Karl Rove: October 2005 Archives

It's beyond spin and into the realm of delusional when you judge the seriousness of a crime by the potential punishment.

I heard the press conference on the radio while driving home from work. Fitzgerald seemed to have the press firmly at bay as they asked questions about matters he is required to keep confidential. On the Libby indictment, he was very articulate and sounded very confident of the charges. And well he should - that's his job. However, Libby also has a story to tell, and as this goes to trial we'll get more information. That is unless he gets a plea bargain.

Also, Fitzgerald was pretty clear that the current grand jury was to be dismissed. While he reserved the right to continue the investigation with other grand juries, it seems to me (as a non-lawyer) that he would have to re-cover considerable ground to do so. This alone tells me that it probably won't happen unless Fitzgerald gets something damning that he doesn't already have.

In the meantime, the left is has become even more delusional. Take for instance, Howard Dean's statement about the indictment (hat tip Polipundit):

"Beyond the evidence that the White House manipulated the intelligence used to justify the war in Iraq, a group of senior White House officials not only orchestrated efforts to smear a critic of the war, but worked to cover up this smear campaign. In so doing, they ignored the rule of law, endangering our national security and the brave men and women who dedicate their lives to protecting our nation's security. I. Lewis Libby was a part of this internal White House group."

Obviously the radio in my car is broken, else I would have heard at least some of what Howard did. Here's one from Nancy Pelosi:

"The criminal indictments of a top White House official mark a sad day for America and another chapter in the Republicans' culture of corruption. At the heart of these indictments was the effort by the Bush Administration to discredit critics of its Iraq policy with reckless disregard for national security and the public trust."

Two extra points to Nancy for working in the now ubiquitous "Culture of Corruption". Of course, whenever Nancy speaks, her buddy Harry Reid can't be far behind:

"This case is bigger than the leak of highly classified information. It is about how the Bush White House manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to bolster its case for the war in Iraq and to discredit anyone who dared to challenge the president."

More disturbing are the comments from John Conyers. As many of you know, he's been lurking in the dark and dangerous halls of the Huffington Post:

"I believe it is imperative that Congress pursue these questions and determine how these charges fit into the entire web of deception, manipulation and obfuscation laid bare by the Downing Street Minutes and Treasongate. As a result, I have directed my staff to conduct a comprehensive investigation and review of the facts concerning not only alleged efforts to misuse the White House to out a CIA operative, but misinformation concerning the run up to the Iraq War, and all legal violations and breaches of trust by the Administration concerning the War."

I know "treasongate" is a popular term in moonbat circles nowadays, but a member of congress shouldn't be so cavalier about using the "T" word. It doesn't apply here. Conyers has been one of the nuttiest thoughout the Plame investigation, wanting to impeach Rove before anyone has determined whether any crime was actually committed. And this is the same Conyers who held a mock impeachment trial of the President earlier this year. If they had awards for the most reckless and delusional political attacks, Conyers would get my vote easily.

But back to Libby. If he did lie to the grand jury, well, that will come out, and he'll get his due. But the feverish and irresponsible treatment of this affair by the left and the media have caused damge to Libby and others that can't be reversed.

Via AFP/Yahoo:

Senator urges Bush to fire any aide indicted in CIA leak probe

Excerpts from the article:

"I write to encourage you to swiftly and strongly clarify that anyone who is indicted in the ongoing CIA leak investigation will be removed from the White House immediately and until the case is resolved," the New York Democrat wrote in a letter to the president Tuesday.

Independent counsel Patrick Fitzgerald is nearing the end a nearly two-year long investigation into the leak, and rumors have swirled that among those who might face charges are senior White House Bush advisors Karl Rove and Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

With indictments possible at any moment, "it is important that you make this clear ... that your standard will not shift depending on the status of the individual(s) indicted -- whether it is a low-level assistant or the most trusted and high-ranking aide," Schumer wrote.

"Anyone indicted, and thus found likely to have violated the law on a national security issue, should be treated the same and removed from the White House staff."

