The Discerning Texan
All that is necessary for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing.
-- Edmund Burke
-- Edmund Burke
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Guessing the Fitzgerald outcome--and preparing for the ramifications
No guts no glory, as they say. Tom McGuire of JustOneMinute certainly seems to be living by that maxim. Today he pontificated on the results of the Wilson/Plame/CIA affair--he thinks Rove walks away clean and Libby gets indicted for lying about his recollections (or as Byron York put it the other day):
"At the end of the day," a former intelligence official told National Review last week, "this could end up being a situation where there wasn't a crime until there was an investigation."
Personally I think this investigation is ending up very much like the one of Martha Stewart. The crime she was being investigated for could not be proved, and so they did not go after her for that. Instead they got her on a lame "lying to the FBI" charge--which is my mind still does not not rise to the level of the commission of out and out perjury by a President of the Untited States to a Grand Jury about "spending time alone with Ms. Lewinsky". But what do I know? Anyway read the whole Byron York piece, it has a lot of interesting comparisons between this case and the Starr investigations of the Clintons.
In the meantime we have what is unquestionably going to be a media "firestorm" over what will, if anything, be a very minor charge. But it will played by the MSM as if Bush himself commited murder. So just be ready for it. The wolves are going to howl. Let them. That's all wolves do anyway, particularly these wolves in the MSM and the Democratic caucus...
Still Presidents, even "media despised" conservative Presidents, have weathered these kinds of storms before. Think Reagan during Iran/Contra: it can in fact be argued that Bush the First was elected purely on Reagan's coat tails. Therefore the important thing to me is--after all the dust has settled this week: how will Bush handle this? To me it seems that the most important thing that Bush can do will be to reunite his base. Will that mean that Harriet Miers decides to "step down"? Maybe. We'll know all of the above soon enough.
Bottom line, this Presidency can come out smelling like a rose, regardless, if the economy continues to be strong, if the war continues to go well, and if the President shores up his base, even should Tom McGuire's predictions (below) actually come to pass. It won't be long now:
Karl Rove walks - no indictment, nada. Jeralyn Merritt, who has been doing a superb job on this, keeps the flame flickering for a "False statements" charge based on Rove's early forgettery of his conversation with Matt Cooper of TIME. Based on the evidence leaked so far, it won't happen.
Think back to the controversial Martha Stewart case: Martha went down on a false statements charge, but as supporting evidence of her criminal intent the prosecution had evidence that she may have altered her records, supplemented by troubling testimony from her broker's assistant and a personal friend.
With Rove, as best we know, we have Karl failing to recall his conversation with Matt Cooper when asked by Federal investigators in 2003; the defense will have fun with the fact that the Department of Justice failed to ask about contacts with Matt Cooper in their original document request, so let's not underestimate Mike Copper Matt Cooper's forgettability.
Eventually, in response to a second set of subpoenas, the relevant email between Rove and Hadley was found, Rove's attorney notified the Special Counsel, and Rove corrected his testimony. As Jeralyn notes, and as MacRanger pointed out to me a few days back, if a person corretcs their testimony during the term of a grand jury before discovery was imminent, they are in good shape.
Based on the leaks so far, this is far from a Martha Stewart scenario.
OK, on to the fall guys:
John Hannah had CIA links, so he can't convincingly plead ignorance about Ms. Plame's status. He gets a wrist slap for misuse of classified information. (Q: Does a "wrist slap" mean "no jail time", or "short time"? A: Hmm, even "short" would seem long to me; no waffling here... No jail time it is. And get your own 8-Ball). Hannah's offense - he was Novak's primary source.
David Wurmser also has CIA links, and he gets a wrist slap for leaking to Walter Pincus of the WaPo.
And Libby? He goes to trial, or walks. My full psychic prediction is that he will turn down a plea deal (after negotiating about what might have been disclosed in the accompanying indictment) and say to Fitzgerald, "Bring it on, Irish".
*If* they are filed, charges will be perjury and obstruction, as well as a conspiracy to misuse classified info. However, Fitzgerald has very serious doubts about some of his star witnesses, such as Judy Miller. Both sides are weighing the implications of the venue for a trial - Libby knows it won't be Berkeley, but it still might not be favorable for him. However, it might be politically awkward for Libby to ask for a change in venue. Of course, getting tossed into stir can be awkward, too.
No waffling: Libby goes to trial. The good news with this scenario is that otherwise, we will never know what the heck happened. Libby better plan to win, or lose, by Jan 19, 2009.
