I’m sorry, what was that you were talking about? Something about indictments?

Will a nasty political fight to make people forget that the White House is full of criminals? Stay tuned to find out. Same Bush-time, same Bush-channel.

One of Andrew Sullivan’s readers writes in with the best theory about what happens next that I’ve read anywhere :

Let’s just take the Espionage Act. Fitz clearly said that Plame’s position was classified, he implied strongly that it related to national security, and as Josh Marshall pointed out in a recent post, the indictment itself states that both Cheney and Libby knew the precise division of the CIA where she worked, which by definition made her covert. So right there – as soon as he tells that to Miller – you have a prima facie violation of the Espionage Act.
. . .
So why not charge it? Because Fitz has Libby nailed on the 5 counts from today’s indictment. Just nailed. So he’s bringing Libby in on those charges, they’re going to talk some turkey, and Fitz is going to see if Libby will talk, maybe about VP, maybe about Official A (who’s clearly Rove), or maybe about the VP’s moles at State and in the CIA. Offer some carrots – maybe no jail – but if Libby refuses, then Fitz brings down the espionage or intelligence act charges. Libby has nowhere to go, and Fitz knows it. In my view, he’s going to try to exploit that opening before wrapping this thing up.

We’ve all been assuming that Fitzgerald sought whatever indictments he could prove, but what if yesterday’s indictments were just another strategic move by the prosecutor? After all, if he’s planning to keep the investigation open, why not keep a bargaining chip or two on hand?

A number of people have mentioned in passing that this was the first indictment of a White House official in 130 years. In case you were curious, here’s the last time :

In the United States, the Whiskey Ring was a scandal, exposed in 1875, involving diversion of tax revenues in a conspiracy among government agents, politicians, whiskey distillers, and distributors.
. . .
The Whiskey Ring was seen by many as a sign of corruption under the Republican governments that took power across the nation following the American Civil War. General Orville E. Babcock, the private secretary to the President, was indicted as a member of the ring and escaped conviction only because of a presidential pardon – for this reason, President Ulysses S. Grant, although not directly involved in the ring, came to be seen as emblematic of Republican corruption, and later scandals involving his Secretary of War William W. Belknap only confirmed that perception. The Whiskey Ring scandal, along with other alleged abuses of power by the Republican party, contributed to national weariness of Reconstruction, which ended after Grant’s presidency with the Compromise of 1877.

Yeah, sounds about right to me. Now the ball’s in the Democrats court to replay that “emblematic of Republican corruption” card. If you don’t hit them now, they’ll just keep trying to get back up.

Here’s a fairly predictable comment to my entry that was cross-posted over at the Huffington Post :

Two years of investigating … this is it folks.

NO “illegal outing”
NO “conspiracy”
NO “treason”

Better luck jousting windmills with the Guiliani Administration.

Fitzgerald did a pretty good job responding to that misguided defense :

FITZGERALD: I’ll be blunt.

That talking point won’t fly. If you’re doing a national security investigation, if you’re trying to find out who compromised the identity of a CIA officer and you go before a grand jury and if the charges are proven — because remember there’s a presumption of innocence — but if it is proven that the chief of staff to the vice president went before a federal grand jury and lied under oath repeatedly and fabricated a story about how he learned this information, how he passed it on, and we prove obstruction of justice, perjury and false statements to the FBI, that is a very, very serious matter.

And I’d say this: I think people might not understand this. We, as prosecutors and FBI agents, have to deal with false statements, obstruction of justice and perjury all the time. The Department of Justice charges those statutes all the time.

When I was in New York working as a prosecutor, we brought those cases because we realized that the truth is the engine of our judicial system. And if you compromise the truth, the whole process is lost.
. . .
Any notion that anyone might have that there’s a different standard for a high official, that this is somehow singling out obstruction of justice and perjury, is upside down.

If these facts are true, if we were to walk away from this and not charge obstruction of justice and perjury, we might as well just hand in our jobs. Because our jobs, the criminal justice system, is to make sure people tell us the truth. And when it’s a high-level official and a very sensitive investigation, it is a very, very serious matter that no one should take lightly.

