
Reader Looseheadprop had some very astute observations about the legal wrangling and back and forth between Team Libby and Team Fitz. In case folks missed it yesterday, I wanted to highlight a big portion of the comment for everyone to read. I think it is spot on in terms of tactics as well as being a hopeful little statement on the potential for more to come down the road. Here's the comment:
PJF did say he would be getting them their Jenks Act and Giglio in a matter of weeks not months (even though it is not actually due until AFTER the witness testifies and if you change your mind and don’t call the witness it is never due–unless the witness shows up on the defense’s witness list and, oh, they haven’t given ANY discovery yet so no witness list).He did seem to indicate that he would try to give Wells some of it even sooner as a courtesy. He’s killin’ em with kindness.
They are being cut off from one appealable issue after another. I just love this.
He’s got em. I can feel it. I can hear it in the tone of his written and spoken remarks. He’s just doin’ Kabuki with them and letting them run out the defense fund.
EVERY FREAKIN TIME, Team Irving pitches a fit about ANYTHING Team Fitz is doing, their position (at least in public) deteriorates a little (or alot) more.
From several comments Wells has made about having a tough row to hoe and about how if the court doesn’t let him expand the scope of the case he has no case, suggest to me that privately they have known all along that they are screwed.
There was a period shortly before the first GJ expired when Fitz was walking a guantlet every couple days on CNN as he went into the courthouse. He started looking really peaked, pasty faced, bloated, vaguely ill.
Then one day maybe a week 10 days out, he shows up and he looked like the sun breaking out from behind the clouds.
One of the goddeses even made a reference at about that time about integrity being good for the complextion.
I think that is the moment (if 3-4 days constitutes a moment) when he figured out what he was going to do and how he was going to do it.
And ever since he has known he has Irving by the short hairs and it’s all about giving him and everybody else enough rope to hang themselves.
No matter what, absent some huge mistake, Scoots is toast. Right now it’s all about having the rest of them self select whether they are going to be witnesses or defendants.
On the last thread,I told the story of Martha Stewart and how the FBI agents working the case expected her to come in tell what she knew appoligize for having inadvertantly crossed over a line and go on her merry way.
It’s kinda the same thing here, I think. basically decent people who did not intend evil will come in (it is obvious some already have and I am SURE there are cooperation agreements in place, probably very generous ones at that)told what they knew and expressed regret that things got out of hand.
People with evil in their hearts, will lie, fight, obstruct and reveal themselves to be worthy of criminal prosecution.
Poppy Bush accused Larry Walsh of trying to “criminalize policy disputes” and said that policy disputes should be resolved in the election booth not the courtroom.
in several places in the transcript and in the Indictment Press Conference, Fitz said that a court room is not the right place to try the issue of whether we were correct to go to war.
I think maybe our boy Fitz studied Iran Contra very carefully. Many of the same players are involved and he had a free window into their personalities and preferences. I think maybe he learned a lot from what happened to Larry Walsh.
Not only that, he may well disagree that the criminalization of policy disputes is a slippery slope that the nation cannot afford to go down. And he would have a point IMHO.
So what’s he to do? Answer, let the bad guys step up to the plate themselves and let them essentially choose themselves for prosecution, by their own actions.
This is why I think he has set up the finest piece of lawyering I will ever see in my life. It is about justice, it is about truth, and he does not set himself to judge what is what. The entire method starts from a postion of basic humilty. Although he was given broad discretion and has enormous power, he is exercising unheard of dicipline and humilty in its use.
I don't normally reproduce a quote this long, and I hope looseheadprop doesn't mind my doing so -- but the whole of this comment was so spot on that cutting it too much would have detracted from the whole.
So much of legal trial practice is tactics and maneuvering -- and that is especially true for criminal practice, because you have pressure being applied in the form of a threat of loss of liberty and imprisonment with criminal charges and investigations hanging over someone's head. It has to be tempered with justice and care on the part of the prosecutor, but at the same time those charges have to be tested by defense counsel to ensure that the system is operating fairly and not charging people inappropriately or without cause.
