But if Woodward’s source is Novak’s source, something important doesn’t make sense. Novakula sang to Fitz long, long ago. I assume he told Fitz who his source was. And I assume Novak’s source waived confidentiality to allow him to do so. (The alternative is to assume that Novak merely squealed like a stuck pig without a word of protest … nah, let’s not go there.)

So if the mystery senior administration official already cleared Novak, or is at least fully aware that he has been outed to Fitzgerald, why would he insist that Woodward continue to keep his yap shut?

Is a puzzlement…

Byron York is a consumate hack in the vein of the Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes. If either of these guys said the world was round, I’d triple check it.

Byron does have sport a swingin’ hairdo, though. (Ulp, that was just mean.)

Folks:

Never lose sight of the fact that Woodward talks to the biggest of the big boys.

Sorry if I missed something and sorry to bring up that whole “when did Rove testify before the GJ?” can of worms again- please clarify for me if you can ’cause I still don’t know. Byron York claims that Rover testified to Fitzgerald that he had spoken to Cooper starting with his second GJ appearance. First of all, how the fuck does York know what Rove testified to and when? Was he on the grand jury? Or did he use his evil powers to turn himself into a fly and buzz into the courtroom when Fitz was questioning Rover? Or is this common knowledge and York’s got it right on this one? I was under the impression that Rove didn’t testify about Cooper until October. If Rove testified that he spoke to Cooper in his second GJ appearance then why did Fitzgerald have to threaten Cooper with jail? Cooper didn’t go public that Rove was his source until July 2005. Did three of Rove’s four GJ appearances take place after July 2005?

OMG Mayan, I just spewed tea all over myself. The image of Hughes as Gollum is too funny. Mwahahahahahahaha

reddhedd – that’s true, very true…but I wouldn’t be suprised if Hughes eyes were bionic…the first time I saw her -during the Gore election debacle (curse the day!!), I thought her eyes were ball-bearings. Besides, I have a feeling she’s one of those rare beings who can’t feel pain and would probably just bite Rove’s finger off…like the Gollum.

emptywheel, ah, I see, I got the two mixed up. rereading the Oct article I can see how it could be construed as whole cloth bullshit…

so do you think there’s an SAO #1 who isn’t Rove? and if so who are your candidates?

EPU — so we should set up a board, take bets on sealed indictment filed with last GJ or no?

I’d bet there is. And I’ll bet Rove believes there is, too, hence all the scrambling with journos Vivak, Vandehei, Harris, Novak and the like, trying to discourage unsealing.

new thread

Mayan — she does seem like a tough broad, but never discount Rover’s finger in your eye maneuver.

reddhedd -> 12:11 – We are now on to another thread but your jello-wrestling image is horrifying and indelible…aghghghgh!!! Make it go away.

(Although, I think I would put my money on Hughes).

The circuit courts have uniformly recognized that an indictment may be sealed for other reasons, including legitimate prosecutorial purposes and when the public interest otherwise requires it. See Sharpe, 995 F.2d at 52 (legitimate prosecutorial purpose and public interest); United States v. Richard, 943 F.2d 115, 118-19 (1st Cir. 1991) (same); Lakin, 875 F.2d at 170 (same); Srulowitz, 819 F.2d at 40 (same); United States v. Ramey, 791 F.2d 317, 321 (4th Cir. 1986) (any legitimate prosecutorial need); United States v. Edwards, 777 F.2d 644, 648 (11th Cir. 1985) (”[R]easons other than taking defendants into custody validly support the sealing of an indictment.”); United States v. Southland Corp., 760 F.2d 1366, 1379-80 (2d Cir. 1985) (surveying historical practice which Rule 6(e) codified); Michael, 180 F.2d at 57 (holding that a court may seal an indictment for any reason based on its sound discretion).

radish

The “partisan gunslinger” doesn’t come from the Phelps in Royce article. AFAIK, it first appeared in Novak’s October 1 2003 column. In fact the disparity between the two is one of the reasons it is so clear that the October column is disinformation. Novak told Royce and Phelps that, “I didn’t dig it out, it was given to me.” But then in October, he claims he “did not receive a planned leak.”

Mayan — I agree with you on the Hughes imprint lately. She and Karl must be jello wrestling again for control of the message machine. (And if that isn’t a mental image that will give you nightmares, I don’t know what is. *shudder*)

Thanks. Your turnaround time is nothing short of unbelievable–faster than my broadband. You must have answered me within one minute of my post.

BobbyG — Saddam’s potential bluffing would have been a play right out of “The Art of War”; no need to raise weapons if one can make one’s enemies believe they are already raised and at the ready.

But we have been left out of the loop in so many ways. We do not yet have all the information we need to make a full assessment as to whether Saddam was bluffing or not:

Iraq’s Declaration was only seen in full by the USA.

In a strange episode, many pages were removed by the USA from the version given to the UN Security Council. There has never been a satisfactory explanation of why the declaration was given by the UN to the USA at all, nor of what the removed pages contained.

