It's foolhardy to thing you can accurately predict the future, or read minds, or look into the past and see behind closed doors. But given the political smoke signals coming out of Washington and elsewhere right now, it's hard not to speculate on what they may mean.
Somewhere on the edge of the radarscope is President Bush's "consultations" with Democratic and Republican Senators on the subject of Supreme Court nominees, something not at all consistent with Mr. Bush's normal "my way or the highway" mode of operating.
Speaking of inconsistent--stories are coming out now of plans to withdraw British and US troops from Iraq sometime next year.
The Downing Street Memos still seem to be gaining traction.
John Bolton, off the radar for over a month, announced today that he'll accept a "recess appointment" as Ambassador to the UN. Mighty big of him, if you ask me, but I'm not entirely sure he isn't going to get pulled into a bigger story than the one he's in now.
Hill Republicans are rallying around Karl Rove. I've suspected for some time that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has bigger fish to fry than Karl. Exactly how high up he goes may depend on what Time reporter Matt Cooper tells the grand jury today.
What does all this portend? Here's my guess--and it's just a guess--but I think Fitzgerald's looking to blow the lid off the Bush administration's entire run up to the war in Iraq: who was in charge of shaping intelligence where, who purposely suppressed information not friendly to the White House objectives, and most importantly, who was the puppet master manipulating the whole thing.
I expect, at a minimum, that Cheney, Bolton, and Rumsfeld will be drawn into Fitzgerald's investigation. I think they expect it too, and they're trying to do some preemptive damage control. That would explain the softening on the Supreme Court nominee process, and the "leak" of the memo on troop withdrawal plans.
We'll see what happens. I'll be especially curious to see what Patrick Fitzgerald does after he talks to Matt Cooper in front of the grand jury. If he starts filing charges against people, stand by.
And please keep in mind that this is all just conjecture on my part. (Although if I turn out to be mostly right, I might brag about it just a little.)
Jeff
I guess the big question is to what extent is a special prosecutor limited to his original mandate? I seem to recall he can go to the judge and expand the scope of his investigation.
ReplyDeleteCan't find the source now, but I recall he had to show the judge 8 pages of redacted Times notes in order to force what's his name to testify.
Maybe I can relocate it.
Jeff
Ah, published this with the wrong post:
ReplyDeleteh, I have that all backwards. This from O'Donnell:
In February, Circuit Judge David Tatel joined his colleagues’ order to Cooper and Miller despite his own, very lonely finding that indeed there is a federal privilege for reporters that can shield them from being compelled to testify to grand juries and give up sources. He based his finding on Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which authorizes federal courts to develop new privileges “in the light of reason and experience.” Tatel actually found that reason and experience “support recognition of a privilege for reporters’ confidential sources.” But Tatel still ordered Cooper and Miller to testify because he found that the privilege had to give way to “the gravity of the suspected crime.”
Judge Tatel’s opinion has eight blank pages in the middle of it where he discusses the secret information the prosecutor has supplied only to the judges to convince them that the testimony he is demanding is worth sending reporters to jail to get. The gravity of the suspected crime is presumably very well developed in those redacted pages. Later, Tatel refers to “[h]aving carefully scrutinized [the prosecutor’s] voluminous classified filings.”
Some of us have theorized that the prosecutor may have given up the leak case in favor of a perjury case, but Tatel still refers to it simply as a case “which involves the alleged exposure of a covert agent.” Tatel wrote a 41-page opinion in which he seemed eager to make new law -- a federal reporters’ shield law -- but in the end, he couldn’t bring himself to do it in this particular case. In his final paragraph, he says he “might have” let Cooper and Miller off the hook “[w]ere the leak at issue in this case less harmful to national security.”
Tatel’s colleagues are at least as impressed with the prosecutor’s secret filings as he is. One simply said “Special Counsel’s showing decides the case.”
All the judges who have seen the prosecutor’s secret evidence firmly believe he is pursuing a very serious crime, and they have done everything they can to help him get an indictment.