UPDATE: Meanwhile Dennis Sevakis still thinks this has a chance to be a grand slam for the President (and it also provides a bit of endgame advice to the President should things not go as well). I wouldn't bet the house on the "rosy" scenario, but I will admit that it jives with what I was thinking about all of this earlier in the month:
When Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald unseals his indictments regarding Plamegate, assuming there are any, we’ll learn one thing for sure: whether the two-year investigation was a clever poker move insidiously initiated by President Bush to expose and discredit his enemies within the CIA while simultaneously and conveniently making the MSM look like a bunch of blathering idiots, OR, if the Administration is guilty of serious miscalculation by not publicly pounding the CIA regarding this matter as soon as the agency leaked the classified, that’s right, classified information that it had referred the matter to Justice. Were the Bushies very clever? Or too clever by a half?
If you’re not up-to-speed on this pending political detonation – assuming the whole thing doesn’t die because of a lack of life-sustaining indictments - here’s a compilation of juicy readings for your greater edification and enlightenment.
Forget Miers. This is the issue the President had better not pass on without coming out swinging. And he needs to hit a home run. Here’s what you need to read.
1. 2005.10.22 – Weekly Standard – Stephen F. Hayes – “One Good Leak Deserves Another” How the CIA got the ball rolling on the Plame investigation.
2. 2005.10.25 – Weekly Standard – Stephen F. Hayes – “The Incredibles” The only debate about Joseph Wilson’s credibility is the one taking place at the Washington Post and the New York Times.
3. 2005.10.16 – AIM – Cliff Kincaid – “Judith Miller Exonerates Bush Officials” The true facts in the CIA-leak case are now becoming astonishingly clear. New York Times reporter Judith Miller’s testimony, as she describes it in the Sunday edition of her paper, proves that the wrong people are under investigation.
4. 2005.10.21 – AIM – Cliff Kincaid – “Was the Wilson Affair a CIA Plot?” Former prosecutor Joseph E. diGenova says the real story is that the CIA “launched a covert operation” against the President when it sent Wilson on the mission to Africa to investigate the Iraq-uranium link.
5. 2005.10.24 – AIM – Cliff Kincaid – “The Untold Story: Joseph Wilson, Judith Miller and the CIA” The savage left-wing attack on Judith Miller from inside and outside of the New York Times completely misses the point.
All of the links above are definitely worth your time. And worth the President's as well.
"At the end of the day," a former intelligence official told National Review last week, "this could end up being a situation where there wasn't a crime until there was an investigation."
Personally I think this investigation is ending up very much like the one of Martha Stewart. The crime she was being investigated for could not be proved, and so they did not go after her for that. Instead they got her on a lame "lying to the FBI" charge--which is my mind still does not not rise to the level of the commission of out and out perjury by a President of the Untited States to a Grand Jury about "spending time alone with Ms. Lewinsky". But what do I know? Anyway read the whole Byron York piece, it has a lot of interesting comparisons between this case and the Starr investigations of the Clintons.
In the meantime we have what is unquestionably going to be a media "firestorm" over what will, if anything, be a very minor charge. But it will played by the MSM as if Bush himself commited murder. So just be ready for it. The wolves are going to howl. Let them. That's all wolves do anyway, particularly these wolves in the MSM and the Democratic caucus...
Still Presidents, even "media despised" conservative Presidents, have weathered these kinds of storms before. Think Reagan during Iran/Contra: it can in fact be argued that Bush the First was elected purely on Reagan's coat tails. Therefore the important thing to me is--after all the dust has settled this week: how will Bush handle this? To me it seems that the most important thing that Bush can do will be to reunite his base. Will that mean that Harriet Miers decides to "step down"? Maybe. We'll know all of the above soon enough.
Bottom line, this Presidency can come out smelling like a rose, regardless, if the economy continues to be strong, if the war continues to go well, and if the President shores up his base, even should Tom McGuire's predictions (below) actually come to pass. It won't be long now:
Karl Rove walks - no indictment, nada. Jeralyn Merritt, who has been doing a superb job on this, keeps the flame flickering for a "False statements" charge based on Rove's early forgettery of his conversation with Matt Cooper of TIME. Based on the evidence leaked so far, it won't happen.
Think back to the controversial Martha Stewart case: Martha went down on a false statements charge, but as supporting evidence of her criminal intent the prosecution had evidence that she may have altered her records, supplemented by troubling testimony from her broker's assistant and a personal friend.