The expurgated report was delivered to the elected members of the Security Council in time for a meeting on 19th December 2002. The Bush Administration declared to the Security Council that omissions in the 12,000-page inventory submitted by Baghdad constituted a “material breach” of Iraq’s obligations to the UN under Resolution 1441. [emphasis mine]

What are we to make of this?

new thread: “Next time, try catered lunch”

So then, if there were a sealed indictment, Fitz could determine when it was best to issue it?

I think that the “I can make a mistake and take responsibility” make-over that Bush is currently displaying, is attributable to Karen(uberfrauleincommandante) Hughes.

In the post-”I-have-political-capital” era, the focus groups have determined that “I am strong and without human weakness” has run it’s course and it is now time for the “aw shucks” Bushie. The Bumstead President. Bumbling but human and squeezably soft and yet resolute. This is probably not something that KKKarl is good at, so after Katrina they brought in Hughes to add a little anima to the animus. See how that plays in the polls.

haralambos — sorry, I should have been more clear on that point — the mention of Andy Card was in the accompanying WaPo article. See this:

http://firedoglake.blogspot.co…..2711120881

HTH!

Fed. Rules Crim. Proc. Rule 6

(4) Sealed Indictment.

The magistrate judge to whom an indictment is returned may direct that the indictment be kept secret until the defendant is in custody or has been released pending trial. The clerk must then seal the indictment, and no person may disclose the indictment’s existence except as necessary to issue or execute a warrant or summons.

It doesn’t say anything about the indictment going stale if the GJ’s term ends.

Sam-I think congressional republicans are soon going to be in the ultimate bind. They will be forced to choose between impeaching Bush which would incur the mercilous wrath of Bushco, or not pursuing Bush which would incur the mercilous wrath of the voting public prior to the 2006 elections. It’s almost like watching a steamroller bearing down on them realizing they have nowhere to run. Delicious, eh?

Rawstory is a deeply unreliable source. They get lots of stuff wrong, and they are frequently deeply misleading, presenting things with much more confidence than they deserve. The thing about the grand jury today is a perfect example. The headline on the front page says “Leak prosecutor currently in court,” and then the headline on the linked story is “Fitzgerald briefs grand jury Wednesday.” Yet neither of those claims is supported by the story, which is written mostly in the future tense about what Fitzgerald will do on Wednesday, and no evidence whatsoever is presented that he is in fact before the grand jury.

I have no idea whether Fitzgerald is before the grand jury. Maybe he is. But nothing Rawstory tells us tells us he is. And yet the takeaway is that he is. I’m also not saying that Rawstory gets nothing right. They just get way too much wrong.

ReddHead,

Thanks for such good work. In your Update #2, you note that the WaPo piece contains Woodward’s mention of speaking with Andy Card. Am I missing something? My reading of the article is that only Libby is mentioned by name; the other two former or then current administration officials are unnamed in the article.

EPU — exactly, “grasping at straws” like drowning men would do out of desperation. They can’t play just Fitz — although they have, as evidenced by Fitz’ need for Vivak’s testimony and Luskin’s last-minute scurrying deferring any action against Rove — they have to play the public the best they can if they are to retain any chance at 2006 and 2008, or the much-longer lifetime of a SCOTUS. The stakes are enormous; the fate of their entire world hangs on the outcome of their spin and miscues. They will do everything they can to drag out and defer prosecution if they can achieve their goals (keep in mind Alito’s hearings to start in early Jan., as well as waiting for other shoes to drop re: Abramoff, Delay, Cunningham).

As citizens we should pick apart everything; we must if we are to get to the truth. We can no longer depend on the corporate media to do this for us, they’ve been compromised too many times, motivated by interests that are often at odds with that of the citizenry. I was reminded of a Dean quote this morning, that voting is the minimum price of democracy. Scrutinizing everything about the officials who we, the people, have elected and appointed to represent us is a minimal price, too, and critical to holding them accountable. It’s essential to democracy that we meet in the public square and audit our representatives’ behaviors, even if a prosecutor is already engaged.

“wtf is wrong with the MSM? Fitzgerald is at the grand jury right now and no one seems to be writing about it.”

Obsessed mentioned this earlier, but it probably needed restating.

Somebody refresh my memory of what “sealed indictments” are and how they work. If there were a “sealed indictment” against Rove from the last Grand Jury, would it expire when the term of the Grand Jury expired? If not, what would have to occur to activate it? Does it have to be approved by the current Grand Jury? Or does Fitz go before a judge? Or what?

RE: article about Novak. It comes from the Raleigh News and Observer. Novak spoke at a local, right wing think tank, the John Locke Foundation. Only 300 people attended and Rob Christensen was the reporter who is also the political reporter who covers state politics. There probably were no national reporters at the meeting.

Prof -

Bush could give a shit. His little “oh, well, My Bad” is the height of disingenousness. He got what he wanted, the WMD scare served its purpose, now he can do this lame little taking non-)responsibility schtick (for the failings of OTHERS, of course).

They knew Saddam was bluffing. I’d bet my retirement on it.

—

RE — Novak’s no partisan gunslinger quote.

In RightWingSpeak, a Partisan Gunslinger is, by definition, a Democrat.

The likes of Rove and Lee Atwater are patriotic ‘Murkans, doin’ God’s work.

wtf is wrong with the MSM? FItzgerald is at the grand jury right now and no one seems to be writing about it!