It's a tough balance. But the differences between the way the Starr investigation operated and Pat Fitzgerald's team are just striking, aren't they?
I do feel like things are coming to a head, somehow. And not just because the Cheney note revelations hit the front pages, but with all of the information that has trickled out bit by bit in all the legal filings and the fact that Gold Bars Luskin and Ted Wells and company have clammed up to all but the Hair Boy set. You guys can feel it, too, can't you? Don't have a clue as to when we'll get any final answers -- investigations take a long time to firm up and Fitzgerald and his team are absolutely right to take the time they need to be certain any charges filed are appropriate and deserved.
Here's hoping that the entire cabal of smarm merchants gets exactly what they deserve and nothing less.
(graphic by Dark Black)
Login Here
Spotlight



Support this site!
Keep
up with news
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search


RSS/XML Feed
I got a Fitz!
We need a new line,though.Feingold!Colbert!Murtha!
This has been the most straight-laced prosecution I can recall. The ju-jitsu aspect of letting Luskin, Libby, and Rove dig their own graves (deeper, deeper!) is sublime.
EPU’d on Fitzmas day announcing it–Aargh!
From last thread:
HUGE
Ian Masters interviewing Jason Leopold now:
http://www.kpfk.org/
WHOOOOOOOOO-AAAAAAAHHH!!!
FITZ EM FOR THE HELL OF IT!
Having grown up on Watergate, I must admit, this just feels like it. New revelations every day, folks jumping ship, and what used to be the whiff of scandal now smelling like the low-down funk of fish rotting from the head down.
It is unbelievable that we have sunk this far into the abyss, but folks like Fitzgerald, Colbert, Gore, and Dean give me hope that we can, yet again, climb back into the sunshine.
As you note,Christy,the differance in Fitz’s style and Starr’s(we’ll get Clinton by fair or foul)leak fest is remarkable.Anytime I hear that a person participated in the Starr debacle my red flags go up high.
Okay I just listened to the Jason Leopold interview. Missed the beginning. Here are my chronological notes:
leopold got serious level of level of detail.
fitz arrived at paton boggs (luskin’s law firm) at 11:30 on friday, spent many hours there
rove was at the law firm also, with secret security
spent many hours on a plea agreement that ultimately was rejected [leopold doesn’t say who rejected]
at the end of the negotiations, fitz handed indictment papers to luskin
fitz said at that time that rove had 24 business hours to get his affairs in order
leopold states that he feels very confident about this information. he states that a source that burns him will no longer be anonymous.
asked about mainstream media, leopold says he isn’t sure why they aren’t reporting this, offers a few thoughts on this. also points out how ny times has failed, sat on the nsa story, etc.
more notes to follow momentarily…
Just read the Jason Leopold story (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051306W.shtml) on Karl’s indictment, and I believ it’s true. The sentence that convinced me was:
“Robert Luskin, Rove’s attorney, did not return a call for comment.”
Gold Bar Bob not commenting? It’s gotta be a done deal. I wonder if it’ll be announced Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday? I can’t imagine it would be any later than that — unless Fitz informed Luskin that he would be *seeking* indictments from the Grand Jury.
If that’s the case, that we’re still waiting on the Grand Jury to vote on the indictments, I suppose we won’t hear till Thursday or Friday.
Now that I think about it, that’s probably more consistent with Leopold’s story than an indictment early in the week. The report that Fitz said he’d give Karl 24 hours to get his things in order doesn’t make much sense if indictments were already voted on the Wed. just past.
Leopold said he would out his sources if the story turned out not to be true? That’s FANTASTIC. That really turns this whole thing into a win-win. If Rove has already been indicted, we all celebrate. If not, we get to show that the blogosphere has higher standards than the MSM when Leopold outs his sources.