Or to put it even more simply : Why aren’t there any conspiracy, treason, or espionage charges? Hmmm…it’s probably because somebody was committing perjury, making false statements to investigators, and obstructing justice.

Duh.

History repeats itself?

(Hat tip, Hunter.)

Considering that Libby consistently told the same false story to the grand jury and the FBI, I can’t help but think that he’s been set up to be the Administration’s sacrificial lamb. After all, according to the indictment “Official A”, Judy Miller, “the Under Secretary of State”, the “White House Press Secretary”, and “the Assistant to the Vice President for Public Affairs” all knew that Libby’s story about learning of Plame’s status from Tim Russert was without merit. Why would Libby be reckless enough to make his claims when any one of these people would have been able to discredit him? It defies logic to assume that Libby spoke to the FBI or the grand jury without discussing what he would say with his sources and/or fellow leakers. That being the case, did White House officials reassure Libby that they’d buttress his story only to later turn against him? If that turns out to be true, I’d expect Libby’s plea agreements to be…interesting, to say the least. There’s a damn good reason Fitzgerald says he’s “not quite done”. If Libby feels burned by the Administration, I think we can expect more fireworks.

For those who missed it, Fitzgerald threw this lump of coal into your “Fitzmas” stocking :

QUESTION: A lot of Americans, people who are opposed to the war, critics of the administration, have looked to your investigation with hope in some ways and might see this indictment as a vindication of their argument that the administration took the country to war on false premises.

Does this indictment do that?

FITZGERALD: This indictment is not about the war. This indictment’s not about the propriety of the war. And people who believe fervently in the war effort, people who oppose it, people who have mixed feelings about it should not look to this indictment for any resolution of how they feel or any vindication of how they feel.

This is simply an indictment that says, in a national security investigation about the compromise of a CIA officer’s identity that may have taken place in the context of a very heated debate over the war, whether some person — a person, Mr. Libby — lied or not.

The indictment will not seek to prove that the war was justified or unjustified. This is stripped of that debate, and this is focused on a narrow transaction.

And I think anyone’s who’s concerned about the war and has feelings for or against shouldn’t look to this criminal process for any answers or resolution of that.

They will be frustrated and, frankly, it would just — it wouldn’t be good for the process and the fairness of a trial.

Dammit. Nothing about the Niger forgeries. Nothing about the Downing Street Memos. Nothing about the politicization of intelligence. It’s just the leak and the cover-up.

Josh Marshall has a great catch from the indictment.

On or about June 12, 2003, LIBBY was advised by the Vice President of the United States that Wilson’s wife worked at the Central Intelligence Agency in the Counterproliferation Divison. LIBBY understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA.

This is a crucial piece of information. the Counterproliferation Division (CPD) is part of the CIA’s Directorate of Operations, i.e., not Directorate of Intelligence, the branch of the CIA where ‘analysts’ come from, but where the spies come from.

This is even worse when taken with Josh’s earlier reaction to the indictment :

If you read the recitation of events which takes up, roughly, the first half of the indictment, one thing is made very clear: Libby was in communication about what he was doing with all sorts of people at the White House while he was doing it.

There’s a reason Fitzgerald continually referred to “national security” in the press release, indictment, and press conference. This affair has harmed our nation and the White House is complicit.

One can only hope that these loose ends are tied into a noose…

From the OSC’s press release, the indictment in a nutshell :

Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson’s employment status was classified. Prior to that date, her affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community. Disclosure of classified information about an individual’s employment by the CIA has the potential to damage the national security in ways that range from preventing that individual’s future use in a covert capacity, to compromising intelligence-gathering methods and operations, and endangering the safety of CIA employees and those who deal with them, the indictment states.