I don’t think York is saying that Libby was indeed Woodward’s source. Woodward stated previously that he recalled speaking with Libby about something or other and that he recalls he had some notes with him regarding Joe Wilson and the Niger uranium flap.

I think York’s mentioning of the Woodward-Libby conversations are simply his attempt to throw some mudd on Fitz and make him look bad by showing that Fitz (after investigating for two years) simply had not found out that Libby and Woodward had spoken and that Woodward was the first reporter to have heard about Valerie Plame prior to Libby disclosing such knowledge to Judi Miller.

Huge Red Herring.

I wasn’t aware that Bush has been saying publicly before that “much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong.”

Prof

Jake now tells me that the fattest Rabbit to
go after is Karl Rove. The hell with B.Novak.
Let him go around with his rabbit bag in
Rockridge park. Maybe he can come up with
some leads on what happened to Chandra
Levy.

Once Karl goes down it’s all going to unravel
fast. I sure would love to watch Fitz flip Karl.
How much would that seat go for behind the
mirrors? Come January and February I believe
will be the endgame.
Pressure has to be applied to Congress to do
their Constitutional obligation to investigate
High Crimes and Misdemeanors of the V.P
and President if there are any. Hold their
feet to the fire. Once Fitz weaves the web of
conspiracy this will become a big issue.
We may not have the time to wait till 06
elections. The Bushfamily would want to
sweep Cheney out first and then install a V.P
to do their bidding and then ease the Chimp
out prior to impeachment from a new Congress
in 06.

emptywheel — Frank’s probably right on the Rovian motivation.

Rove gave a speech where he said there was no liberal media or bias, that the press was motivated by profits as are any other corporations.

Parse that one…he means the press can be bought.

:D emptywheel, if I’m wrong it won’t be the first time, but lemme see if I’ve got this straight… you’re saying that Novak’s interview with Phelps and Royce had no relation whatsoever to reality? i.e. that the conspiracy by Novak and Rove (to make the problem go away by claiming it was just so much gossip) was so brazen that the “no partisan gunslinger” person never even existed at all?

Hmm… Since that suggests that Rove was the pusher, who do you have as candidates for SAO #2, the confirmer from the original article? Or are you suggesting that Novak was also lying when the “oh you heard that too” conversation with Rove became public?

All those choices seem awfully damn brazen to me, but who knows with these guys…

And for the record, what marysz and Frank Probst said. I think Novak’s disclosure is Rove’s “aspens turn together” letter to Bubble Boy… I must be a bad person — the very thought of all that squirming is making me smile.

Prof -

Huge Red Herring. They KNEW Saddam was bluffing (he had no choice if he was to stay in power). They deliberately stirred up the disinfo pot.

—

ac — you’re right. The Froomkin saga is a cautioinary tale for everyone else in the media who might be tempted to grow a set as the WH looks weak.

Rayne – If that is what they are trying to do then they are grasping at straws. The theory assumes that Fitz only knows what we know, which is definitely the wrong assumption to make. In the MSM and blog worlds, the spin all takes place in a vacuum, in Fitz’ world that is not true. I think you are very correct in stating that their spin if anything helps Fitz. We imbue meaning or import to a lot of things, such as Luskin/Vvak or Novak’s “non-partisan gunslinger.” But not everything has meaning, and I think the way to bet is that most everything that gets leaked to the MSM is meaningless in terms of Fitz’ investigation. I am not criticizing the blogs for parsing through the “facts” that are leaked out b/c it is done intelligently and critically, but it is still done in a vacuum that Fitz, fortunately, does not operate in (or at least he operates in much less of a vacuum). Shorter me: It is very difficult to kick sand in a prosecutors eyes.

Frank, emptywheel — sounds right to me, Novak would never do anything to sever himself from his meal ticket.

Have I lost my mind, where did Woodward say that his and Novak’s source might be the same? Was that allusion on the Larry King interview?

punaise — that Iraq ballot story is one to watch carefully.

I just found a Media Research Center blog site attempting to discredit NYT on this story. (MRC is a Repug operation, progenitor of CNSNews and subsequent TalonNews of Gannon fame.)

If they’re putting this much effort into the story, there’s something going on.

Bush Says Iraq War Was Justified Even Though Intelligence Wrong

Dec. 14 (Bloomberg) — President George W. Bush accepted responsibility for taking the U.S. to war in Iraq based on faulty intelligence while saying the invasion still was justified by the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and international terrorism.

“It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong,” Bush said today in the final speech in a series intended to outline his Iraq strategy. “Given Saddam’s history and the lessons of September the 11th, my decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the right decision.”

Marysz — you’ve just described how I feel every single day. lol But occasionally, I get really lucky and she actually takes a nap. Then I can kick back with a cuppa tea and…well, I blog, but then, I’m obsessed. ;-)

Raw Story says Fitz is in the buiding.
O Boy.

“I’m running up and down our stairs trying to get my toddler down for her nap . . .”

If your experience as a parent was anything like mine Redd, your toddler will continue to be wide-awake–but you’ll be so exhausted by the experience of trying to put her to sleep that you’ll be the one napping.