I for one am applauding
As ever, your site has great posts and many of the comments do the posts true justice. Keep up the wonderful work and tone of the posts.
Pat Fitzgerald: The Anti-Starr.
more notes on leopold interview:
leopold’s confidence in this story is based on the level of detail that he has received about the paton boggs meeting, which he describes as “just too real”
leopold notes that rove’s speech is off the aei website, but leopold has not confirmed anything with the aei.
leopold states that he is an agressive reporter, but he would never get in front of a story this big without thinking and fact checking.
leopold notes that his sources are aware that he would no longer be obligated to keep their identity secret if they led him astray.
when leopold speaks with people at the white house, the tone is that they are loyal to rove, but ready to get rid of the cloud that he has brought over the administration.
more to follow momentarily…
looseheadprop is a gem, love reading his stuff.
Thanks for highliting it Christy.
Didn’t DICK go on MTP with Tim and deny knowing anything about Wilson and wife?
Just to paraphrase the EPUed posts by from a lurker, JWR and myself on the previous thread…
Jason Leopold defended his truthout.com story in a just-concluded interview by Ian Masters on KPFK. Bottom line: when Friday night negotiations broke down in the offices of Patton-Boggs, Fitz handed one of Rove’s lawyers a sealed indictment and said “…[Rove] has 24 business hors to get his affairs in order.”
Leopold says that “…an announcement could come anytime after Monday night.”
Leopold claims to have more than one source for this info and that these sources know that they’ll be outed if they’ve burned him.
IMO, Leopold came off as somewhat defensive and as a bit of a self-promoter, but that doesn’t necessarily make him wrong.
if fitz can continue to operate, believe you have hit this on the head. it is starting to resemble the watergate players a little now, people on record to someone of doing a crime. some are singing, some are finding out their little “conversations” are now conspiratorial to one degree or another. and when 28 or more players are all having to talk, the differences will allow for a wide variety of testimony to sift through. fitz is probably gathering false statement charges on people he believed a couple years ago. he may have a lot more iceberg yet to melt. it becomes clear why he takes so long between appearances, his staff has so much testimony that it must go through it for the small clues. I would guess a few of these tiny little bits have brought very large issues to the front no one would have dreamed of. the power boys and girls wouldn’t have thought that they would ever be subject to law, another corresponding analogy of nixon’s hatchets. they got sloppy. this time, sloppy was combined with a vast level of extortion upon government workers to follow dictates from the king, rather than those of the law. those on the receiving end of the extortion have begun to tell the story.
let’s extrapolate a little further. cheney is in charge, he was planning on seizing iraqi and iranian oil field since the ford admin, right? he has his friends all with him. maybe this is just a random chance and maybe it isn’t, but now you have to wonder if this one great coincidence is that, or just a piece in the chain;
cheney was working on taking over the oilfields, did he know that Ms. Plame was part of the CIA’s team working on that? was he going to rid himself of her so that he could duplicate the BS the admin was using on iraq? make it so that no good intelligence could come out iran so their version would be taken as fact? they did it once and got caught. twice?
I still wonder about Bob Novak. Is he cooperating with Fitzgerald, or will he be prosecuted later? Is he being used by the prosecution as leaverage? Can some of you legal eagles enlighten us on this?
Looseheadprop: “There was a period shortly before the first GJ expired when Fitz was walking a guantlet every couple days on CNN as he went into the courthouse. He started looking really peaked, pasty faced, bloated, vaguely ill.”
You know, I think insult could have been saved here by merely describing Fitz’s appearance as “looking like someone who spent his time shuttling back and forth, between Chicago and D.C., in late October.”
Just sayin’.
