if you'd all come on over and tell us what you think.   Cheers.

  Karl Rove Resignation: Will He Stay Or Will He Go?  (Poll)

  by HoundDog on Fri Nov 04, 2005 at 06:42:31 PM PDT

•  No need...

  assumes that Cheney - a former boss with whom he has a close relationship -- will (at the right time and place) help Libby out, either with a pardon or financially, if necessary.

  I was listening to some NPR program (or maybe AirAmerica) and someone explained that Libby is one of the richest men in the administration. He inherited a great deal of $$$ from an investment banker father.

  The opinion of the commenter was that Libby has the money to drag this out forever if he can. He'll die before he runs out of money.

  by fly on Fri Nov 04, 2005 at 07:03:13 PM PDT

•  A long trial is good

  The longer this is on the radar, the more and more we get to tell people how they lied us into the war. How their lies are responsible for every life lost. A quick trial, might not be a good thing for our side.

  by Vera Lofaro on Fri Nov 04, 2005 at 07:17:22 PM PDT

•  A long trial

  seems like it could mean going past the 2006 elections BEFORE it even starts.
  Security clearances, executive privilage, delaying tactics...

  I think the political benefits to Dems will be largely lost unless Rove is also indicted...

  When do folks think the actual trial will be held?

  by johnj on Fri Nov 04, 2005 at 07:28:33 PM PDT

•  This is

  interesting. The thing that no one seems to mention is that if Libby is convicted at the trial, he will have to go before the grand jury and spill the beans. So the info will probably be gotten later rather than sooner.

  I can't imagine this judge, who is known to be a hardliner, delaying the trial by more than a few month. Last night the GOP was predicted next fall on Hardball.

  by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 04, 2005 at 07:44:52 PM PDT

  •   What?????????????????

    No one is mentioning it because it is NOT a fact.  If Libby is convicted he will be fined and sentenced.  He will not have to tell anything to anybody.

    by Lying eyes on Fri Nov 04, 2005 at 08:03:11 PM PDT

    •  This

      is what the lawyers on places like Hardball are saying. They must be confused. They said that he can be dragged back before the grand jury after he is convicted and be made to tell the truth.

      by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 04, 2005 at 08:10:22 PM PDT

  •  I think it's just the opposite.

    If he goes for a plea bargain, he'll have to sing as part of the deal.  He may end up going to trial, but one shouldn't assume that yet.  My guess: He's counting on beating it though the help of friends in high places fighting release of evidence on account of National Security & executive privelege.  Risky, because it could get him a hefty jail sentence.

    As to the witnesses: that starts up soon, long before trial, as part of the deposition process.  The battle over classified evidence will be duked out all along the way.  We may see a few more people popped in the slammer over refusal to testify before it's all over.  Even if it never goes to trial.  And it might not.

    Some of these pundits are spinning pure fantasy, often for a "secret" client.  Many of them should be taken with a salt lick's worth of salt, not just a grain of it.  It would be really helpful to know about their client lists; one could realistically evaluate the source then.  Many are doing exactly what Armstrong Williams did.  But because they're consultant/analysts working for "private" clients, it's not the same kind of scandal or disgrace.  (Except it is.)

    One of the most interesting tidbits I've encountered on Kos is that Wolf Blitzer used to work for Pat Robertson (though he leaves that off his resumé).  Now that I think about it, t'would be useful to know resumés of all the talking heads, actually, not just those with "recurring roles".

    by Land of Enchantment on Fri Nov 04, 2005 at 10:29:18 PM PDT

•  The wheels grind exceedingly fine . . .

  Libby can talk tough about no deals now . . . but as trial draws near, he's going to have to face one very cold fact:  if he is found guilty on these charges - and he does not cooperate enough to merit a departure from the sentencing guidelines - he is fucked.  Federal prosecutors and tough talking anti-crime legislators have removed judicial discretion from Federal sentencing - its all according to the book - and the book says Scooter could wind up in the joint until he's 80-something.

