Redstate

Why even comment on rumors? You left out the biggest one. :-(

1. 1-5 indictments are being issued. The source feels that it will be towards the higher end.

2. The targets of indictment have already received their letters.
   
   
3. The indictments will be sealed indictments and "filed" tomorrow.
   
   
4. A press conference is being scheduled for Thursday.

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001031.html

I think you are right that Rove is unlikely to be one indicted.

Sounds like the admin official most exposed from the leaks is Libby, and it sounds more like it is going to be a perjury or obstruction of justice type charge, rather than for a crime related to the actual outing of Valarie Plame.

Although Fitzgerald has kept a pretty tight lid on his investigation, and there may be quite a few unknowns that we will learn of when/if indictments come out.

I get the distinct impression that every one is throwing out every name so they can be at least right on something.

The SCOTUS pre-nomination rumor mongering.

"Although Fitzgerald has kept a pretty tight lid on his investigation"

I do not think we know this at this point. There has been a ton of information that the press has run with over the past few weeks.

If it turns out to be mostly correct, then I think it is safe to say that Fitzgerald did not keep a pretty tight lid on things.

If it turns out to have been mostly BS, then I think it is pretty safe to say that he did keep things pretty tight.

We'll know soon enough.

From various sources, we're hearing that things are coming to a head on the Joe Wilson Scandal front.

We're hearing that U.S. Attorney Pat Fitzgerald will hold a press conference here in Washington no later than Thursday to announce indictments in the matter, those indictments will be sealed and filed no later than tomorrow afternoon.

At least three fairly senior people have received formal target letters within the past few days. Sources inside the White House are saying they expect between 3 to 5 indictments total. No names are being discussed. UPDATE: CBS News is reporting that Fitzgerald may make his announcement tomorrow, the same day sealed indictments would be filed. Either way, it looks like we have some degree of closure coming

The Washington Prowler

then I am not seeing much cause to indict anyone for anything.

I think the leaks for the most part sound like they are coming from attornies of those involved.

Then of course there is the Miller stuff in the NYTimes.

Captain's Quarters has an interestig analysis of how the NYTimes attempts to distance themselves from Miller, by painting her the liar may damager the case against Libby, if she is a witness against him.

Although I am wondering if in the end, Miller may not be one of those indicted.  I think in general the media have been given a free pass on their involvement in this, and I wonder if in the end Fitzgerald chose not to give them the same pass the media was in the GJ room.  But the NYTimes pointing the "liar" finger at her, may be an attempt to innoculate themselves against a perjury charge against Miller.

... and all saying the same thing:

The White House is in a heap of trouble.

this.  ABC news tried to get the Wite House to comment on a fake report of Libby being indicted.  Anyone want to take a shot at what this means.

ABC is now denying that story.

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/ABC_News_denies_that_any_reporter_1025.html

It's freakin' Imelda Marcos' closet, dude.  It's the Manolo Blahnik apocalypse.  

You know what I hate about the Internet at moments like this?  We're all so plugged in that even without good speakers on our sound cards we can all hear the sound of the shell streaking through the atmosphere from a dozen miles away...it's that low, rising whistle...

We are all so totally hosed.  I haven't felt this bad since Dan Akroyd conjured up the Sta-Puft Marshmallow Man.  I am regressing to 1969.

My apologies.

Reporter took a SWAG, tried to play the WH as if it was true, said ABC is running it on the evening news, tried to get the WH to bite. WH called BS (Rummy says, "the WH is a building, buildings cannot speak", I say I was using a figurative metaphor). ABC evening news ran, no story aired, WH aide no longer ever trusts a word that ABC reporter says.

And figurative metaphors can't pay.

We might let you back.  But just coming back after being banned without an invite just is not cool.

Banned again.

Just because some of the leaks come true doesn't necessarily mean that Fitz's office has leaked.

Individuals, and their attorneys, are free to tell reporters, friends, family, whoever, what they told the Grand Jury or what they intended to tell the Grand Jury.  Reporters can then put multiple sources together, compare stories, and develop their own theories.

So just because a leak is proven true doesn't mean that Fitz or his folks leaked it.

The ABCNews honcho said it is not true, that they have no such story.

But we already know that, because no story ran.

He did not say that his reporter did not claim they had a story in a proverbial fishing expedition.

I guess it's nice that he's just sequencing his name, makes it easy for you all to drop kick his sorry self out of here.

"Just because some of the leaks come true doesn't necessarily mean that Fitz's office has leaked."

Conceded, but I also think that it is pretty meaningless. We have quite a bit of information that has come out lately. If it is largely true, then it could not have come from any one or two witnesses or their attorneys.