With Rove, as best we know, we have Karl failing to recall his conversation with Matt Cooper when asked by Federal investigators in 2003; the defense will have fun with the fact that the Department of Justice failed to ask about contacts with Matt Cooper in their original document request, so let's not underestimate Mike Copper Matt Cooper's forgettability.
Eventually, in response to a second set of subpoenas, the relevant email between Rove and Hadley was found, Rove's attorney notified the Special Counsel, and Rove corrected his testimony. As Jeralyn notes, and as MacRanger pointed out to me a few days back, if a person corretcs their testimony during the term of a grand jury before discovery was imminent, they are in good shape.
Based on the leaks so far, this is far from a Martha Stewart scenario.
OK, on to the fall guys:
John Hannah had CIA links, so he can't convincingly plead ignorance about Ms. Plame's status. He gets a wrist slap for misuse of classified information. (Q: Does a "wrist slap" mean "no jail time", or "short time"? A: Hmm, even "short" would seem long to me; no waffling here... No jail time it is. And get your own 8-Ball). Hannah's offense - he was Novak's primary source.
David Wurmser also has CIA links, and he gets a wrist slap for leaking to Walter Pincus of the WaPo.
And Libby? He goes to trial, or walks. My full psychic prediction is that he will turn down a plea deal (after negotiating about what might have been disclosed in the accompanying indictment) and say to Fitzgerald, "Bring it on, Irish".
*If* they are filed, charges will be perjury and obstruction, as well as a conspiracy to misuse classified info. However, Fitzgerald has very serious doubts about some of his star witnesses, such as Judy Miller. Both sides are weighing the implications of the venue for a trial - Libby knows it won't be Berkeley, but it still might not be favorable for him. However, it might be politically awkward for Libby to ask for a change in venue. Of course, getting tossed into stir can be awkward, too.
No waffling: Libby goes to trial. The good news with this scenario is that otherwise, we will never know what the heck happened. Libby better plan to win, or lose, by Jan 19, 2009.
UPDATE: Meanwhile Dennis Sevakis still thinks this has a chance to be a grand slam for the President (and it also provides a bit of endgame advice to the President should things not go as well). I wouldn't bet the house on the "rosy" scenario, but I will admit that it jives with what I was thinking about all of this earlier in the month:
When Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald unseals his indictments regarding Plamegate, assuming there are any, we’ll learn one thing for sure: whether the two-year investigation was a clever poker move insidiously initiated by President Bush to expose and discredit his enemies within the CIA while simultaneously and conveniently making the MSM look like a bunch of blathering idiots, OR, if the Administration is guilty of serious miscalculation by not publicly pounding the CIA regarding this matter as soon as the agency leaked the classified, that’s right, classified information that it had referred the matter to Justice. Were the Bushies very clever? Or too clever by a half?
If you’re not up-to-speed on this pending political detonation – assuming the whole thing doesn’t die because of a lack of life-sustaining indictments - here’s a compilation of juicy readings for your greater edification and enlightenment.
Forget Miers. This is the issue the President had better not pass on without coming out swinging. And he needs to hit a home run. Here’s what you need to read.
1. 2005.10.22 – Weekly Standard – Stephen F. Hayes – “One Good Leak Deserves Another” How the CIA got the ball rolling on the Plame investigation.
2. 2005.10.25 – Weekly Standard – Stephen F. Hayes – “The Incredibles” The only debate about Joseph Wilson’s credibility is the one taking place at the Washington Post and the New York Times.
3. 2005.10.16 – AIM – Cliff Kincaid – “Judith Miller Exonerates Bush Officials” The true facts in the CIA-leak case are now becoming astonishingly clear. New York Times reporter Judith Miller’s testimony, as she describes it in the Sunday edition of her paper, proves that the wrong people are under investigation.
4. 2005.10.21 – AIM – Cliff Kincaid – “Was the Wilson Affair a CIA Plot?” Former prosecutor Joseph E. diGenova says the real story is that the CIA “launched a covert operation” against the President when it sent Wilson on the mission to Africa to investigate the Iraq-uranium link.
5. 2005.10.24 – AIM – Cliff Kincaid – “The Untold Story: Joseph Wilson, Judith Miller and the CIA” The savage left-wing attack on Judith Miller from inside and outside of the New York Times completely misses the point.
All of the links above are definitely worth your time. And worth the President's as well.
