I suspect there'll be at least one indictment on a more substantive charge (though don't ask me under exactly which statute). I'm sure you got the the basic political dynamics right, except that I think there are factors that will cause it to play out as not exactly a replay of the late 90s: (i) this administration is much less popular than the Clinton administration was; (ii) this issue lies at the heart of one of the reasons why people are unhappy with the administration -- the sense that the war in Iraq wasn't worth it, and part of why it wasn't worth it, is that there weren't the WMDs we were all told to be so worried about; (iii) the GOP will be at least somewhat hampered by the obvious charges of raw hypocrisy that are already being levelled at them, if they can't do better than the 'hey, it was just lying, nothing so bad there' line.

I agree with you that it is very unlikely to end up in an impeachment of the president. The vice-president, however, is another matter.

1 more thing you forgot...everyone with access to either Google or Lexis search will be massively entertained by dragging up quotes from 1998 and comparing them with the remarks of today.

Balta-

Oh, absolutely. And Republican apologists will look up contradictory statements by Democrats and say, "How can you trust such people, who speak out of both sides of their mouths?" And Democratic apologists will look up contradictory statements by Republicans and say, "How can you trust such people, who speak out of both sides of their mouths?" And of course, they'll both be right.

But you know what's even worse? There will be large numbers of partisans on both sides who really will buy in to the arguments only from their party and are either too stupid or too deluded to recognize the irrationality of it all.

I for one, plan to just laugh.

It would be interesting to see a Martha Stewart defense - obstruction of justice but no crime is 'just another instance of the justice system run amok'. Of course, the magnitude of charge and motives are much different, but both Karl Rove and Martha Stewart have been popular punching bags for a long time. Bonus points for tying this to the Ronnie Earle investigation.

What, they already gave up on the "criminalization of politics" meme?

Regarding Ed's point number 3.

Larry Johnson (Republican, worked with the Central Intelligence Agency from 1985-1989 and the Department of State's Office of the Coordinator for Counter Terrorsim from 1989-1993) claims that Plame was nonofficial cover (NOC), the most covert of CIA operatives, and was in the process of converting to official cover when she was outed. He was a CIA classmate of hers back in 1885.

Plame was investigating weapons of mass destruction. If Johnson is correct, her outing may have compromised intelligence operations she was involved with all around the world.

Johnson also describes the outing of Plame as part of a broader White House effort to mislead and manipulate U.S. public opinion---part of an orchestrated effort to take us to war. He calls this effort, "a classic 'covert action' program against the citizens of the United States."

Johnson defines covert action this way: "Covert action refers to behind-the-scenes efforts by U.S. intelligence agencies to plant stories, manipulate information and shape public opinion. In other words, you write stories that reporters will publish as their own, you create media events that tout a particular theme, and you demonize your opponent. Traditionally, this activity was directed against foreign governments. For example, the U.S. used covert action extensively in Greece in the 1960s to help fend off communists. Covert action also played a major role in rallying world support for the Afghanistan mujahideen following the Soviet invasion in 1979."

From the tone of Ed's point 3 (I could be wrong), it appears that he thinks that the entire affair is another frivolous Washington dog and pony show:

"They will make speeches that sound exactly like the speeches that Republicans made in the late 1990s - "It's not what they did, it's that they lied about it." They may even call for congressional hearings. Just like Republicans said about Bill Clinton."

Personally, I think that comparing the outing of Plame, (and the context in which the outing took place) with the Lewinsky affair is just an amazing stretch. I'm curious about what more conservative posters than I think.

JohnS wrote:

From the tone of Ed's point 3 (I could be wrong), it appears that he thinks that the entire affair is another frivolous Washington dog and pony show

No, I didn't mean to imply that at all. I do think it's important, and I pretty much agree with Johnson about it. There's no doubt in my mind that Plame was outed intentionally by the White House in order to send a message not only to those who blew the whistle on them but also to the intelligence community as a whole. I think the spooks had become increasingly irritated at having their work distorted or oversimplified by administration announcements and could see the writing on the wall that they were being set up to take the blame, as indeed they have been. I have a friend here who used to work for the NSA and he said 3 years ago when this was all starting that you could tell what was going on by the number of leaks from unnamed sources in the intelligence agencies you were seeing in the press.

However, that doesn't mean I'm going to take the Democrats seriously when they play politics with it, any more than I'll take the Republicans seriously for doing the same. Even if the Democrats are complaining about a serious issue, you know damn well that if it had been a Democrat in the White House, they'd be reading from the Republican script and vice versa.

They will make speeches that sound exactly like the speeches that Republicans made in the late 1990s - "It's not what they did, it's that they lied about it."

The Republicans were saying "It's what he did and that he lied about it" - "it" being the fixing of a sexual harassment lawsuit.

First person who trots out "it's just about sex" should be consistent and treat Anita Hill's allegations likewise.

Out of curiosity, can anybody tell me what the standard of evidence is for bringing an indictment, and/or the percentage of indictments that result in convictions?

In politics, the phrase "was indicted for" is used as though it were synonymous with "was convicted of," though an indictment is only a charge, not a finding of guilt per se.

Eric wrote:

Out of curiosity, can anybody tell me what the standard of evidence is for bringing an indictment, and/or the percentage of indictments that result in convictions?

The percentage of indictments when convening a grand jury is staggeringly high. The prosecutor can pretty much get what he wants out of a grand jury and everyone knows it. So an indictment certainly doesn't mean that a crime has been committed. I don't know what the rate of conviction is, but I would think to be relevant in this situation you'd have to use the rate of conviction for special prosecutors, not just general conviction rates. Those cases tend to be more unique.