It wouldn’t surprise me if most of the MSM already know who the source is. If they do, they are not going to go near this story for fear of being Froomkined.

I’m pretty sure. It’s getting hard to keep track of all the narative threads.

jane hamsher | Homepage | 12.14.05 – 10:15 am | #

That’s what “they’re” hoping for, that both Fitz and the American public are sucked into this snowstorming vortex of mis-leads, don’t you think?

Like Vandehei and “Douchebag” Novak — can’t they keep their mouths shut? or is that the point, snow everybody under with a constant barrage of miscues to obstruct the investigation?

Seems like this play worked on the indictment against Rove so far; these guys overuse anything that works to the point where it becomes grossly obvious. Like last year’s chronic terra’ alerts to manipulate Bush’s approval rating, misused to the point where we won’t listen to them any more. Bush is now doing mea culpa after mea culpa, will fake them until his rating improves. Journos will continue to throw decoys out over the field until we catch on to them.

Keep spinning, Bushistas, right into the ground. We must be hitting a nerve if they’re willing to pants themselves.

Frank, interesting idea there. Remember that Rove issued his “liberals wanted to send the terrorists to therapy” right before the Cooper source stuff came out. I thought then it was a ploy to get conservatives to rush to his defense right before he got in trouble. It’d fit into your theory.

Isn’t it ironic that the perps involved can’t throw Bush to the wolves, thus screwing any pardon?

If not for his pardon power, I think Bush would have been thrown under the bus by now.

“This is Rove fishing for a public defense from Bush.”

It could also be Rove threatening Bush.

Colleen — there was a report from David Schuster this morning on MSNBC that Fitz and the G/J had not bee sighted there. But that was earlier — no report as yet that I have seen. But then again, I’m running up and down our stairs trying to get my toddler down for her nap, so I could have missed something. Will post if I find an update — have been trying to find one from either CNN or MSNBC with a reporter at the federal courthouse.

radish

I really think you’re wrong. Sorry, but according to Waas, Fitzgerald has evidence that Rove called Novak right before Novak published that article. He believes it is evidence that Rove and Novak developed stories together. Which makes sense, given that when that Novak article appeared, the WH line and the Novak line changed dramatically, and (wonders!) their story all of a sudden coincided exactly. I strongly suspect that it was this evidence, presented after Novak testified the first time, that convinced Novak to flip.

So you not only have to assume that statement is disinformation, but that it was designed by Rove to do something–either make you, radish, believe this was someone who it wasn’t. Or, as I’ve argued repeatedly, to set up later claims that the source was someone who is going to end up testifying.

That article was disinformation designed to set up a larger story involving at the least Rove and Novak, not disinformation on Novak’s part to separate himself from Rove.

Baghdad – The interior ministry on Wednesday denied reports that a tanker truck filled with thousands of blank ballots had been confiscated in a town near the Iranian border.

How do you get paper ballots into a tanker truck without bending, folding or otherwise mutilating them?

I can’t shake the feeling that the source is
drum roll………… wait for it…………

bubble boy himself.

Oh, come on. Novak’s latest speech stinks of Rove to me. I think Rove is nervous, and he’s prodding Bush (via Novak) into saying something like, “I don’t know who the leaker was.” Or “Karl Rove has my complete support.” Bush knows damn well that Rove leaked this. This is Rove fishing for a public defense from Bush. He has to tie himself to Bush in order to save himself. Because he knows that if he doesn’t, his career–and possibly his freedom–is about to end.

Doesn’t someone in DC keep an eye on the GJ building. Why don’t we know if Fitz is physically there or not?
Or did I miss something?

Damn. I’m getting cranky!

marysz–I posted an alternative explanation earlier, but your’s fits the facts at least as well and makes much more sense with respect to the timing.

One question I have is that Novak’s latest plunge into the News cycle is so destructive to Bush regardless of who it comes from.

Is this a move from the “big tent” Republicans to get Bush to resign before the midterms? This way they can put McCain or someone else in long before 08???

Marysz, Viget
” “Wasn’t Walton the judge who issued the gag order on Sibel Edmonds? So how does his statement compute?”

I don’t know if Walton ever officially issued a gag order in the Sibel Edmonds case, he simply closed the court proceedings to the public and the media. Several gag orders had already been issued by the Justice Dept.

I am not defending Walton, but I think technically he may be correct.

emptywheel, just because the “no partisan gunslinger” comment was disinfo doesn’t make it useless. When Novak did that interview Rove had not yet been confirmed as SAO #2, but was an obvious candidate.

So while that may have been intended to muddy the water, I think SAO #1 (whom I call the pusher) is very likely to fit that description. i.e. Novak didn’t yet think that he had to lie outright — at that time and with that comment he was simply trying to conflate SAOs #1 and #2 in order to distract people from Rove.

The only way I can interpret this is that Novak’s sticking a shiv in Bush to save himself. But if he’s already cut a deal with Fitzgerald, he shouldn’t need to save himself again — unless he’s been caught in a big-ass lie.

Meanwhile, speaking of Republican PlameGate perps looking to backstab Bush in order to save their own skins:

Could we perhaps add Karl Rove to that list?

