Howard Fineman: Rove Non-Indictment a Bush 'Victory'

NewsMax ^ | October 28, 2005 | Carl Limbacher

[West Coast Conservative]

Newsweek magazine reporter Howard Fineman, who's been at the forefront of recent media speculation that top White House official Karl Rove would be indicted, has pronounced Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's decision to indict only Cheney aide Lewis Libby "a victory" for the Bush White House.

"Given the expectations that have evolved around here in the last week or so, if it turns out that this phase of the grand jury ends with only Scooter Libby being indicted," Fineman told MSNBC's Joe Scarborough last night, "that will be seen as almost be seen as a backwards kind of victory here."

Scarborough agreed, saying that the indictment of Libby without Rove would be, "a huge political win for the White House."

Fineman said Rove, not Libby, was Fitzgerald's "big fish."

"Karl Rove is a big national figure and as close to the president of the United States as you can get without being a member of the president`s family," he told Scarborough. "And so, politically, Karl Rove is the much bigger fish here."

[XEHRpa]

First of all he wasn't charged with that. That would have been conspiracy.

Not necessarily. If I witnessed someone damaging someone else whom I respected, it would not require a conspiracy for me to come to that person's aid.

Secondly, if he did lie to the FBI and the GJ, as the indictment charges, it would have done nothing to minimize Wilson's damage as that was past history.

No argument there. But so what? I don't know why he might have lied, if it proves true. I'm sure that question will spawn all sorts of Rovian theories.

Thirdly, is it wrong for an administration to actively defend itself from those who aim to undermine its agenda? Particularly when that opposition is based on lies? Wilson, through the CIA, concocted a completely false story that contradicted a major point in the administration's case against Saddam/Iraq. He lied about who requested his "fact finding trip" claiming it was the administration. He lied about filing a written report to the CIA. He further spread this lie by writing an op-ed in the Wash. Post.

I'm with you there. This is why I find the Democrats so dastardly in all this, they employed their influence in a US govt body (CIA) to smear the President in such a way as to make it illegal to reveal their plot. That is downright scary to me.

Frankly I think it would be incompetence if the administration didn't do something to curtail a blatantly false story aimed at destroying an active foreign policy mission regarding national security in the context of nuclear weapons development in a rogue nation under multiple UN sanctions against WMD programs.

I agree. And that is why I will respect Libby for what he did for the country, even as I simultaneously insist that the law must be upheld with regard to his GJ testimony. Sometimes, doing the right thing comes at a price.

Out her as what? She was not a covert agent. She changed from that status nine years prior and the statute makes it illegal for only five years after covert status has been resigned. There are a number of other legal hurdles to jump before the statute applies as well which weren't.

And that is why I was baffled when Fitz insisted in his press conference that Plames status was classified and that her neighbors knew nothing about it. Why would he say such a thing if it is so easily disproved? Is it possible that you and I are the victims of conservative talking points that repeat the not-covert/already-outed mantras that we hear here? I have no illusions that only Democrats have talking points. I'd like to see evidence, rather than just hear repeated mantras. Give a pointer to a site that has Plame's Who's Who entry. Give me a pointer to a site that quotes someone who has said "I knew about Plame's status."

Apart from all of that his statements to the FBI and GJ indicate that he had attempted to conceal his prior knowledge of Plame's identity from reporters not necessarily from the FBI or GJ. It is not entirely clear, from the indictment's quotes, that he was trying to sell that line to the FBI or GJ. Fitzgerald conveniently left out much of the questioning that lead up to those answers.

I don't know if you were listening to the same press conference as I. What I heard, Fitz left no doubt that Libby did not fess up to the FBI and GJ. He wasn't indicted for the stories he told reporters... he was indicted for what he told the GJ.

I find it interesting that Fitzgerald claimed that "this has nothing to do with what led up to the war" yet he mentioned national security as an issue when he announced the indictment. He also talked about "threatening the cover of a covert agent." Yet there was no covert agent in any of this to uncover and Fitzgerald should have been aware of that after about thirty minutes of investigation. We were at FR. But the bottom line of that is that Fitzgerald didn't indict on those points yet he cites them in his public statement and yet he claims the investigation had nothing to do with the war in Iraq. His fly is wide open.

I tend to agree with you that the original "crime" seems to be, in fact, a non-issue politically concocted by the 'Rats. That said, telling the truth to the GJ is not an option. I said it for Clinton with the Paula Jones testimony and I say it here that under oath means under oath.

[alnick]

they were literally crying in the streets at the end of election night

Ha! What a great memory. Remember PEST sydrome? LOL.

[alnick]

If he's so honest and wonderful, why did he decide a month into the thing that there was no crime he could indict on and request to be allowed to continue on a fishing expedition in order to trap someone into an indictment at some later point? Why did he spend taxpayer money for two years investigating something he knew to be perfectly legal?

