It is the Sunday of think pieces, the day after the day that Scooter Libby was officially indicted, and it seems that everyone inside and outside the WH is trying to get their advice to the President on paper this morning.
What is most striking, although perhaps not unexpected considering Libby was his Chief of Staff, is that the focus is primarily on the Vice President and his role in steering the Administration. According to the WaPo:
Bush also must consider the degree to which Cheney has now become a liability in his efforts to recover politically. Two Republicans privately said yesterday the taciturn Cheney has become a major burden to the president, and that his association with an unpopular war and proximity to the Libby embarrassment will eat at the administration’s credibility. “This ‘I’m a sphinx’ gig just doesn’t get it any more,” one of the GOP strategists said.
Interesting. And who might these Republicans be? That’s an awfully broad assignation for anonimity, which tells me that this is either Rove or a surrogate trying to take the heat off the Doughboy, or someone in Congress who is worred about Cheney’s drag on the 2006 election prospects.
Either way, that GOP folks are willing to say straight out that Cheney is a “major burden” is astonishing when you think about the unified “no problem here” front that was rock solid only a couple of months ago. Again, in the WaPo:
Friday’s indictment of Vice President Cheney’s chief of staff I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby dealt another big blow to public confidence in the administration, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. Bush’s approval rating fell to 39 percent — the lowest recorded by this poll in his presidency — and a majority of Americans said the charges signal broader ethical problems in the administration. By a ratio of 3 to 1, those surveyed said the level of honesty in government has declined during Bush’s tenure.
I’m sorry. Wasn’t this the group of people promising to restore integrity to the White House? Whew, not so much. But 3 to 1 — well, that’s a fairly big chunk of what used to be considered a solid base of support for the WH now thinking this Administration is a bunch of unethical yahoos.
But they’ll turn it around quickly, right? I mean, GOP folks still have faith.
A Republican strategist, speaking on the condition of anonymity to offer a bark-off analysis of Bush’s problems, was far gloomier, noting that the situation facing Bush is about as bad as it can get. “What’s in front of him are very big structural problems,” he said.
Ticking off a list that includes a looming winter energy crisis because of high heating oil and natural gas prices, an immigration fight that could further divide his party, negative perceptions of the economy despite strong growth numbers, and overall pessimism about the direction of the country, he added: “It’s not like it’s a one-shot deal where they hit bottom and then bounce back. I’m not sure they’ve reached bottom yet.”
Um…not so much.
But Rove is free and clear, right? Wasn’t that the GOP talking point on all the shows this morning? Erm…perhaps not, according to Time.
But whether or not he’s in trouble with the law, friends say, he’s certainly in trouble with Bush. Rove will continue managing the intersection of politics and policy in the White House but will have to regain the unfettered powers he once held. “The President’s relationship with Karl has been damaged over the scandal,” a Bush friend says. A source close to Rove says when Bush asked Rove whether he was responsible for leaking Plame’s CIA identity to columnist Robert Novak, Rove told him “absolutely not.” While that may have been strictly true, Fitzgerald’s indictment suggests that Rove did at least discuss Wilson’s wife with Novak, as he did with TIME’s Matthew Cooper.
Hmmmm…sounds like someone put Karl on a leash for Bushie. That has to chafe. Ahem.
Well, there’s still his support in Congress. At least the Preznit can count on them to help him push some agenda through. Well, perhaps not.
It won’t help that Bush’s main enforcers on the Hill are themselves in a defensive crouch. Cheney could find himself a witness in a criminal trial, House majority leader Tom DeLay had to step down to fight indictments for money laundering, and Senate majority leader Bill Frist is under investigation for possible insider trading. The party’s ambitious comers are not running as Bush’s allies and heirs, and the 2006 campaign promises to be an epic battle. G.O.P. pollster Bill McInturff says the percentage of people who define themselves as “very interested” in the 2006 elections is already at 57%, compared with 39% in October 2002, a month before those midterm elections.
Erm…that doesn’t sound like the stuff of a good night’s sleep to me.
But the WH can spin this away as an isolated incident, can’t they? Partisan questions on the criminalization of politics? Um, not so fast.
The survey also found that nearly seven in 10 Americans consider the charges against Libby to be serious. A majority — 55 percent — said the decision of Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald to bring charges against Libby was based on the facts of the case, while 30 percent said he was motivated by partisan politics.
