A few thoughts about L'Affaire Libby. Following some of the excellent diaries about this, I got to thinking. Bear with me as my mind wanders around a bit. Above the fold is the Bush question. Below the fold is the Cheney question.
Since it's clear Bush lied to the public about the leaking of classified information, would it be unreasonable to assume that he also lied to federal investigators when they interviewed him? I had to double-check this, but Bush was himself interviewed by Patrick Fitzgerald about the Plame leak in June 2004. I wonder what was said. Fitz interviewed Bush for 70 minutes, according to the Washington Post (see HERE.) I wonder if Fitz asked him about classified info in general or only about Plame?
Most pundits keep talking about the legality of a President declassifying information on the fly. The consensus seems to be that it may be unethical, unusual, politically stupid and generally uncool, but not necessarily illegal. But that's irrelevant to his lying to Fitz or the FBI. Could this turn into a criminal issue after all?
Make the jump ...
Also, now it appears that Libby is screwed no matter what happens. It just becomes a matter of degrees for him. And Fitz is keenly aware of this. Libby clearly lied about the leaks and that's what he's been charged with. So, he just needs to find a way to be less screwed. His own testimony is what's causing him problems. If he lied about Bush authorizing the leak (the old Nuremberg defense), then he lied to the grand jury. If he's telling the truth about that, then Bush/Cheney lied. It's just bad all around (for them).
To protect the Presidency, someone is going to get saddled with all the bad and then get jettisoned. At first, my best guess would be Libby. He's lower down the chain, expendable and farther away from Bush... and already kind of gone.
But thinking about it more, I now think it will be Cheney.
Libby has some mighty forces pulling him in different directions. He has a powerful interest in a family with two young kids to not spend a long time in prison. If the Bushies turn on him and try to make him out to be a rogue agent (tough case to make in light of reporters' testimony and Fitz's recent filing indicating a coordinated effort), he might be able to sell out someone higher up for a reduced sentence. On the other hand, he has a new cushy job with the Hudson Institute (right wing think tank). If he sold out, his team spirit payoff would probably vanish. Since he's obviously not welcome on the left already, what would he do without the right? He may think he can wait it out and hope for a pardon (for taking one for the team). But the pardon comes with strings. IANAL but my understanding is once someone is pardoned, he loses the ability to plead the Fifth. There are some very powerful people both in the West Wing and on Capitol Hill who would rather not have Libby testify. (For this reason, I almost hope he gets pardoned.)
But thinking about it a little more, there is someone else who could be jettisoned to protect Bush. Cheney. Bush could try to say he never authorized the leak, which would make Cheney culpable for telling Libby Bush had authorized it. Cheney's just about the only person les popular than Bush. He's despised by most of the government. Other Republicans see him as a drag on their ratings. And most importantly, the public hates him. Since he consistently makes statements indicating he's completely out of touch with reality (especially about Iraq), they could blame the whole thing on him, toss him out and look like they cleaned house.
So right now, I think Cheney is counting the weeks until his resignation is official.
*4/20/06 UPDATE: Ignore the rest of this. In hindsight, I wasn't thinking straight and it doesn't make much sense. Sorry.
Now, about Cheney resigning. This gets complicated. Any new Vice-President would have to be someone that can bring up the popularity of Bush and the Republicans. This person would have to be seen by the public as sane, competent, trustworthy and nice. He or she would also have to be confirmed by the Senate. With Republicans about to lose several seats in the Senate, this might get dicey. Can Cheney wait to leave and risk his replacement having to be confirmed by a hostile Senate? Or would it be better for him to leave now so Bush can get a confirmation from a friendlier Senate... and therefore nominate someone whom he wants as opposed to someone the Democrats would not block.
Then it gets even more complicated if you look at the long term. Anyone confirmed by the Senate before January (half-way mark of Bush's term) could only get reelected once. Republicans trying to keep a lock on the White House would want someone confirmed AFTER January next, so this person could run twice on their own. How likely is that with a Democratic Senate? Okay, my head's spinning.
So in summary, I think Cheney is going to bite the dust first. The great indicator I'll be watching out for is what happens to Libby's support. After resigning from the West Wing, he was hired as an analyst by the Hudson Institute, a right wing think tank. This was clearly the cronies watching out for their own and not leaving him out there to twist in the wind... and possibly take a better offer from Fitz. If he loses the Hudson job, it'll be a good indication that the Bushies are ditching him. For me, it'll also be a good indication that Cheney will be resigning as Libby turns state's evidence.
Just some thoughts. It was a little long for a comment so I thought I'd throw together a diary. Let me know what you think. What am I missing? Where is my reasoning off base?
*UPDATE: capitalsfn makes a good point about the VP confirmation not counting towards the two terms HERE. I replied directly below his comment.