Hmmm…..

Amsterdam — I have MSNBC on as I’m trying to get my toddler down for a nap. If I hear an update from David Shuster — who reported earlier that there was no sign of Fitz — I’ll post something here.

Whatever happened to Elliott Abrams? In a fall 2003 press conference, Scotty made an explicit point of denying the involvement of Libby, Rove, and Abrams. He was at least 66.6% full of shit. Why not 100%?

Rawstory has changed the heading to “Leak prosecutor currently in court”.

I hope they are right.

I go with the opinion that Rove was using Novak to signal to the White House that if Rove goes down, he’s taking Bush with him. It looks like the administration is easing Rove out and easing Karen Hughes back in. The betrayer Rove becomes the betrayed. Who’s going to pay?

Wilson46201-Don’t you think it would be political suicide for the GOP controlled congress to not begin impeachment procedings if Bush turns out to be the leaker with the 2006 elections looming? Don’t get me wrong, I would LOVE it if they stand pat, but I mean COME ON………………!!!!!!!!!!!!

Republican Congressman Says Totalitarian Regime a Danger
Bob Barr says military dictatorship close

By Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
Tue, 2005-12-13

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/5573

Former Republican Congressman and CIA official Bob Barr says that there is a danger recent developments describe a trend of America slipping into a totalitarian society and that the Bush administration are doing everything in their power to see that this happens.

During a radio interview with host Alex Jones, Barr outlined where the country is heading.

“Basically, as long as you smile when you demand to see somebody’s ID at gunpoint sitting on a bus I guess it’s OK for the government, that’s sort of the way they operate. It can be a totalitarian type regime.”

“I think it’s a real danger where we have the military becoming involved in all sorts of domestic matters and we have the government being able to seize very private personal records on people without any suspicion that they’ve done anything wrong. This is a dramatic turn of events that has accelerated greatly since 9/11.”

Barr made comments very similar to those of current Republican Congressman Ron Paul in stating that natural disasters could be used by the government as a pretext to abolish posse comitatus.

“If we have the military involved whenever there’s a windstorm, rain or tornado then what we are doing is that we are undermining the entire basis on what our constitutional representative democratic form of government was founded.”

Barr said that legislation like the Patriot Act and its imminent re-authorization and expansion were more of a threat to the American way of life than any terrorist attack.

“Even when the leaders in Washington say we’re not going to let the terrorists change our way of life, they are implementing policies that do precisely that.”

Barr elaborated that the manipulation of fear was a key cornerstone in the government’s coup de ‘tat on constitutional liberties.

“They’re using people’s fear of another terrorist attack to move forward with various government programs that the government has wanted to gather and put in place for many many years. They’re using the fear which is now driving public policy in this country which is very unfortunate and very un-American. Our leaders are shamelessly playing on that fear to implement and grab power.”

Speaking on the topic of the second amendment, Barr said that his position as a board member on the NRA enabled him to judge the difference between how the Clinton and Bush administration’s approached the issue. Barr echoed the sentiments of many other prominent conservatives in expressing his frustration about how the Bush administration was even more anti-second amendment than the Clinton office.

“It’s my impression, to be honest with you, and this is confirmed by a lot of folks who are involved very heavily in regulatory matters involving firearms, that it is more difficult dealing with this administration than it was dealing with the prior administration.”

Barr is currently working with the ACLU and others in trying to prevent the sunset clauses of the Patriot Act from being renewed, which could happen as early as this week.

—

Weird. Suppose Novak’s telling the truth and also that his source really is the same as Woody’s…

I’ve been betting on Bush, Hadley and Rove as the candidates for Woody’s (original, casual) source. But Rove is definitely a partisan gunslinger, which (assuming Novak wasn’t deliberately trying to mislead us about the original Mr. X) kinda rules him out for Novakula’s original pusher (”they thought it was significant, they gave me the name…”). Plus Rove seems to have been Novak’s confirmation source — SAO #2 in the original July 11 article (”Two SAOs told me…” but really one of them told him and the other confirmed).

Bush seems like an excellent candidate for Woody’s source, but not so much for Novak’s pusher, because it’s hard to come up with a scenario where Novak and Bush are having an otherwise totally undocumented “long conversation” and hard to believe that Novak would then call Rove for confirmation. You wouldn’t expect dubya to lower himself to the level of leaking directly to a downstairs servant like Novak and any conversation with POTUS would be a big deal to Novak. Hadley? Maybe, I dunno. Armitage? I’m still with emptywheel that Armitage isn’t really in the running for either slot.

But if Libby really is the original source for both Woody and Novak, as seems to be implied here, then that doesn’t leave much doubt that Libby is “patient zero” as far as the leak leaving the white house… Doesn’t that mean Libby is deeply and seriously screwed? As in IIPA/Espionage Act screwed?

And, John Casper, if you’re right that this is York mistakenly revealing something without knowing its importance, where did York learn it? Directly from Novak? Would Novak really be so unbelievably stupid as to just gossip about this kind of stuff? Does he think that further indictments against Libby aren’t possible?

What a nest of vipers…

the GOP-controlled Congress doesn’t have to do a damn thing except comfort the comfortable and afflict the afflicted !