If a fact or two turns out to be correct, then you are right. But if the overall narrative out in the press turns out to be what he's got, then I would find claims that everyone involved leaked but Fitzgerald's office did not to strain credulity. Occam's Razor-- if one scenario involves fifteen to twenty different camps with differing ethics and differing agendas leaking, and another involves one camp leaking, well, I think it would be foolish to think anything but the latter.

I mean, they have clown porn these days.  This would be vanilla by comparison.

and they're all saying "Fitzgerald delivers indictments this week, maybe." For example, I give you this UPI story which contains the same unattributed "1-5 sealed indictments filed tomorrow, delivered on Thursday" rumor as everyone else, plus lots of speculation about who might get indicted. Independent confimation? Maybe, but more likely, they're all just repeating the same rumor which has its origin in the same source and attributing it to "secret, highly-placed sources" to make themselves look better. Without knowing where they heard this rumor and who the source is, we really can't evaluate it's veracity.

One way or another, we'll find out this week who's getting indicted, if anyone.

Currently on intrade Libby is holding steady at 75 and Rove has dropped considerably to 40.  If you don't know, intrade is the actualization of the DARPA pet project on free market prediction of terrorism.  My bit last week blathers about Scoot and Karl at the time.

The Inflamitory: Libby and Rove Stocks Go Up

You mean that poor misguided aide did once trust ABC reporters?  At least some people learn . . .

That's great.

The right wanted McConnell, we got Miers.  The left wanted Rove, they got Libby.  Disappointment abounds on both sides.

While I'm hoping Rove (and the others) don't get indicted, even if no indictments are issued, it certainly won't be the best day in party history when we cheer, "Yay, no Republican was indicted today!"  Though it would be a funny listing for future segments of "This Day in GOP History" on the RNC website.  We should, instead, focus our attentions on Haley Barbour's birthday tomorrow to celebrate.

ABC is reporting that investigators working for Fitzgerald recently interviewed Wilson's neighbors to see if they knew about Plame's CIA employment.  ABC quotes one neighbor as saying that he told FBI investigators he didn't know Plame worked for the CIA.  But what did the other neighbors say?  And what does this say about the direction of the investigation?  Could Wilson or Plame also be one of those who recieved a Target Letter?  Wishful thinking?

I'd have said Libby was going to be indicted until tonight.

Here's why I'm no longer sure. ABCNEWS said that they had double sourced the information that Libby was set to be indicted and "a senior White House source" quickly called their bluff. How could the White House be so certain that this information was bad unless they have strong reason to believe that Libby is safe?

It is interesting.  However, it could be that Libby has not gotten a letter from Fitzgerald and the White House knows enough to know Fitzgerald is not leaking.

has the neighbor report as well.  One neighbor will be on Tucker Carlson's show at 11 PM eastern.  Presumably this is the neighbor ABC spoke to but there were others.  What did they say?  This seems like an unexpected significant development.

interpreted these last minute interviewers thusly:

"Two lawyers involved in the case said such questioning could indicated that prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald intended to charge administration officials for the leak itself..."

This is nuts, considering that nobody suspects the administration of leaking to Wilson/Plame's neighbors. If Fitzgerald has really decided (to my great suprise) that Plame's undercover status was legit and needed to be protected, the place to verify this isn't the neighborhood gossip mill. Looks to me suspiciously like Fitgerald is taking a long hard look at Wilson and Plame.

why a neighbor would be approached to begin with.

To establish Plame's employment with CIA was common knowledge?  If so, what are the legal ramifications?

would not be grounds, it seems to me, for such surefire confidence. That is, unless target letters have gone out, the White House knows who has them, and Libby isn't among them.

There was apparently a different response to ABC from lower level White House officials, who refused to comment--but then it came down from above that this was bogus, suggesting to me that the White House is sitting on something.

The White House would be in no position to know for sure who ABC was talking to, so discounting the credibility in such strong terms instead of remaining mum is a big surprise.

they are checking to see if "everyone knew" she worked for the CIA. Back to leaking her identity.

If Plame's neighbors knew she worked for the CIA, that tends to show that either she wasn't undercover, or she outed herself.  If the latter is true, perhaps, Fitzgerald is looking at Plame or Wilson for mishandling classified information.  This assumes that her identity was still classified of course.  Interestingly, the Washington Times reported in July that Plame's neighbors did know her identity.  Hmmm.

looking into whether Plame's identity was widely known in official Washington is all that matters if your sole focus is on the actions of White House officials. Are any of the key administration figures here acquaintances of Plame's neighbors?

If Plame's neighbors don't know she has NOC cover is that in any way damning of the administration because it means her identity really is a deeply held secret? Heck, I don't know where most of my neighbors are employed either. So what?