[TigersEye]

Not necessarily. If I witnessed someone damaging someone else whom I respected, ...

Judging by the analogy you are drawing I take it you respect Joe Wilson and thus his effort to undermine foreign policy with a blatant lie and a campaign of deceit.

[TigersEye]

I don't know if you were listening to the same press conference as I.

I didn't see/hear the press conference. I read the indictment. It doesn't have as much spin I expect. (I did see soundbites of the PC.)

[daybreakcoming]

It also means that Fitzgerald, the a-hole that he is, will continue to go after Rove with another grand jury.

So, can we surmise that Fitzgerald is taking a page out of Ronnie Earle's book on Grand Jury Shopping? I lost track of how many juries it took for Earle to get an indictment against Tom Delay.

[Common Tator]

To think a man like Libby would say Russert was his source when he was not is ludicrous. Do you think that Cheney and Libby know who Russerts real source was for the Plame/Wilson story? Do you think Russert knows they know he lied and that they know who Russerts source actually was? Betcha some one made sure Russert knows.. Russert's attorney has already told him what questions to expect at Libby's trial.

Click here on the tator take why Libby's case may be thrown out at trial.

It should be clear from the makeup of the last Grand Jury that if Fitzgerald wanted to indict Rove, the grand jury would have done so. That grand jury would have indicted Rove for killing Nicole Simpson has Fitzmas asked them to do so.

I think Fitz is trying to keep Rove from coming after Fitz.

The voices of men with whip hands never shake.

[Torie]

Libby talked to Russert after he learned about Plame from several sources, not before. It is a timeline thing.

[Common Tator]

Libby talked to Russert after he learned about Plame from several sources, not before. It is a time line thing.

We only have access to the grand jury testimony that makes Libby look guilty. Libby is a lawyer. He was not likely to lie in a way that he could easily be caught.

It works like this. How do Cheney and Libby know what the other is going to testify to. Cheney and Libby each meet with two lawyers separately. One of the lawyers is representing Cheney the other is representing Libby. The Cheney lawyer asks Cheney questions while Libby's lawyer listens. Then the two lawyers meet with Libby and Libby's lawyer questions while Cheney's lawyer listens. Then both Cheney and Libby can say they never talked to each other about their testimony and the two lawyers can say they have only questioned their own client. But Libby knows what Cheney is going to say, and cheney knows what Libby is going to say. The two lawyers make corrections with their clients to get the stories straight.

That is what happens in the real world.

If I have been involved in using such tactics then surely defense lawyers like Libby have used them too. I can't imagine administration people going in whith out being aware of what the other adminstration people are going to testify.

Libby is not accused of revealing who Valery Plame was. He is accused of lying about his sources and what he did or didn't tell them. For that to be true the sources he listed had to not be sources or he had to not name some actual sources he was questioned about.

That is the rational behind the perjury, lying to an officer and the obstruction charges. The time line is not important. Proving Libby lied is important for a conviction.

Proving that A told Libby before B told him does not prove Libby was lying when he said B told him.

[Torie]

Ya, but Libby testified he "first" learned about Plame from Russert. At least I think that is the case.

[June Cleaver]

I saw that his program received virtually no market share last month---did not even register on the scale, and placed dead last in listenership.

Some Christmas for him....

[Common Tator]

Here is what the wall street journal says.

Mr. Fitzgerald would not comment yesterday on whether he had evidence for the perjury, obstruction of justice and false statement counts beyond the testimonies of Mr. Libby and three journalists. Instead, he noted that a criminal investigation into a "national security matter" of this sort hinged on "very fine distinctions," and that any attempt to obscure exactly who told what to whom and when was a serious matter.

To the extent that the facts alleged in the indictment can be relied upon, the story goes something like this. Sometime in May 2003, or slightly before, Nicholas Kristof, a columnist for the New York Times, was informed of Joe Wilson's 2002 trip to Niger to investigate claims that Saddam Hussein had attempted to buy yellowcake there. Mr. Kristof wrote a column, and Mr. Libby began to ask around, to determine why a Democratic partisan had been sent on such a sensitive mission in the run-up to the Iraq war. He allegedly learned in the course of his inquiries that Mr. Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.

Mr. Fitzgerald alleges that Mr. Libby informed Judith Miller of the New York Times about Mr. Wilson's wife in June, but she never wrote it up. In the meantime, Mr. Wilson went public with his own account of his mission and its outcome, without reference to his wife's employment or possible involvement in his trip.

Mr. Libby also spoke to Mr. Cooper of Time about it, who did write it up, but only after Mr. Novak's column had run. In this same time period, he had a conversation with Mr. Russert, which may or may not have covered Mr. Wilson and his wife, depending on whom you believe.