I’d like to see Buffy kick Rove’s ass.

Correction. One conversation with Libby was before Judy, one was the same day as Judy.

It sounds likely from Novak’s churlish comment that Bush is indeed the leaker. This might also explain why there hasn’t been an indictment for disclosing Plame’s vocation as a sitting president in not indictable. My question is this: If and when it comes out that Bush is the leaker, will the GOP controlled congress be forced to begin impeachment procedings? I mean they’d HAVE TO, wouldn’t they?

Re: Novak’s comment that his source “was not a partisan gunslinger.” Um. Please go back and read that article. Every other piece of “information” in that article has been shown to be disinformation. Why do people trust the gunslinger comment when everything else Novak said in the same article was clearly designed to misdirect?

Re: Libby speaking to Woodward. Yes, Woodward admitted to speaking to Libby twice before he spoke to Judy. But he says he doesn’t rememebr saying anything about Plame. I think York is just grasping at straws. It is true that the prior Libby conversation opens up a teeny chance Woodward mentioned Plame to Libby before Libby spoke to Russert. But it doesn’t change the fact that he lied about his conversation with Russert, which is what he was charged with.

Re; Novak. Note that Novak didn’t specify whether he meant his unnamed source or his known source, Rove. In either case, I think it unlikely that Rove would say Bush HAD to know if Armitage were leaking this. But likely that he would assume Bush HAD to know if Dick, Hadley, or Rove were leaking it.

If RS was right about Fitz going to the GJ today, wouldn’t we have heard about it in the MSM? Don’t they have at least one reporter on Fitz-watch?

Oh, guys, I was just saying I heard it,

I didn’t actually BELIEVE it!!

I know better than that.

Bob Novak is sure one slippery, sneaky guy, isn’t he? I can’t wait to see how Scottie handles that one. Oh, yeah, we haven’t heard that recently…
“I’m not going to comment on an ongoing investigation, blablabla.” And Bush responding? I’m not holding my breath. I think the Wallace interview was his quota of responsiveness for this year and next.

Along with everything else, Bush now has Katrina survivors about to get kicked out in the street and buying ads to ask him questions since the GoodJobGuys at FEMA aren’t paying any attention. So that little situation which was such a gift (he got to do that TaDaa press conference with all the lights, ‘member) is now going to bit him in the ass yet again. {yipee}

Look for the war of words with Syria to ignite very soon.

Look over there, not here.

-GSD

It appears that a lot of rabbits are being set
loose to attempt to confuse and distract the
public and to smoke the Bush out from his
hole. Surely if Fitz does not already know
what Bob Novak is saying, then I am sure he’s
going to have him deposed ASAP. How could
Bush come forward and publicly announce
who the leaker is—would make him be an
accomplice in a cover-up and conspirator in
chief—-which might all be true. Timing.
How come this comes out now by B.Novak.

Is this an attempt to throw Fitz’s timing off course in this investigation—-to forestall the
indictments of Rove and others.? To force
Fritz to show his cards on the conspiracy
prior to his team having a “slam dunk” case?
Jake’s advice on the rabbits is to sit still,
watch them and when hungry go after the fattest one.

Byron York: Rove’s supporters believe it would be a weak case, a good deal weaker than the perjury and obstruction case Fitzgerald has made against Libby….

Q. Weaker case or not, wouldn’t the fact that the GJ had cause to indict two WHIGers for bad acts mean that Fitzgerald could now ask them to tack on additional indictments for conspiring to do all that same stuff? Or would it depend on what the indictment against Rove is for?

Q2. Does it hit the fan if Fitzgerald starts adding “conspiracy to do X” to every indictment for X, or has Jack McCoy exaggerating all these years?

Karen – Chimpy is more Fonzi-esque in his inability to admit wrong doing since Chimpy is such a fucking cool dude, ya know.

Thanks Polly — I’ve been trying to find that article. Appreciate it — I swear, you are such a wealth of links. :)

Zennurse–There’s an old Saturday Night Live sketch where Chevy Chase attempts to say he was wrong. “I was wr…..mmm…I was…..uhm…wr, wr, wr…..wrong.”

Bush only mouths the stuff that’s written down for him. Did he say it like Chevy Chase?

They are trying to make Bush sound like a com…compaaaaa….compaaaassss… um, compassionate conservative.

On the Libby/Woodward conversations, I also am reading that to be Libby’s conversations with Woodward after Woodward’s source had told him in mid June. Woodward talked with Libby about his upcoming interview with Cheney on June 23, 2003

I also testified that I had a conversation with a third person on June 23, 2003. The person was I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, and we talked on the phone.
WaPo 11/16/05

If Woodward admits speaking to WH staffers Libby and Card, but still refuses to identify his source, doesn’t that suggest that his source is someone higher up the WH food chain?

That ought to exclude Rove, since he is also staffer, like Libby and Card. Which points to Bush or Cheney.

brain blob – it is devoutly to be hoped, but a cursory survey of human history indicates that God does not love us anywhere *near* that much.

Does it bother anyone else that the only source for Novak’s “ask Bush” remarks seems to the the News-Observer? A provocative story like this should by now be appearing elsewhere too. Mysterious if you ask me. After all the speech must have been heard by other reporters, or other attendees who can talk to reporters.