“One thing you can’t ever, ever do even if you’re a regular person is lie to a grand jury,” said Brad Morris, 48, a registered independent and a field representative for a lumber company who lives in Nashua, N.H.
Ooops.
What is clear is that within the Administration itself, and among the proxies for the various factions and power players, a whole lot of jockeying and finger pointing has begun. It’s a political face-off between Cheney and Rove and their surrogates, with Republicans who support neither man standing on the sidelines and cheering for the referee. Keep your eye on who might be saying things, as much as what they are saying.
Where there is smoke, there is likely to be Rove, sneaking out from the shadows to plant that knife in Cheney’s back to save his own thick hide. But Cheney is a seasoned warrior in Washington, and not easily taken out. It’s the collateral damage to the Administration that will keep piling up in the meantime — and with a Preznit unable or unwilling to take decisive action against both of them in the short term, it could be an ugly few weeks.
And all of that without knowing when that next shoe may or may not drop from Patrick Fitzgerald. Is it getting warm in here?
UPDATE: Steve Soto at LeftCoaster has caught the same theme. As has Wolcott (although Wolcott is predictibly much more deft about it).
Related posts:
- The Taxpayers Paid Dick Cheney’s Personal Defense Attorney to Obstruct Any Inquiries Into His Crimes
- Public Option Expert Jacob Hacker on Why the Blue Dogs are Blowing Smoke
- GOP/Media Complex Blows Smoke In RE: Obama and Poland and Russia
- Liz Cheney Warns Against “Walking Away” from Afghanistan, Apparently Forgetting that Dick Cheney Walked Away from Afghanistan
- Cheney Refused to Release the Journalists
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
Interesting that the very first sentence of the indictment lists Libby as first working for Bush:
defendant I. LEWIS LIBBY, also known as “SCOOTER LIBBY,” was employed
as Assistant to the President of the United States, Chief of Staff to the Vice President of the United States, and Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs.
mk — It is possible. And I wouldn’t take anything off the table as a possibility in this. It is truly high stakes poker to pressure someone into spilling in order to earn a plea. And when you consider the calculus that Libby has to take in — can he trust Cheney? Rove? is he going to live to even have a pardon considered if he has to do hard time? Will he live to see his grandchildren outside of through a thick piece of glass? So many, many things to think about.
I wonder if Fitzgerald is holding espionage charges over Libby’s head to get him to talk? For example, if he doesn’t give up more information he will indict on the espionage charges (as others have said, that would be a hard charge to get a pardon for). Although if he gave up Cheney, Bush wouldn’t pardon him at all.
I am not a lawyer, so I don’t know if a such a scenerio is possible. I am just speculating wildly. LOL
another great post redd hedd, thanks.
the battleship bush league is going down.
On second though, maybe it’s not so much the tin foil hat thing, and more the OLD thing, but I’m getting confused about which particular article I’m commenting on and I’m getting dizzy!
Nell — not really. In the end, it is primarily up to the prosecutor and the sentencing guidelines. Judges have very little leeway on sentencing in Federal Court. (I think Jeralyn did a piece on this in the last week or so on TalkLeft as well.) Libby would be sentenced in accordance with the counts to which he plead, within the guidelines range in which he falls, and would only get any sort of downward departure from the guidelines if the prosecutor recommended it — and that won’t happen without some substantial cooperation on Libby’s part.
Okay, the only way for Libby to avoid giving out more information is to plead to the whole thing (hoping for a pardon in late 2008-early 2009).
But the judge will be Reggie Walton, he of the ’screw Sibel Edmonds’ history. In a case where the defendant pleads guilty to all counts, who determines the sentence? How much influence does the prosecutor have? Isn’t it in the end all up to the judge?
Kathi – glad you cleared that up. Although I don’t always agree with everything Raspberry writes, I was amazed that someone could consider him “one of them.”
As for Saffire, he’s a card-carrying “them” member.
gimme a break, I’m old!
Redd
read my last post;}
Earlier post I said Raspberry, I meant Saffire. I din’t have my glasses on when I pit on my tinfoil hat this morning and I got it on crooked!:)
Kathi — the mental image brought about by the phrase “squeezing Libby and Rove to finger Big Dick” was just plain icky. ;-)
If he suggests directing questions to Luskin, someone should ask if questions regarding Bush can be directed to Sharp, Bush’s criminal attorney.