How on earth is this line of investigation relevant to anybody's actions but Joe Wilson's and Valerie Plame's.

on Tuesday, two years ago?

on Tucker Carlson's show was the same one from the ABC piece.  He said he didn't know Plame worked for the CIA.  He stated flatly that "nobody knew" when asked if anyone else on the block knew where Plame worked.  Later he said he "didn't think anybody really knew" when asked his personal opinion of what happened in the case.  He said that FBI agents visited neighbors on both sides of the Wilsons.  He stated that he didn't really discuss work with the Wilsons, they "mostly talked about politics."  He also twice said that he thinks the leak definitely came from the government.

and then he gets asked his opinion?

I almost lost a lung laughing at this.

Clown porn indeed.

It's just common sense and good ethics.  If he is still considering indicting on the leaks themselves, then he's ethically obliged to be certain that the law was broken.  If the neighbors did know that she was CIA, he would then not file any charges that depended on her covert status.  

Not only would it be unethical to do so, it would make him look stupid when the defense called those witnesses and got the indictee off.  In other words, it's not that he would call them as witnesses for the prosecution, he's just making sure that they wouldn't be witnesses for the defense.

This is, of course, just my take on it.  I profess to have no special insight into Fitzgerald's thought processes or motives.

This may seem simplistic, but look at the people who have been publicly visible around the President for the last 48 hours and those who have not and I think we can start to figure out who got the letters.

said there were like 30-40 indictments stacked up like cordwood in the freezer at the Convention Center and at least 10,000 more in attics all over DC. He said "send buses so we can take these people to jail." Closed by questioning Miers qualifications.

were with Bush yesterday. But the letters, as I understand it, aren't really necessary, though this infernal rumor mill has spit out the tidbit that some went out only today.

Great gallows humor!  Made me fall out of my chair!

Several feel confident that John Hannah, a national security advisor to the Vice President, will be indicted along with Scotter Libby

I thought Hannah was cooperating with Fitzgerald.  How could he then be a target or get an indictment?

I'm kidding.

Please God don't!

Curiousity always gets the better of me and I'm still trying to get the image of "tubgirl" out of my head after Huffington did that hotlink thing.

eeeuuhh!  

I may have nightmares tonight.

Couldn't he be indicted, then plead out?

Drudge has a link to this article:

FLASHBACK: 'Most of her neighbors and friends knew that she was a CIA employee'...

So it looks like at least some of the neighbors did know.

2nd hand accounts of neighbors doesn't strike me as terribly convincing.

If the article is correct, it was her supervisor (a NOC himself) who is claiming this, so probably not too far off eh?

Well, that's not exactly right. Don't think you read that previous post carefully enough

The neighbor interviewed definitively said that "nobody knew" Plame was in the CIA.

That is wholly differnet than, as you suggest, he "admits to knowing nothing."

The important part of that neighbors statement is that nobody in the neighborhood knew that Plame was CIA.

That is significant. Which, I imagine, is why Fitzgerald and the FBI were inquiring about it.

Any defense lawyer would make short work of this. Namely, how does this one individual know what everbody in the neighborhood knows or doesn't know, let alone how does he know the leak came from the government?

After 2 or 3 minutes of close questioning he'll be pretty much admitting he doesn't know anything except his name and address.

This is a classic case of the uselessness of reporting.

The challenge, obviously, is to find someone who knows all about it, or someone who knows a great deal, but NOT the specifics of her work.

Heck, you or I probably "know" as much as this guy, and our opinions are probably equally valuable.

Finally, of course, the obvious issue is why are they talking to these folks this late? Seems a bit odd - either get them out of the way early, or no need to contact at all.

I am sure there is much more background than this "story" reveals.

The thing I can't get away from Plame's status;

Covert or not? If no and I have nothing to indicate its other than that, then where is the crime?

TradeSports this morning has an offer for Libby indictments at 84.9(very high). Rove is at 65. Both prices have moved upwards since yesterday, fwiw.

My biggest concern in the whole mess is whether this has been a covert CIA operation by embedded liberals in the CIA to attack the President; with Mr. Wilson, accomplished liar and statesman, leading the way.

FoxNews.com has a banner headline: (11:37 AM 10/26/05)

Spokesman: No Announcement Today on CIA Leak Investigation.

No explanation underneath yet.

Another day of reading tea leaves and biting our nails...

I think you're right. There probably is a lot more background than this story reveals.

I would quibble with a few of your points, though.

1. Any defense lawyer would "make quick work" of this statement from this neighbor seems largely irrelevant to me. This case is still at the grand jury phase, and the information provided to the grand jury (the neighbors various statements to the FBI) is not going to be cross examined, as you suggest, by a defense attorney.
   
2. Your "uselessness in reporting" (however garbled) seems to be a bit strong. The reason this story was interesting, and the statements of the neighbor (however much one may find them to be legally heresy) are interesting is that earlier it was believed by some (ahem) that "everyone in the neighborhood knew she was CIA." The conclusion drawn from this belief was that, well, of course she couldn't be undercover. Her own neighbors knew she was in the CIA. This neighbor, and who knows how close or not close this neighbor was to the Wilsons, was not someone who knew she was in the CIA. And apparently, in his view as part of the neighborhood, no one else did either.