Chuck and his Democratic contemporaries have had a lot of fun parsing the President's statements on this topic. If the speculation is true and the only indictments issued are for perjury or obstruction (in other words, no indictments for leaks or outings), then no national security issue is involved. Will Chuck stop asking for firings? I bet no. Will anyone in the media call him out on it? Again, I bet no.

Also, It's really become an upside down world when Chuck Schumer writes this to the President:

"Recent press stories have contained some troubling statements from anonymous 'White House allies' attempting to discredit Mr Fitzgerald personally, perhaps in anticipation of coming indictments," Schumer wrote, praising Fitzgerald as "an apolitical 'prosecutors prosecutor,' and beyond reproach."

"I urge you to call on your alleged 'allies' to refrain from attacking either Mr Fitzgerald or his decision, whatever it is."

There's still a chance (albeit small) that Fitzgerald will not indict anyone. If that happens, will Schumer continue to be so kind?

The "collective" is swarming over Kay Bailey Huchison's remarks yesterday on Meet the Press. Some examples from the left-wing blogs:

Kos: "This Sunday we got a preview of the GOP post-Fitzmas spin -- that perjury isn't a crime."

Atrios: "Republicans to Americans: It's Okay to Lie Under Oath in a Criminal Investigation!"

John in DC: "Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison has a soft spot in her heart for traitors."

Democratic Underground: "Bat Boy Spotted in DU Comment Area!"

Several on Huffington Post:

Alec Baldwin: "Why are contemporary Republicans so full of shit?"

Trey Ellis: "It’s Only a “Technicality” in a Culture of Corruption"

Robert Schlesinger: "Hutchison didn’t always feel this way."

Interestingly, some right wing blogs have joined the fray. Examples follow:

Michelle Malkin: "...I found Hutchison's pooh-poohing more than a bit disturbing."

BullDogPundit: "A Memo To Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison: Please Shut Up"

John Hawkins: "That is not the sort of behavior Republicans should engage in..."

It bothers me a little to see some of the critisism from the right side. I don't think Sen Hutchison was saying that perjury or obstruction should not be prosecuted. I'm not even sure that she was attacking Fitzgerald directly as some have indicated, although I think she could have been clearer with her remarks.

Controversy over those two issues aside, I do agree with her remarks in general. The left would love to have an indictment on the "outing" of Plame. Given only perjury, they will try to make the charge just as serious in their attacks anyway by dragging in peripheral issues. To them, this is about a wider issue on the war itself, and they will use any straw they can grab.

Look for Sen Hutchison and others who understand this to try and deny them that straw. Yes, perjury should be prosecuted. But put it in perspective. If there was no "outing" of a CIA agent, then perjury should stand alone without any attachment to peripheral issues. That is, unless the left goes unchallenged when they suggest otherwise.

The administration gets a black eye either way. This is about how long it will take to heal.

Perhaps I'm just being hopeful to interpret her remarks this way. Hopefully she'll find an opportunity to clarify her remarks.

Cheney Told Aide of C.I.A. Officer, Lawyers Report:

WASHINGTON, Oct. 24 - I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, first learned about the C.I.A. officer at the heart of the leak investigation in a conversation with Mr. Cheney weeks before her identity became public in 2003, lawyers involved in the case said Monday.

Notes of the previously undisclosed conversation between Mr. Libby and Mr. Cheney on June 12, 2003, appear to differ from Mr. Libby's testimony to a federal grand jury that he initially learned about the C.I.A. officer, Valerie Wilson, from journalists, the lawyers said.

"Suggest"? "Appear to differ"? The NYT is normally not cautious or shy when it comes to throwing negatives at this administration. Sounds like the NYT is taking some interpretive license here, and I "suggest" not getting wrapped around the axle on this unless something more substantial comes out.

Also, note that there's no suggestion that Cheney directed Libby to do anything with the information. I don't think the Times would have passed up on even a vague hint in that area.

Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.