  Scooter's enjoyed a pretty nice life up until now - well bred, well off, well connected.  Life's a bowl of cherries for I. Lewis.  Lewisburg, on the other hand, will not be nearly so much fun.  And we'll see what Scooter is made of when he finally comes to the realization that he could spend quite literally the rest of his life in a concret cage.  We'll see just how tough he is.

  by bobdevo on Fri Nov 04, 2005 at 08:07:21 PM PDT

•  My best guess

  is that Libby will not flip.  He is a fanatical ideologue whose strong views began in high school.  He has a cause, and it's not Cheney.  Cheney comes in only because he shares Libby's world view.  He would only turn on Cheney if Cheney abandoned the cause.  Cheney would never do that, as his focus is so fixed I'm surprised his eyes even rotate in their sockets.  If Cheney lets Libby take the hit in order to protect the cause, then this would be OK with Libby--the cause is not damaged.  Also, appears from a blog I read a few days ago in dKos, the actual guidelines for sentencing if convicted may result in only a few years rather than the potential 30 years (and I'm sure there will be compensation awaiting, or even a pardon).  This Libby would endure as long as the cause is protected.  On the other hand, if Cheney did something to betray the cause (which does not seem even remotely likely), then Libby may loosen up in order to get back at Cheney as a traitor to the cause.  This seems highly unlikely.

  Rove presents another picture.  He is not so much a fanatical ideologue as he is a tactical artist that has served the cause of others.  Rove has no burning causes to die for.  He may be a conservative, but Rove's art is his cause.  And this particular Administration is so completely lacking in ethics that Rove's immoral artistry has thrived.  If really cornered and threatened with prison time, he would not become a martyr to a worthy cause by remaining loyal.  He would just emerge as a failure--someone who failed in his art by being careless.  His future would be ruined, he'd never get another prominent job.  I don't think Rove would go to the wall to protect Bush.  The only thing that might make him hold out is if he is totally convinced he would be pardoned and be well compensated at the end.  This would require an enormous amount of trust and faith on the part of Rove.  Since Rove and those he has thrown in with are so lacking in ethics, he may find it difficult to sacrifice himself to their hands.  Granted, loyalty is a keystone that locks this corrupt group together, but does Rove have that much faith?  If really cornered, and his faith is shaken, Rove might cave.  His main cause is himself.

  by Cook on Fri Nov 04, 2005 at 08:12:47 PM PDT

  •  But wait!!!!

    "And this particular Administration is so completely lacking in ethics that Rove's immoral artistry has thrived."

    According to the Washington post, Bush is going to fix all that

    Bush Orders Staff to Attend Ethics Briefings

    Now wouldn't you just love to be a fly on the wall in those briefings?

    by alabamaliberal on Fri Nov 04, 2005 at 09:14:46 PM PDT

•  Breaking: Bush will pardon Libby if he pleads

  one of the talking heads on McNeil Lehrer stated this as coming from people close to Bush, who obviously doesn't want a trial. So I expect that Libby's lawyers will bluff and delay as long as possible, then plead on the eve of the trial with as good a deal as they can get him, without spilling the beans on Cheney.

  Fitz of course reads the papers, and has seen this kind of thing before.

  by seesdifferent on Fri Nov 04, 2005 at 08:57:22 PM PDT

  •  Which just might be disgraceful enough...

    ...to cost the GOP both houses of Congress.  If they haven't lost them in the meantime, while it's still playing out.

    by Land of Enchantment on Fri Nov 04, 2005 at 10:32:43 PM PDT

•  Fitz is one helluva chess player.

  There's a lot of information in the indictments, but all of it is merely hypothesis until Libby is either convicted or confesses - then it all becomes proven fact.

  The Rethugees can't allow this to go to trial because that would mean that a whole bunch of them would have to testify under oath where they'd either have to spill the beans on the WMD lies or commit further perjury and obstruction of justice.  But, as has been correcly stated, neither will Libby "flip" in exchange for a lighter sentence because he's a true believer in the Neocon cause.

  What I think is likely to happen is - after a couple of months of wrangling over an apparent impasse, Fitz will seem to relent and agree to a fairly light sentence for Scooter in exchange for his confessing that the information in the indictments is true fact.  Scooter may or may not be pardoned afterward, but that's irrelevant.

  At that point, Fitz will have proven facts that he can combine with other information and testimony gathered in the investigation in order to leverage further indictments against, say, "Official A".  Those indictments will also be "speaking indictments" containing a whole bunch more contextual information.

  The process is: Indict, establish the information as fact in order to indict the next person.  Fitz will repeat this relentlessly until, on-by-one, he's gotten them all.  They're screwed and they know it.  All they can do at this point is delay the inevitable.

  by sxwarren on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 05:13:00 AM PDT