“Wasn’t Walton the judge who issued the gag order on Sibel Edmonds? So how does his statement compute?”

Good question . . . maybe one of our legal experts has the answer . . .

Jane — I thought so as well, but I’m still waiting to hear from Byron if he meant to imply that Libby was “THE” source or just someone with whom Libby/Woodward spoke. Haven’t heard back as yet.

Bush accepted responsibility? which means what? No pudding for supper?

In Bushworld, there are no consequences to “accepting responsibility.” It’s a sleazy-easy term.

“I accept responsibility and I resign” is a real acceptance. This is effing nothing.

Baghdad – The interior ministry on Wednesday denied reports that a tanker truck filled with thousands of blank ballots had been confiscated in a town near the Iranian border.

United States authorities said they could not confirm the report and an Iraq official suggested it was disinformation.

A security official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorised to speak to the media, had said a truck entered Iraq from Iran and was seized on Tuesday in the border town of Badra, about 150km southeast of Baghdad.

Later, however, the interior ministry issued a denial of the report.

SIGH, too bad the guy wasn’t AUTHORIZED to speak to the media…..FOR THE REST OF THE STORY:
http://www.news24.com/News24/W…..01,00.html

marysz–

Wasn’t Walton the judge who issued the gag order on Sibel Edmonds? So how does his statement compute?

Woodward acknowledged in his statement in the WaPo that he spoke with Libby (one of three he talked to — the other were his source & Andy Card), he just said that he didn’t remember discussing Plame with Scooter.

I’m pretty sure. It’s getting hard to keep track of all the narative threads.

If I (W) know Woody’s sources, then it’s gottaB Turd Blossom.

But why would Turd allow Woody to testify to Fitz, but not reveal that to the public?

“I give credit to Libby AND his attorneys for keeping a low profile and keeping their mouths shut.”

It doesn’t hurt that the judge, Reggie Walton, read them the riot act: ‘Word to the Wise’

“Walton warned lawyers for both sides not to leak information to the news media that might affect the trial.

“A word to the wise: I have a strong proclivity for cases to be decided on the basis of evidence presented in the courtroom,” the judge said. “I have never issued a gag order in my 22 years on the bench.”

brain blob -

A-Men, bro’ !

—

What Novakula loves much more than having a secret is TELLING a secret, and he’s had this one for going on YEARS. Aw, frick it, he finally said to himself, I’m gonna let them know — but not quite — that our President was the gossipy leaker.

Remember? Novak said the leaker was “not a partisan gunslinger.” The only person those words could ever apply to in this admnistration is the Preznit on his best of good days and only when it serves Rove’s pupose. The leaker is W.

Can I get an “Amen!”?

Now, Sarah Michelle Geller. You are just trying to guarantee that Rove experiences maximum frustration as he reads this blog (which I suspect strongly that he does).

To read that you are the stuff that’s written about Karly-girl in this blog and have to look at Sarah Michelle at the same time must just about suck him dry, so to speak.

I wonder if they have Internet in the slam, Karl, because, you know, I think Patrick’s going to make sure you do time. And, by the way, I think you have to pay a price to get to watch Buffy in prison.

Reddhedd,

Thanks. Normally I wouldn’t have even wondered, but the chimperor and his gang have been laying the groundwork for this news cycle for weeks. Would be pretty amazing if it was hijacked by something else.

Is the raw story about the GJ meeting today BS?

E&P catching on to the “bug Bush not me” story, so there’s some momentum perhaps, although the “Bush accepts responsibility for bad intel” spin will likely lead the news cycle. But Big Dick wouldn’t ever think of accepting any responsibility, with Lynne out lecturing school kids about war.

Hiaasan’s got a fun editorial on Vice:
“Getting a war lecture from Dick Cheney is like getting dating advice from Michael Jackson.” http://www.tbnweekly.com/conte…..vpt-03.txt

Look, I’m sure Scotty Ribbentrop will clear up this little. . . Ah, Mephostophilis!

I just heard Bush say he was wrong.
That he’s responsible for the faulty intel…

zennurse

***

zennurse -

It’s the Mother of All Red Herrings, now abetted by a transparently phony tangential “mea culpa.”

Bush/Cheney KNEW Saddam was bluffing. Had to have. That’s why [1] they could not permit the inspections to finish, and [2] they were comfortable going in “light and mobile.” They were confident of their “cakewalk with no mass WMD casualities, followed by a Chalabist miracle free-market paradise, cost-free rebirth.

http://www.harpers.org/BaghdadYearZero.html

—

“Is York saying that Libby was Woodward’s source? How does he know this — since he’s not including that information in his tidy little snow-job piece for wingnuttia? Well, I have no idea, but I do have an e-mail out to Byron and will let you know if and when he responds.”

IMO this is another example of FDL scooping the world. After Woodward told Fitz who is source was, he refused to reveal this name to anyone including his own paper, the WaPo. ReddHedd nailed Bryon York. York does not appear to realize he knows something no one else in the public record knows, Woodward’s source. ReddHedd scooped the world. My hope is that the MSM pick up her story and give her credit for it. She printed it first.