I'd say it's pretty good conjecture, wouldn't you?
ReplyDeleteWell, as I said before somewhere, if all this sound and fury ends up in nothing but a fizzle case against Carl Rove, I'll be very disappointed in Fitzgerald, and seriously doubtful of his motives.
ReplyDeleteJeff
Karen,
ReplyDeleteI haven't brought it up yet, but I believe Chalibigate is also involved. Wheels within wheels, lies within lies, enigmas withing conundrums.
That's also what makes me think Fitzgerald is taking his time getting to where he's going, and keeping his mouth shut about it.
We shall see.
Jeff
What have you been reading, the White House Press Briefing with Scott "On-going Criminal Investigation" McClellen?? Hoo boy - yeah, nothing to hide there!
ReplyDeleteOr maybe you've been reading the Talking Points from Ken Mellman and the RNC, because God knows THEY are a credible and reliable resource - so well researched.
Isn't it funny, though, how Scottie "On-going Criminal Investigation" McClellen, who actually has to testify under oath to a federal grand jury isn't spouting the usual Kool Aide line like he normally would - or how Mellman is...who DOESN"T actually have to testify under oath to a federal grand jury.
It is a wonder to behold how the threat of jail time really focuses and clears the mind. Helps you set your priorities. Maybe put the Kool Aide away for a while.
But I really can't comment during an ON-GOING CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION, and it's an on-going CRIMINAL investigation because the CIA repeatedly asked the Justice Department to look into the exposure of one of their covert operatives. But yeah, there probably isn't a lot to this on-going CRIMINAL investigation.
Well, Scott, IMO use of "spout the usual partisin nonesense" is spouting the usual partisan nonesense.
ReplyDeleteAnd I'm not sold on the notion that it's okay for our government official to keep things hidden because lawyers told them to.
Jeff
You're funny, R. Scott Kimsey, if that's your real name.
ReplyDeleteSorry whoever you are with your not anonymous post, Scottie "on-going Criminal Investigation" McClellen was happy to talk last year to defend Rove during a still on-going criminal investigation - "it's ridiculous to think he had anything to do with it" - to now hiding behind "no comment because it's an on-going criminal investigation." And if you were really "trying to figure out what's going on" your post might have made note of that.
For you to say there is nothing to these charges reflects less of a grasp of the issues then you keep claiming you have. Not a single one of your posts presents even one fact or displays any particular instance of you having tried to "figure out what is going on" beyond what your fellow Kool Aide drinkers have said. Had you written something that disagrees with Jeff which showed you actually have thought about it, internalized the many discussions and came to your own conclusions then I wouldn't charge you with Kool Aide drinking. And I would enjoy a discussion based on honest disagreements. But none of your comments, whether be it be on this topic or others earlier in this blog, displays any notion of being able to think for yourself. And I have no respect for that.
As for me drinking the Kool Aide? Well, I served the United States military and I worked iwth CIA; I reluctantly supported the Iraq War - "reluctant" because it seemed Saddam was leashed and our military leaders didn't support the invasion; "supported" because my President told me Saddam was an imminent threat.
Now I know I was lied to. And thousands of people have been killed and maimed for a lie. And this outing of a CIA operative was part of that whole package of lying to get us into war. And this outing of a CIA operative, this releasing of classified information, to a news reporter is traitorous. They compromised national security for political gain and as an American, that makes me sick. It doesn't get more unpatriotic, and whoever did it, whether it be Rove or someone else, is no better than Robert Hansen or Aldrich Aimes.
Yes, I'm drinking the Kool Aide and its colored Red, White, and Blue.
What do you say to that, R. Scott Kimsey, if that's your real name?
ReplyDeleteSorry, sorry. I'm not being helpful. But it was hard to resist.
But you don't think there's a little problem when this many high government officials have to worry about incriminating themselves?
ReplyDeleteYes, I agree rule of law and protections apply to them--I just think it says a hell of a lot when they have to use them.
Jeff