“hors” = “hours”
This is the Rove story, not the Foggo story; please forgive me if they all run together. :-)
Mad props to losseheadprop, mad props ! it is comments like that, coupled with Christy & Jane’s work tha allows someone like me to not only follow, but appreciate all the maneuvers and machinations of the case
more leopold interview notes
leopold stated that the announcement that bolton would be shaking up the wh staff came after he had been informed by rove that he was meeting with the gj for a fifth time.
leopold doesn’t seem to understand the meaning of a sealed indictment, as he states that he believes that the indictment that fitz gave to luskin was “sealed” because it was not yet made public, at which point it would be unsealed. this is not my understanding of the definition of “sealed”, so leopold loses some credibility here although he acknowledges that he is not a lawyer and seems confused about this point.
leopold believes the indictment will be made public any time this week, after monday, which is the expiration of the 24 business hours. does believe that it will be this week and not later. [so announcement will be made any time from Tues through Fri - we will hear somethign this week]
leopold stated that luskin, not fitz, was the one who requested the fifth gj appearance. [i’m not sure that we knew this yet here at fdl - although not sure whether i trust leopold on the legal stuff very much]
leopold closed by stating that he and truthout fully understand the significance of this story. this is not a story that he and truthout would go with if they were “not confident that the details were bulletproof”
[he literally said “bulletproof”]
[look forward to hearing the thoughts of fdl on this. generally, he sounded confused on legal matters but decisive on the basic facts.]
xyz #14:
Sorry for my redundant post. Nice recap!
Standing ovation from me!
something is happening witrh the comments - most have disappeared! it’s FROGMARCH SEASON and the servers are getting weird…
JP,
“Didn’t DICK go on MTP with Tim and deny knowing anything about Wilson and wife?”
Not exactly. He gave one of his per usual, technically correct but deliberately misleading answers…
“VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I don’t know Joe Wilson. ….. One of the questions I asked at that particular time about this, I said, “What do we know about this?†They take the question. He came back within a day or two and said, “This is all we know. There’s a lot we don’t know,†end of statement. And Joe Wilson—I don’t know who sent Joe Wilson. He never submitted a report that I ever saw when he came back.”
http://www.buzzflash.com/analy.....heney.html
Which comments,*ilson?
Leopold sounded very credible to me. The fact that he will out liar sources is great. He obviously told the sources this would be the case.
Wild props to the Leopold interview note-takers! God, is FDL the go-to place or what? Hope the broadcast gets podified soon.
So we’ll see if Jason’s “bulletproof” info re Rove is more bulletproof than Rumsfeld’s “bulletproof” intelligence on Iraq-alQaeda links. I’m voting, or at least rooting, for Leopold.
the comments have returned… our hostess last night mentioned they are moving to different servers imminently and I might have been seeing an artifact of the move process.
As I said: it’s FROGMARCH SEASON and we need this place up and running real good… (really good!)
Jane,
Yes, Leopold stated repeatedly at different points in the interview that his sources are aware that he is not obligated to keep their identity secret if they “lead him astray”. He seemed to lean on this point heavily as a key reason why he was so confident in his article’s veracity.
one more point that i’m not sure showed up in my earlier notes:
Leopold indicated that he had more than two sources on this story.
Also a general note: Leopold seemed extremely confident in his sources, going so far as to conclude the interview by acknowledging the importance of the story and stating that he and his organization would not go forward unless they were confident that the details of their story were “bulletproof”
William Pitt at DU has also clarified the time period, saying, “…those 24 hours are ‘business hours,’ i.e. starting on Monday.”
Lhp great comment.
As for looking pasty-faced, we northern Scottish folk resemble that remark.
IANAL, but if there’s a sealed indictment of Rove, can Fitz “hand it to Luskin”? Isn’t it sealed by the Court, and doesn’t a judge have to unseal it?
And if it’s unsealed, doesn’t it have to be filed with the Court, and therefore be on the public servers?
It may be that I just misunderstand the whole process. But can someone who is a lawyer clear this up for me?