“When citizens testify before grand juries they are required to tell the truth,” Mr. Fitzgerald said. “Without the truth, our criminal justice system cannot serve our nation or its citizens. The requirement to tell the truth applies equally to all citizens, including persons who hold high positions in government. In an investigation concerning the compromise of a CIA officer’s identity, it is especially important that grand jurors learn what really happened. The indictment returned today alleges that the efforts of the grand jury to investigate such a leak were obstructed when Mr. Libby lied about how and when he learned and subsequently disclosed classified information about Valerie Wilson,” he added.

Contrary to conservative claims, there was a leak of classified information that could endanger national security. Regardless of the legal culpability, anyone who helped cover this up is a traitor to this country. The Administration’s moving goalposts in regards to firing conspirators, the media’s faux ignorance about which officials were leaking Plame’s identity, and everyone who pretended that divulging classified information isn’t a big deal….you’re all guilty of treason in my eyes.

More here.

With all the rumors swirling around on the eve of the Plame indictment(s), it’s hard to know what to believe. Is Rove off the hook? Will Fitzgerald seek another extension? Is the investigation being expanded? Considering how long this thing has been going and how much it’s been built up over the last two weeks, I think the effect of whatever happens tomorrow will be anything but vague. Anyone who excapes indictment will be immediately exonerated in the court of public opinion. Those caught in the grand jury’s trap will be thrown under the bus by the Republican establishment and explained away with a revised version of the “few bad apples” defense. If either Libby or Rove escape indictment, liberals will be universally pissed, whereas if anyone beyond those two is implicated, the Republican cries of political bias will be deafening.

Personally, I’m tired of this whole damn thing. If I had it my way, every one of the main players in the Administration would be indicted in this conspiracy, but the longer this drags on, the more I doubt anyone beyond a sacrificial lamb or two will face any legal trouble. These guys had more than enough time to shred notes, delete emails, get their stories straight, and practice the “I don’t remember” defense to face any real trouble. And if someone does get indicted, the President can issue a few pardons whenever it’s politically safe to do so.

In other words, the chances of this actually bringing down the Bush Administration are pretty slim. They’ve had numerous “accountability moments” over the years and somehow figured out a way to bounce back from every one. We’ll know in less than twelve hours whether or not this trend is reversing. I’m not getting my hopes up….

Even if he does get indicted, Dick Cheney should be thrown out of office immediately :

Vice President Cheney and his chief of staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, overruling advice from some White House political staffers and lawyers, decided to withhold crucial documents from the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2004 when the panel was investigating the use of pre-war intelligence that erroneously concluded Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, according to Bush administration and congressional sources.

Among the White House materials withheld from the committee were Libby-authored passages in drafts of a speech that then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell delivered to the United Nations in February 2003 to argue the Bush administration’s case for war with Iraq, according to congressional and administration sources. The withheld documents also included intelligence data that Cheney’s office — and Libby in particular — pushed to be included in Powell’s speech, the sources said.

United States Constitution, Article II, section 4 :

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

U.S. Code, Title 18, Section 1001 :

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully– (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

I wonder if subsection (3) would also apply to a State of the Union address.

Bush Gives Christ SCOTUS Nod
^{Monday, November 21, 2005}

WASHINGTON (AP) – Reeling from the rebuke he received over the nomination of Harriet Miers, George Bush nominated former carpenter Jesus Harold Christ today to the nation’s highest court. “I’ve been saying for years now that he’s my favorite philosopher,” the President remarked, “so I think the American people will be proud when they get to know J.C.’s judicial philosophicalness.”

Bush called on the Senate to “review every aspect of Jesus’ qualifications fairly and with haste. It’s important that we get an up-down vote on this nomination by the end of the year”.

Holy Nomination Deemed Controversial
^{Wednesday, November 23, 2005}

WASHINGTON (NYT) – Despite being the figurehead of one of the world’s largest religions, the nomination of Jesus Christ to replace Sandra Day O’Connor on the Supreme Court is getting a mixed reaction on the Hill from Democrats — and Republicans.

“Who is this guy?”, universally-beloved maverick John McCain asked reporters. “I find it hard to believe that this guy has gone thirty-three years without ever taking a stand on Roe v. Wade.”