So that's an interesting story. Not a useless report. It may not be legally decisive (as you correctly point out a defense attorny, at trial, could potentially debunk the neighbor's claim), but it is interesting as it pertains to the conflicting beliefs.

The reason these new statements from the neighbor(s) is significant is that prior to their public statements, the one piece of information in the public record came from that Washington Times article.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050715-121257-9887r.htm

BUT, in that first article, all you have is a comment from another CIA agent that the Wilson's neighbors knew of her identity. This agent was not in fact one of her neighbors, so how he knew this is not explained.

However, yesterday, you had an actual neighbor - not some CIA agent - saying that in fact he did NOT know she was in the CIA.

So, basically, the question is who are you more likely to believe: (1) a CIA agent who's not a neighbor but is alleging what the neighbors knew of the Wilson, or (2) one of those actual neighbors telling about what he did or did not know?

Primary source versus secondary source.

that Fitzgerald asked the grand jury to indict Libby for the Identity Protections Act, Perjury, and Obstruction of Justice.

He also asked the grand jury to indict Rove for Perjury and Obstruction of Justice.

It's RawStory, I know...take with appropriate grains of salt. But they've been far more right than wrong during this whole saga, so it's worth reading.

link

Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has asked the grand jury investigating the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson to indict Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby and Bush's Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, lawyers close to the investigation tell RAW STORY.

Fitzgerald has also asked the jury to indict Libby on a second charge: knowingly outing a covert operative, the lawyers said. They said the prosecutor believes that Libby violated a 1982 law that made it illegal to unmask an undercover CIA agent.

Libby's attorney, Joseph A. Tate, did not return a call seeking comment.

Two other officials, who are not employees in the White House, are also expected to face indictments, the lawyers said.

I guess my quibble would be that the report would be more useful if it went in the direction of a defense counsel or devil's advocate. Simply challenge some of the assumptions expressed, or if not challenge them, at least question their basis or establish their credibility.

OTOH - this may have been a quick knock-off, brief comment on the go.

Still - the useful fact exposed is the recent questioning. It could have been much more informative or speculative or thorough. As it is, it has simply triggered a wave of speculation from the likes of us.

Fitzgerald is still debunking the defense that Plame was known by her neighbors to be CIA.  He wouldn't be doing that if he was just going to bring charges of perjury or obstruction.

http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/valerie_plame_/2005/10/rove_back_in_t
he_gunsights_neighbors_knew_nothing_of_plames_cia_job.php

Bringing one neighbor on who says he didn't know but was sure everyone else didn't know is pointless except to the fact that "Here is one neighbor who didn't know" Big Scoop! Asking this guy's opinion of the matter is pointless, he can not be expected to have any specific knowledge. This isn't poor reporting, it is dishonest reporting. Finally, the only significance in this whole story is that they are interviewing neighbors 2 years later. Why? Are they talking to all social and business contacts? If so, why? If not, bigger why.

Isn't the real question how deep it goes?

If only Fitzgerald were investigating the real crimes . . .

Just because the MSM interviews one neighbor who essentially says "Because I am clueless I think that all my neighbors are clueless too", doesn't necessarily mean that none of Wilson/Plame's neighbors knew that Plame worked for the CIA.

However, if one neighbor DID say that he/she knew that Plame worked for the CIA prior to Novak's article, that would prove that Plame was not "outed" by Novak's sources, but by someone prior to Novak's article.

Still, even if the FBI or Fitzgerald don't find a Wilson/Plame neighbor who admits that they knew Plame was a CIA agent, that doesn't mean none of them knew. After all, the average neighbor interviewed by the FBI might wonder if they risk being indicted if they say they did know she was a CIA agent, so they clam up to save their own skin!

to the neighbors to find out if they knew Plame was CIA. If they are, they got about 2 more years of investigating to do.

Thats a big move, agreed.  Suspect a leak on Rove?  or just the news that he was interviewed?

" If the neighbors did know that she was CIA, he would then not file any charges that depended on her covert status.  "

Only if she was going around telling people she was a NOC. There are people who drive into Langley that have covert status. Knowing someone worked at the CIA, or suspecting that they might be undercover, does NOT release government officials who are aware of her status from their obligation to keep that secret.

Maybe there will be another investigation into who leaked about the leak.

not the neighborhood.  And it wasn't just any CIA agent, it was in fact her boss.  As far as the one neighbor they talked to, do you or I know anything about this neighbor?  We don't know if the one neighbor that was interviewed even talked to Ms. Plame before, do we?

I have a neighbor in my suburban neighborhood that I've not had a single conversation with.  I'm sure they don't know I work for Motorola.

One source versus her CIA boss.  Neither is conclusive right?