« Two Questions | Main | Los Angeles Saints? »

October 28, 2005

The Plame Game

Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff Scooter Libby was indicted today on five charges related to the Valerie Plame affair. Libby resigned his position on Friday after a federal grand jury handed down one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury, and two counts of making false statements. Out of the woods at least for now is White House advisor Karl Rove and Vice President Cheney himself, who was subject to wild resignation rumors last week. Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is still looking at whether Rove committed perjury during one of his four appearances before the grand jury.

I'm not a lawyer, so I won't play one on the blogosphere. There are plenty of lawyers on this and other blogs who can talk in more detail about what Libby is up against. My political gut reaction is that today could have gone worse for the president, especially if the higher-profiles like Rove and Cheney ended up facing indictment too. That the jury is still out on Rove's involvement means the administration can't breathe easy just yet.

Posted by David Darlington at October 28, 2005 08:06 PM

Comments

I'm sure things could have gone worse. But you have Rove still twisting in the wind. You have the President's assistant (he is also Cheney's chief of staff) indicted for lying about just what the hell he was up to when a CIA agent's cover got blown, apparently in retaliation for a diplomat's acts in pointing out that Iraq had no nuclear program, scary statements about waking up to mushroom clouds notwithstanding.

It'd be different if Libby were a low ranking figure or if he were busted for something tangential to the Bush administration. But he's a central figure busted for something related to the case for invading Iraq, the central part of the Bush administration's agenda.

So, it could be worse. But it could be a lot better.

Posted by: Doug at October 29, 2005 08:09 AM | permalink

It took me a bit to figure out why Fitzgerald doesn't want to admit that Plame was not a covert agent. See I'm A Little Slow

Posted by: pbswatcher at October 29, 2005 03:18 PM | permalink

Is anyone really claiming Plame wasn't covert?

Posted by: Foltz at October 29, 2005 05:57 PM | permalink

Well, Scooter was essentially making that claim when he told the grand jury and federal investigators that he learned about Plame's identity from Russert who told him "all the reporters know." Of course, it turns out he was lying when he said this. So I don't know if anyone is honestly making the claim.

Posted by: Doug at October 29, 2005 10:42 PM | permalink

It could have gone worse, and it may still. Rove surely remains in jeopardy. The interesting question is not whether he'll be indicted (dollars to donuts he's "Official A"), but why Fitzgerald didn't indict him with Libby.

For the sake of argument, take it as a given that Fitzgerald has Libby dead to rights. The charges are all felonies, so Libby could well be facing jail time. Will he take one for the team the way Judy Miller did for him, but for a much longer bid? Or will he roll on someone else to stay out of the can?

It wouldn't make much sense for Mr. Fitzgerald to give one perjurer a walk just to grab another he can, in all likelihood, already indict. Moreover, if you think paragraph 21 of the indictment against Libby was included to put Mr. Rove on notice that he's on the hook for the leak, the real question becomes: who else is Fitzgerald after?

I'm thinking Dick Cheney is sweating bullets right now, as is the President on his behalf. Shall we now speculate as to why Fitgerald is meeting with James Sharp, the President's personal attorney?

Posted by: Scott at October 30, 2005 12:26 AM | permalink

Taking one for the team doesn't have quite the same oomph to it when the coach has the presidential pardon power....

Posted by: philosopher at October 30, 2005 11:18 AM | permalink

The fallout from such a pardon would be more than Bush could bear at this point. That may change, though, if his approval rating starts to climb again.

Posted by: Scott at October 30, 2005 01:54 PM | permalink

"but why Fitzgerald didn't indict him with Libby."

1 possible reason...Rove actually didn't do anything wrong, and had no clue what Libby was doing when he was out defending the WH against Wilson.

Another possible reason; the obstruction of justice. It can be quite hard to put together a solid case against a person if there is another guy out there lying to prosecutors, covering up evidence, allowing reporters to go to jail for 3 months on their behalf, and constructing elaborate deceptions designed to mislead the investigation.

In other words...more time, and maybe a plea baragin for Libby, may very well be the key to getting Rove, given how badly it looks like Libby was in this.

Posted by: Balta at October 30, 2005 06:50 PM | permalink

The "maybe Rove didn't know" idea falls victim to the years of myth-building surrounding Rove. To suddenly have to believe that other senior staffers are doing things and he doesn't know about it is hard after hearing for so long that Rove is so deeply involved not just in the polical workings, but also the policy-making. Of course, those myths could be wrong. No one's tried to debunk them prior to now, though. I don't remember any stories around convention time, for instance, of Rove being so busy that he just develops amnesia concerning important conversations.

Does pardoning Libby really hurt the president politically? I don't think so. He currently has about 8% of Democrats, 2% of blacks, and 15-20% of independents in his corner. His support is solely Republican. And of those still in his camp, most of those are the type whose hearts skip a beat when they see him with his shirtsleeves up, walking bowlegged after a hard day of riding his imaginary horse. How many of those would abandon him just because he sticks it to that mean overzealous prosecutor and his Democratic fanclub by pardoning Libby? If Iraq, Katrina, the growing deficit, and the expansion of Medicare hasn't lost them, a pardon sure won't. This whole case is confusing, can't be reduced to a soundbite, can be diverted into a "he said/she said" fest, and makes their heads hurt anyway. And there's no evidence of a blowjob, which certainly lessens the offense.

Posted by: T Bailey at November 1, 2005 04:36 PM | permalink

Post a comment




Remember Me?





(you may use HTML tags for style)

 
---- ADVERTISEMENTS ----



Rankings and Aggregators
Technocrati
Blogdom of God
Who Links Here

Site Meter