So, we are left with this. Did Mr. Libby offer the truth about Mr. Wilson to Mr. Cooper "without qualifications," as Mr. Fitzgerald alleges, or did he merely confirm what Mr. Cooper had heard elsewhere? Did he, or did he not, discuss Mr. Wilson with Tim Russert at all?

On this much we can agree with Mr. Fitzgerald: These are "very fine distinctions" indeed, especially as they pertain to discussions that occurred two years ago, and whose importance only became clear well after the fact, when investigators came knocking. In a statement yesterday, Mr. Libby's counsel zeroed in on this point when he said, "We are quite distressed the Special Counsel has now sought to pursue alleged inconsistencies in Mr. Libby's recollection and those of others' and to charge such inconsistencies as false statements." He added that they "will defend vigorously against these charges."

------------------------------------------------------

Unless you have the grand jury testimony in full you will find that at least 50 percent of the initial media reports will turn out to be false.

Main stream media types tend to tell you what ever the DNC says and report it as gospel truth. I don't think the WSJ editorial page was spinning.

I would not put a lot of faith in what Fitzgerald says. I will bet you that all three reporters refuse to answer some questions the defense asks during cross examination at the trial.

If they do the judge has no option but to throw out all their testimoney. That is why is is so important to know if Fizgerald has other evidence besides the three journalists testimonmy. Fritzgerald was asked and dodged the question. He has to show the defendant all the evidence he has against him. So if he has more, why not tell the world.

If he does not have anything but the reporters .. then one of two things is going to happen. We are going to learn a lot about who in the CIA illegaly leaks national security secrets to Russert, Cooper and Miller in an attempt to destroy the government they work for, or the reporters are going to refuse to testify. That will get some CIA people indicted and fired.

I think that Libby's lawyers gave Fitzgerald a real surprise. Fitzgerald at his press conference sure acted like a man who had a tiger by the tail. He may have found that out after he got the indictments but before he made them public the defense was not going for his plea bargain.

No defense attorney can say I am prepared to do "A" before his client is indicted. But there is nothing stopping him from doing it after he knows his client is indicted. That is called attempted plea bargaining strategy. And a stratedy of WE will fight to the death may in this case be a good one. I think Fitzmas offered Libby a plea bargan figuring he was certain to take it. Perhaps the offered pleabargain was just to plead guilty to a misdemeanor. And by golly miss Molly, maybe Libby did not take it.

But back to the reporters.. If you were advising the three reporters, what would you have Miller, Russert and Cooper do?

I think their lawyers would have told Fitz they would refuse to answer defense questions on the stand before he got the indictments. There were reports taht Fritz was meeting with the reporters lawyers in the final days and with Libbys lawyer after the indictments were made by the grand jury.

It is unheard of. but Fritzmas did it. He went to see Libby's lawyer on Thursday. That is not the act of a prosecutor with a whip hand. Betcha Fritzmas went to get a plea bargan Thursday and didn't get one.

[Torie]

I didn't see anything in all of that about Libby testifying that he first heard about Plame's status from Russert. Isn't that what it is all about?

[Common Tator]

AS I understand it Libby says Miller, Russert, and Cooper were his sources and perhaps some other reporters mentioned it as well. Libby says several reporters talked to him about it. They were asking confirmation. Libby says can't remember who they all were. He said he told some of them he didn't know and some of them that he had heard the same thing from other reporters.

Miller says she heard it elsewhere but she is not sure if she told Libby or Libby told her about Plame. Miller only agreed to tesify if she did not have to give her other source on Plame to Fitzgerald. After 85 days in jail Fitzgerald agreed not to ask Miller about her other sources or when they told her about Plame.

Miller thinks she talked about it with Liddy on June 10th.. but is not absolutely sure she did. She may have told Libby the gals name was FLAME not PLame or maybe it was Libby who told her the name was FLAME. Or she may have told Libby the name was FlAME but knew it was Plame and did it just to see if he would correct her.. but she thinks he must not have corrected her. But She just can't remember. Her notes do say someone named FLAME reccomended Wilson for the job with the CIA. Bet your rump Miller will be asked to reveal her other source in the trial. She will not be punised if she refuses, but her testimony will be stricken.

Liddy said Russert talked to him about PLAME but Russert says he did not talk to Liddy about PLAME. They charged Liddy with perjury for saying Russert talked to him about Plame when Russert said he didn't.

Cooper did talk to Liddy about Plame. Both Liddy and Cooper agree they talked about it. Cooper says Liddy brought it up. He says Liddy said other reporters had asked Liddy about Plame and Liddy wanted to know if Cooper knew anthing about it. Cooper said he told Liddy other reporters had told him about it too.