LOL marky, how about:
… directed to Sharp, Bush’s RICO criminal attorney.
I’ll stick my neck out here and speculate. I think the reason Fitz did not charge Libby with, “the underlying crime,” is specifically because he IS pursuing the “bigger, “conspiracy , and that Cheny is the BIG target, and that he is sqeezing both Libby and Rove to finger Big Dick.
I wonder who that “well placed.” source was who provided the info for that redacted WaPo article that said Cheney ordered Libby to do it, and if they have been questioned?
Margot -
Would not surprise me one bit.
—
the WaPo deletion discussion has jumped up to the next thread…
Jo at Democratic Veteran asks, ‘Now the big question: will the 1600 Crew try and “close” the trial on “National Security” grounds…?’
http://www.usndemvet.com/blog/
Is this likely? I hope not.
Another thing: Remember Rove was appointed to oversee Katrina’s aftermath and NO’s reconstruction? I never understood why there was no real outcry about that at the time. And now can anyone believe that he is actually accomplishing anything there?
What a shame no real, impartial investigation of that debacle was ever mounted. It’s almost as if the whole disaster never happened.
LOL, marky -
Like I said, wouldn’t wanna be Scottie this coming week. Dude is totally hemmed in, and all he’ll be able to do is take derisive abuse while continuing to lamely evade.
—
Hey, I have a GREAT idea for a question to ask scottie.
If he suggests directing questions to Luskin, someone should ask if questions regarding Bush can be directed to Sharp, Bush’s criminal attorney.
Anonymous — I do like that bit in the briefing though where he says that questions about whether Rove still works at the White House should be directed to Luskin.
WHOA.
Look at this. Josh Marshall has evidence of a revealing deletion from the WaPo article:
And who was Ari’s boss again? Who might have told Ari to begin the smear? Oh, that’s right, he was over there on AF1 with Ari. Over there on AF1 where Powell brought the “memo” to give to his boss. But wait, Powell saw Ari with it. So did Powell testify he gave it to Ari, or his boss? Hmmmmm.
“This is AF1 to AF2, let the smear begin.”???
a-
Well, yeah, but his opening remark confirms the tack I said he’d continue to take:
“Because of the ongoing investigation and legal proceedings, at the direction of the White House Counsel’s Office, all White House officials, including myself, are not going to be able to respond to questions or discuss the factual circumstances of the matter, except as requested by the special counsel, or in consultation with the White House Counsel’s Office. All such questions should be directed to the special counsel, or personal attorneys involved in this matter. ..”
You’re right, they should hound his ass over his prior assertions, but, again, he’ll simply stick to the script.
—
hmmm… Doesn’t say “well-placed official” it says “well-placed source.”
Could it be a journalist? Judy? Novak? Russert?
Or a former official? Ari? Colin Powell?
The smart money’s on Rove, I guess.
McClellan DID give a briefing post-indictment, and I was kind of suprised actually that the press didn’t light into him.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news…..28-14.html
My gut says the WaPo editors balked and wanted another source to confirm this “well-placed official.”
I’d like one too. But for now I’m cautiously optimistic that this means Ari Fleischer was Novak’s original source — remember all the talk here last week about the third source needing to be someone relatively well-liked in Washington and protected by the press?
And if Fleischer is Novak’s original source, I bet he’s cooperating with the GJ.
If that’s true — again all speculation at this point — it means that not only do they have the juice on Cheney, the Bush team is also implicated.
So… speculation please… who could WaPo’s source be? If it’s Rove, I’m inclined not to trust it. Who else has motive?
“Another question: Why doesn’t McClellen resign? He’s been used and been made a fool of daily, and for many months, by this administration.”
Cookie Guggleman
***
The next WH briefing oughta be a doozy. He has to either admit that HE lied to the press, or that his superiors lied to HIM. The choice is that simple.
Of course, what we’ll likely hear is the insipid, rote evasion “…again, this continues to be a serious ongoing investigation, and our policy remains unchanged; we cannot comment on an ongoing investigation.”
(Notwithstanding that Fitzie made it utterly clear on Friday that the only people prohibited from commenting were him and his staff, the FBI, the grand jurors, and implicitly by extension, anyone working for the courts with jurisdiction.)
Wouldn’t wanna be Scottie next week.