In an off-the record interview with the Times, Senator Chuck Schumer added “He seems like a nice guy, but I’ll need to see what comes out during the conformation process before making any decisions”.

Conservatives Revolt Over Jesus
^{Tuesday, December 6, 2005}

WASHINGTON (UPI) – In a strong blow to President Bush, conservative activists have rallied against the nomination of Jesus Christ to the Supreme Court.

“We were promised a strict constructionist,” television panhandler Pat Robertson told reporters. “We don’t know anything about his views on gay marriage, stem cells, or any other important issues. God-fearing Christians like me who gave this President the White House deserve to know where this nominee stands.”

The Christ nomination is seen as the latest rebuke for a President who, in recent weeks, has seen a stock market crash, the execution of top aides for treason, and the flooding of New Orleans by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Gamma.

Bush Seeks Support Over Court Pick
^{Monday, December 12, 2005}

CRAWFORD (Reuters) – Interrupting his nine-week holiday break, the President sought to ease conservative concerns over his increasingly controversial pick for the Supreme Court.

“I know his heart,” Bush reassured his supporters,” and he knows mine. After all, he lives in it.”

Speaking Sunday on Meet The Press, Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter remained skeptical. “I haven’t seen anything to convince me that Jesus will faithfully interpret the constitution. Raising the dead and turning water into wine may be neat party tricks, but the American people deserve more.”

Documents Reveal Softer Side of Nominee
^{Friday, December 16, 2005}

WASHINGTON (AP) – In a development that Senate Judiciary staffers described as “troubling”, the White House today released a pile of documents in an attempt to bolster its nomination of Jesus Christ to the nation’s top court.

“The meek shall inherit the Earth? Turn the other cheek? I don’t think we can afford a Supreme Court justice who’s weak on terror,” a top Republican official said.

Though short on judicial experience, the documents reveal a nominee with a long career dedicated to helping the poor, comforting the afflicted, and spreading the word of god.

“He might as well have nominated Robin Hood,” joked one GOP leader. “Christ’s dedication to redistributing wealth puts him far outside the mainstream. He’s an extremist in the Souter/Kennedy mold.”

Group Runs Ad Urging Jesus Filibuster
^{Monday, December 19, 2005}

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Putting the nomination of Jesus in further danger, the conservative group Christians Against Christ began airing ads today urging Senate Republicans to filibuster the upcoming Supreme Court confirmation hearings.

Transcript of C.A.C. ad, “Who is this Jesus?”

ANNOUNCER : Liberal Democrats in the Senate agree on the nomination of Jesus Christ.

[begin video]
SEN. SCHUMER : He seems like a nice guy -
[end video}

ANNOUNCER : What do they know that we don’t? We can’t have another liberal activist on the Supreme Court. Call your Senator today and tell them to filibuster Jesus. America deserves better.

Bush Remains Confident On Nominee
^{Friday, December 23, 2005}

WASHINGTON (AP) – Speaking via teleconference at a birthday party for his embattled Supreme Court pick, the President reiterated his support for Jesus Christ. “Jesus has a great heart,” Bush said. ” and I know that he’ll be the same person in twenty years that he is today.”

Seeking to quell criticism over leaked memos that reveal opposition to the death penalty, Administration officials publicly rallied behind Christ, but questions remain about whether or not Christ will be able to make it out of the Senate Judiciary committee.

“People are worried around here,” a White House aide told reporters. “Let’s pretend that we decided to change our minds about this Jesus nomination…not that we are, ummm…do you have any ideas??”

Decrying Pharisees, Christ Withdraws Nomination
^{Monday, December 26, 2005}

WASHINGTON (AP) – In a letter to the President today, Supreme Court nominee Jesus H. Christ withdrew his nomination. Though it had become increasingly clear that Jesus lacked the votes in the Senate needed to be confirmed, Bush had as recently as this weekend reaffirmed his support for Christ.

Speaking out against the hypocrisy of his critics, Jesus wrote to the President “Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?”