If memory serves me correctly, Downey told the WaPo reporters he would print Woodward’s source if they found it independently, because Woodward would not tell them and Downey was not going to make Woodward tell them. It seems to me that Jim VandeHei and Dan Froomkin can all ask Bob, calmly, and quietly, “Is Brian York correct, was Libby your source?”

Presumably, prior to York, Fitz, the SGJ and maybe the new GJ, the only people who knew Woodward’s souce were Woodward, his source and then later, Downie.

Sons — I think political considerations wouldn’t weigh into Fitz’s decision to meet with the G/J if he has something solid to bring to them. I think he’ll meet with them at a point that he has information they need to hear — no more, no less. Honestly, it’s always possible that he was planning on meeting with them and got an offer of cooperation or something else that stalled things — or that new evidence turned up that they needed to vet further — or…well, you get the picture. There are so many evidentiary and legal issues that come into play in this, that I think trying to read political tea leaves, too, is just adding on another layer that likely doesn’t exist. But that’s just my perspective — it’s not like I ever had the Vice President of the United States in my crosshairs in any of my cases, so there may be added considerations for Fitz.

Besides, the G/J doesn’t always meet first thing in the morning — especially if a juror has a scheduling conflict. I’ve always found that patience is the best asset you can have in dealing with a case — and that also goes for watching one. Just my two cents, but I’m trying to be as zen as I can while awaiting a lovely set of handcuffs in Rover’s stocking. ;-)

If Novak helps bring Chimpy down, for whatever reason, who are we to complain.

Also, the idea that any of Rover’s supporters actually might know or even have an idea what Fitz’ case against Rover might entail in terms of charges or even the strength of the evidence is ludicrous, ridiculous, inane – yeah, just plain stupid.

To go with a theme from a prior thread, Fitz is immune to this sort of spin (and I would add I believe most prosecutors are). So maybe their spin is proof of their lack of intelligence and knowledge. That being said, I still don’t understand who it is really aimed at. When Rover is indicted, that is the story, in and of itself.

I give credit to Libby AND his attorneys for keeping a low profile and keeping their mouths shut.

Reddhedd,

Have a question for you.

As a former prosecutor, do you think is it possible that Fitzgerald is being sensitive about tomorrow’s iraq election and decided not to meet with the GJ today? By all accounts they are not meeting despite what we have been reading over the last day or so.

‘Don’t bug me. Don’t bug Bob Woodward. Bug the president as to whether he should reveal who the source is.’ “

I don’t know about his being indicted, but it does seem likely he was the leaker-in-Chief. Who better to reveal who “the source” was than the source?

What siun said. I thought that it was at least commonly accepted that Bob Novak had cooperated with the investigation from the beginning, hence the long silences and increasingly bizarre behavior.

If Novak is “sure” that the preznit knows about this, then wouldn’t this have come up in conversation between him and Fitz?

Hoo boy.

BTW, if Fitz indicts Rove on perjury or obstruction only, I’m gonna be very disappointed. We still have an outed CIA agent.

djangone — well, with Novakula, that is ALWAYS an option. LOL

Has anyone seen published reports where Woodward said his source was probably the same as Novak’s?

As to York: I think it’s a little dig at the Fitz investigation: two years investigating Libby and they missed that Libby spoke with WOODWARD before Miller.?

Third option: Novak is *lyyyyiiiinngg.*

Byron York carries some pretense of being fact-based– don’t let him get away with pretending that the Woodward disclosure does a damn thing to the Libby indictment. No one who actually read the indictment would think that.

George Inness: Didn’t Jon Stewart ask Woodward and Bernstein that same thing this summer– “Why doesn’t Bush just turn around and say, ‘Seriously, Karl, be a man, what the fuck?’”

Prediction of the Year:

Bush will be indicted and eventually named as the leaker-in-Chief.

One way or the other, I firmly believe Dubya will NOT make it through his second term.

Novak has one thing right. Why doesn’t the President step up and say who the source was? It sure would make a whole lot of things clear.

Of course he would never do this, but how fun would it be to see Fitzgerald question the bejeezus out of the nasty, prevaricating delinquent, W.? Bush has successfully managed to steer this whole inquiry away from himself and the press subsequently runs in circles wondering who said what to whom. I say, “Fitz, put that nasty little bugger under oath and save us all a lot of time in endless speculation”.

I just heard Bush say he was wrong.
That he’s responsible for the faulty intel.
On npr
maybe it’s a flashback.
This is scary.

strange statement from york. stood out like a sore thumb, i was just on my way here to link. my reaction when i read it buried in the rove piece was ’spin’. what would be the point of woodward big reveal on the heels of libby already being indicted? libby’s calling up fitz? maybe since libs neck is already on the line he’s supposed to take the fall for someone up the food chain? i still think bush is woodwards source

Yummie.

Take these scum DOWN!

—

What’s the chance that Novak cooperated from the very beginning – and has told Fitz that W knows, etc. This would point to Fitz having the complete picture and simply pacing his indictments and activities to most effectively play out the case.

Fitz forever!

Wowie zowie! There’s nothing like watching rats jump from a sinking ship.