—
back to pardons and politics : it would be easy to pardon for merely a “technical” crime like perjury or obstruction but ESPIONAGE would be incomprehensible for a pardon. No President could do it.
a & Dan – RE: the WaPo article – why do you think it was deleted?
inaccuracy or nefariousness?
btw, Jane’s on the Fleischer thing — something on that soon.
Bling — I think there would be a substantial issue for Fitz and the judge to include Espionage Act as a lesser-included offense for plea. It may be the underlying offense used for determination of where this falls for sentencing guidelines purposes — that or IIPA — but I don’t see that being something that could be used for a plea. But my experience was mainly state rather than Federal representation, so perhaps someone with more Federal experience can weigh in on this, too.
CaseyL – You make a good point, its hard to know what Fitz is thinking. It may depend on what Libby would be willing to give him for the deal.
So some Republicans are taking shots at Cheney. Do you think there’s any chance that some of Dickus Maximus’s enemies in the WH (”cough” Rove”cough”) would rat out the VP to Fitz?
I just posted this over at Next Hurrah, but I thought I throw it out here too:
Would it be possible that in any plea deal with Libby, that Fitz would demand he plead not to the obstruction and perjury charges, but to one count of the espionage statute? His whole set up of the indictment – that he couldn’t charge on IIPA or espionage specifically because Libby was lying – very much left open the possibility that if everything came to light, these statutes would come into play.
But then, the next logical question is: what would motivate Libby to plead to a violation of the espionage act? Obviously, the only reason Libby would make this deal would be to reduce any possible jail time. So… the nut of the matter seems to be the sentencing guidelines on the espionage act. Less than 30 years?
The focus on Cheney and not so much Rove is the correct focus in my view. The issue at the bottom of the CIA leak case is the false justification for the god awful war in Iraq. The architect of that false justification was Cheney, not Rove. The architect of the coverup that began after no WMDs were found is not Rove it is Cheney/LIbby. Legally this may or may not end with Libby. Politically it is just going to get worse for Cheney.
HMOG!
Here’s a permalink to that TPM grab of Nexis.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.c…..006893.php
-
“Eleanor Clift and Mort Zuckerman on the McLaughlin Group both said they heard that Libby would take a plea deal and then get a pardon in the last week of Bush’s presidency.”
That assumes Fitzgerald’s interested in offering a plea bargain. Which begs the question, why would he?
cookie: resignation is a sign of weakness.
.
Ohhhh I can’t agree. I am with the guy in Redd’s post who predicts the issues that are looming for the winter in addition to the huge swamp of negatives Bush and loyalists need to overcome to slog away from this. The indictment only came down two days ago, so the non-FDL’s of the country need a few more news cycles for reality to sink in. A Newsweek, a Time, whatever they do to get thier dose. What will they be reading about? Libby, DeLay, Frist, Abramoff, Noe, Cheney, Bush, war, death, gas prices, heating costs, negative, negative, Katrina, Wilma, etc, etc,etc.
Fitzgerald’s investigation may appear quiet for a bit while he is toiling away, but Libby’s legal woes will be covered and will be a constant reminder of crime, crime, crime. I don’t think he’s finished, either, and I think Cheney is at risk by implication and Rove because he’s Rove.
I think too that the MSM feels pressured by the blogoshere to get it right this time, and not lose sight of the ball again. I’m still angry that they didn’t even show up for the game until less than two weeks ago because they were playing cya and y cronies’ a. If we do what we are doing here, with our excellent fearless
leadership (thanks always), we have a better chance of helping to get the job done.
Note to Pacha: great assessments and evaluations.
Dr Will: appreciate your perspective and that of Taylor and padraic from Eire. Wish other overseas folk would comment more often, valuable insights always.
David E., I wonder if Cheney has a new fluffer yet.
And speaking of giant sucking sounds, what about Cheney’s favorite underling Pete Williams?
Can he report the news about his old boss “objectively”?
(for those of you unfamiliar with Pete’s history, check this out http://www.powells.com/biblio/62-0299193748-0 )
You are spot on again, Redd. But the Amercan public can be very forgiving, and if Bush dumped Cheney, Rove, et. al., right now, brought in a new crowd and copped a mea culpa to the public, they would forgive him. In a heartbeat.
And then he could get back to the business of fucking things up.
-
WHOA.