Pressed for a comment at his Crawford ranch, the President asked “Jesus who?”

I’d say “Wag The Dog”, but it would be rude to refer to Harriet Miers in that way. Rather, lemme just say that the most egregious part of the Miers nomination had nothing to do with the reason she withdrew. At least, I don’t remember any conservatives making a big deal out of the fact that she’s a crony. Next time around, Bush will make sure to pick a crony that’s more qualified and is easier to confirm. Like I said earlier, I’d be shocked if the next nomination is anyone but Alberto Gonzales.

Interesting comment from my latest anti-Fitzmas post that I think should be addressed on its own :

I disagree that it’s not a partisan game. Everything is a partisan game. You’re telling me when Fox News repeats the phrase “The Criminalization of Politics” over and over…that’s not partisan?

I’d argue that the “partisan game” is separate from the grand jury process to which liberals are just an interested bystander. Not a single word of the rhetoric from the left of right is going to change whether or not charges are filed.

That said, perhaps we should discuss what the political response is to a string of indictments. I don’t think treating the indictment day like a holiday or implying that Fitzgerald is on our side are in our best interests since it implies that (a) liberals see harm to our national security as a petty game of political “gotcha” and (b) that Patrick Fitzgerald is motivated by politics. Despite being the namesake of this goofy pseudo-holiday, Patrick Fitzgerald doesn’t give a damn about liberal causes and isn’t out to nail the Bush Administration.

Sure, I’ll be happy to see Bush Administration officials indicted, but I’m not going to sing “Fitzmas carols”. I’m going to contact my local media about connecting the dots between the leaking of Valerie Plame’s identity with the larger issue of the lies that led us into Iraq. I’m going to contact my local representatives and demand that any unindicted Administration officials be censured for lying to the public to cover-up for those indicted. And I’m going to do everything in my power to educate the public about the corruption of the Republican majority and ensure that the House and the Senate are in Democratic hands in 2007.

Take off your party hat and do something a little more constructive. The assholes are still going to be in charge next week, next month, and next year. Just because GOP corruption is catching up to some of the players doesn’t mean that the problems plaguing the Democratic party are going to magically go away.

UPDATE : For example, this is the wrong way to win the “political game”.

Following up on my brief post the other day, SnoodGuy notes over at DailyKos that this Fitzmas shit is getting old :

Am I the only one troubled by the triumphalism on the left about Fitzgerald’s investigation? I felt something cold in my stomach when I saw the term “Fitzmas” on this site last week. I’m all for seeing these crooks go down, but I think this air of celebration isn’t helping us – in fact, it reminds me of the Republicans before the impeachment process, and we know how well that went for them. Two main points below…

Whatever the charges or eventual results of this turn out to be, it’s not a happy day in our country if people at the highest level of government are committing crimes. We shouldn’t celebrate it.

If we, as Democrats/liberals treat this with festival gusto, we make the whole process look like a partisan gotcha instead of a criminal investigation. So far, Fitzgerald has been apparently professional, detail-oriented, and very terse with the press. Completely unlike, say, Ken Starr and his clown show. I like it that way.

This shouldn’t be a Democrat/Republican thing, it should be an American thing. The more we act like the Republicans did with Clinton’s impeachment, the more the public will see it in the same light – standard partisan politics – and the less chance we have of using this to highlight the flaws of the rest of the criminal, hypocritical, boneheaded, amoral Republican agenda.

This isn’t a partisan game and it’s not funny. Treating the indictments of government officials like a holiday is pretty childish coming from a left-wing so politically neutered that we have to rely on a grand jury to score political points for us. So wipe that smile off your face. George W. Bush is going to be President for the next three years. The next chance the Democrats have to regain the Senate and the House is more than a year away, but despite every Republican misstep that’s happened lately, it’s still doubtful that Democrats will be able to get their shit together well enough to swing either body. You want to celebrate? Try winning an election first. Just because your opponent fell doesn’t mean you knocked him down.

You say “schadenfreude”, I say “fucking embarrassment”.