Libby on the other hand said Cooper brought it up. He said Cooper said other reporters had told him about it and Cooper wanted Liddy to confirm it. Liddy said he told Cooper that other reporters had told him the same thing too.

That seems to be it in a nut shell.

[Common Tator]

One thing that Miller and Cooper agree on. Liddy told them not to go out on a limb for Wilson. He told them that what Wilson told the CIA and what he put in his New York Times articles were not the same thing.

The Senate special committee on Iraq published a report. The report said that Wilson told the CIA that Saddam DID try to get yellow cake from Niger. Wilson also told the Senate that his wife did not recommend him for the job.. Wilson told them that Cheney had requested him. But the CIA said his wife got him the job and Cheney did not request him for the job and that Wilson told them Saddam tried to get yellow cake from Niger.

Wilson printed the same lies in his book.

The Senate committee said Wilson either did not tell the truth in his sworn testimony before the senate or the told the CIA untruths in his oral reports on his trip to Niger. They did not charge him with perjury.

The question is will the CIA people that told the senate Wilson lied get to testify in the trial. Were any of them the sources for Miller, Russert and Cooper.

If the reports by the CIA were intended to be used in a public speech in the UN were they classified. If not the people who leaked to Miller, Russert,and Cooper might very well testify who they told what and when.

Libby also says Miller and Cooper contacted him. If Lubby can prove they already knew about it, then it seems more likey the were seeking confirmation as Libby says rather than Libby trying to feed them the story.

If Libby's goal was to tell the press that what Wilson was saying was untrue..then that would be a point better made by pointing out Wilson was Democratic operative not a neutral observer. How do you say Wilson lied about yellow cake because his wife got him the job.

Dan Rather lied about Bush and Texas natioal guard because Rathers wife got him the job at CBS? Say what?

The more I consider I think Fitzgerald fully expected to get an indictment and then accept a plea bargan for a misdemeanor. He expected to say the Jury wanted to hang Libby but I think a misdemeanor is appropreate in this case. That way the Democrats could say Libby is a crook but a kind hearted prosecutor let him off easy. But at least he got fired and everyone knows he wasguilty of a very serios felony. The democrats could say ot just proves how crooked and slick the Bush administration and Karl Rove are.

I think Liddy said screw you. Lets blow your game wide open in open court. He just might get it done.

[podkane]

I have a feeling that the swirling buzz of rumors around Rove this week was Fitzy pressuring for a plea bargain, and Rove calling his bluff. Either Fitzy knew he had nothing, or thought he did, but couldn't get the jurors to swallow it.

This isn't a prosecutor who is known to bluff. He got indictments on the Sec of State licenses for bribes scandal in Illinois state government, he's gotten indictments for Daley admin. officials in Chicago. He's very thorough and very compentent, and all the stories swirling around have been just that: stories, speculations. This guy doesn't screw around. Libby was obviously cavalier about this investigation and got nailed. There may be more indictments, there may be another GJ, but he isn't going to be saying anything else until the investigation really closes down, or there are more indictments, or maybe something that surprises everyone.

Now that people know this guy is dead serious, maybe this will wrap up soon. It may have wrapped up a lot earlier if Libby hadn't tried to protect his boss from what he thought (justifiably), was an assault on the administration.

Anyway, the admin. has survived, and the less said about this from our side, the better. The next SCOTUS appointment should be happening in the near future, and this business will be lost in the next major news cycle.

[RonF]

I really haven't been following this case at all. I have been following what Fitz has been doing in Illinois, and I doubt that very many FReepers (outside of Illinois) have. So I thought I'd fill people in. If Fitz is still chasing after something, my guess is that he thinks there's something worth the chase. And his record says that he's usually right.

[XEHRpa]

>Judging by the analogy you are drawing I take it you
>respect Joe Wilson and thus his effort to undermine >foreign policy with a blatant lie and a campaign of
>deceit.

That is the most ludicrous extension of logic I've seen in a long time. Since when does coming to the aid of someone you respect equate with engaging in an immoral if not illegal campaign to undermine a sitting President. Try again.

[TigersEye]

I guess I just can't see the reason you respect this serial liar who engaged in an immoral if not illegal campaign to undermine a sitting President or why you'd want to aid him.

[Hound of the Baskervilles]

"{If it was a crime then, it is a crime now regardless of the number of files possessed or which party is guilty of the transgression."

There was an investigation by the Speical Prosecutor of the entire matter and there was no prosecution. There was no prosecution because there was no crime.

Gadfly lawyer Larry Klayman brought a lawsuit against the Clinton Admin for the FBI files and NOTHING came of it. I read all the depositions he took and they were crap. There was NO there there.