Look at this. Josh Marshall has evidence of a revealing deletion from the WaPo article:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com
Eleanor Clift and Mort Zuckerman on the McLaughlin Group both said they heard that Libby would take a plea deal and then get a pardon in the last week of Bush’s presidency.
The only catch would be if Bush was impeached.
I noticed that Raspberry and the other Right wing reporter were defending Libby and the Administration to the teeth. Didn’t he just watch what happened to Judy Miller who was so willing to be carry the ball for these guys?
Her credibility is down the toiled, and so is her job. Can’t they here that giant sucking sound too?
CaseyL, you can look at it another way. Before 9/11, Bush was already staggering, and very weak. 9/11 changed that.. but for the past few months we have been more in the situation where Bush was before 9/11. He is weak, and only a fact on the ground can give him strength again. Another speech on Iraq, or another speech on dangerous terrorists will not do it. Bush is weak… and could get much weaker.
There was indeed a lot of speculation pre-2004 that Bush would drop Cheney from the ticket. I’m still wondering why he didn’t: Cheney’s health is a genuine concern, and he didn’t bring much to the ticket.
Now, though, Cheney is probably adamant about sticking around, if only to protect himself from further disclosures and legal action arising from his nihilism-driven war in Iraq, war against the CIA, war against the State Department, and so on ad infinitum.
He just has to, because whoever might replace him would automatically be a front-runner for 2008, and would work towards that end in fumigating the WH. The fumigation would have as its ultimate goal consolidating all the blame for everything on Cheney, in order to keep the infection from touching the new Veep.
So Cheney stays, unless and until he shuffles off this mortal coil – after which he’ll make a perfect scapegoat for the Bush Admin, since he’ll be safely dead, beyond the reach of investigations. (Much like William Casey’s providential death back in the Iran-Contra days.)
So, I predict the following:
1. Cheney dies, and becomes the sin-eater for the Bush Admin.
Or:
2. Cheney sticks around, and Libby becomes the sin-eater.
Either way, unless Fitzgerald unleashes another bombshell (unlikely) or Congress looks into the Iraq War and its penumbra issues (unlikely) the Bush Admin staggers on without further incident.
Re: ” seven in 10 Americans consider the charges against Libby to be serious”, I’m dubious whether average citizens are paying attention given how many people actually vote in this “great democracy”. Driving from Santa Fe to Denver on Friday PM listening to the radio, there was some coverage on NPR, but the righty talk radio went with the spin “he wasn’t charged with the original crime” (which I heard Saffire using this morning on Timmy’s show). Mostly, what I heard was talk about football, high gas prices and Jesus….and at a gas station Pink Floyd coming out of a SUV with a Bush sticker.
At Halloween parties, not a mention. Being consumed for weeks now, checking FLD multiple times a day, I assumed this story was catching fire with the American public…but my hunch is many folks actually could care less and chock it up to the second-term scandal syndrome.
Another question: Why doesn’t McClellen resign? He’s been used and been made a fool of daily, and for many months, by this administration.
Will Bush ever again hold a press conference? So many questions for him: What did Rove tell him? What did he tell Fitz? Why hasn’t Rove been fired?
And the thing I’ve been wondering about for years: Where exactly was Cheney and what was he doing in the months following Sept. 11. I always found it bizarre the msm never seemed curious about where darth vader was.
Why did I get a feeling of Deja Vu as I was reading that?
I hope Cheney’s not too frail to sneak up behind Bush and plant one in his back. With that action missing, the drama is less than perfect:)
Or possibly, someone whose been asked to float it out by a Bushie who is sick of being portrayed as an empty suit. I’m beginning to wonder if the Preznit isn’t ordering a bus with Dickie’s name on it.
er, wants to be veep…
Interesting. And who might these Republicans be? That’s an awfully broad assignation for anonimity, which tells me that this is either Rove or a surrogate trying to take the heat off the Doughboy, or someone in Congress who is worred about Cheney’s drag on the 2006 election prospects.
Or possibly someone whose boss whats to be veep, then sitting president for the 2008 elections.
If I remember correctly, there was some loose talk, before the 2004 election, about the possibility of removing Cheney from the ticket, ostensibly for health reasons. We can read into this what we want. Nevertheless, the liability perception may not be new.
.
I see this as a game of “Political Chicken” between Bush and Cheney. Bush demanding that Libby take the fall and Cheney refusing since he’s the true Pres. and demanding Rove take the fall. hopefully they’ll all go down.