Paul Krugman vouches for Leopold’s journalistic integrity. As one of his posse, that’s says a lot to me.
fucking eh! Fitz is giving lawyering a good name…
he’s doing a heck of a job, eh? Junior?
al-Scooter
Leopolds’s got a hell of a scoop so you can’t really blame him for bragging a bit, but for me it has the stamp of truth because of the MO of everyone involved–Rove and Luskin spinning to the end, a 15 hr marathon of spin, no less–and Fitz going about things with his customary deliberateness and thoroughness, allowing them to hang themselves in the void.
Even if our FDL is on the blink,to see this particular frog marched to face the music,well I don’t even have words.WOOOOHOOOOO!might cover it.
Thanks to the commenter for the notes on the Leopold radio interview.
xyz, thank you for the recap. Answered some questions I had on the 24 hour timing.
I guess we’ll have to wait until Tuesday or Wednesday to find out how accurate Leopold’s story is.
Unfortunately, the lack of any other media outlet following up on the report is a little disconcerting. It reminds of that Richard Sale article last October that got everyone excited and then turned out to be flat wrong (which, to be fair, Sale did apologize for, if I recall correctly).
Re people who didn’t set out to be evil but got caught up in events–sometimes my attorney father would remark while leaving for work,
“Do justice, love mercy. Well, one out of two.”
He also said “Sometimes you have to rise above principle.” If you follow the rule book too exactly, you might miss an opportunity to do the right thing.
xyz and al-Scooter - Sounds about right to me. I recorded the interview and will review.
Wow, agree with all, fitzheadpr - er, looseheadprop’s been stellar this weekend. I caught the Martha Stewart stuff yesterday but missed the above, thanks for reposting it. This place has some amazingly edifying commenters (as opposed to mostly ranters/jokesters like me) in addition to the principals. Bravo and FITZ ON! KEEP THE FAITH, HE’S CLOSIN’ IN!
Looseheadprop’s identification of “basic humility” as the foundation of Patrick Fitzgerald’s approach, and the “discipline” that flows from such humility is very important, and I think very true.
Credentialed “professionals” in this country long ago were given a pass by our society on the need to show humility in the course of their careers simply because of their lauded credentials, as though those college degrees or powerful positions somehow made them more than human. And the Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rove Gang now in control of our government is about as far from humility as it is humanly possible to get.
Jeralyn of Talkleft.com just demonstrated some humility of her own, and I salute her for it. She “dared” to call one of those high and mighty fellow professionals at home on a Saturday night (9:45 p.m.) and was roundly chastised by him for doing so. She called Bob Luskin, Rove’s attorney, in an effort to confirm or debunk the rumors being published on the internet of Karl Rove’s sealed indictment. When she was imperiously rebuffed for calling, despite the importance of the story, she proceeded to blog about the call and Luskin’s response, in embarrassment (and humility) that it hadn’t occurred to her that in Denver, where she is, it was two hours earlier (7:45 p.m.) than it was in Washington, D.C. where Luskin is.
But I want to draw Jeralyn’s attention to a parallel situation during the Watergate coverage, to show what good company she is in. Assuming one episode in the movie “All the President’s Men” is accurate to life, Carl Bernstein can sympathize with you, Jeralyn. As I recall, on a breaking news story of far less import than confirmation of an actual indictment of today’s “power behind the throne” - Bernstein WOKE UP someone very late at night to get a quote, and persevered with his questioning despite that fact. John Mitchell was it? Who was asleep at a hotel at 11 p.m. or so when Bernstein woke him up to get a quote/confirmation on a Watergate story about to go to press. This call elicited the famous crude comment about Publisher Katherine Graham by Mitchell, and a similar sort of incoherent brush-off to Bernstein to call Mitchell’s attorney in the morning for a response. But Bernstein got enough from that call to Mitchell for his editors to run the article on schedule in the morning papers.
Do the lawyers here think that the series of events described by Leop*ld is plausible?
so will the indictment story break before, after or during the Preznit’s 8pm ET speech ?
Yes Christy . . . . I feel it. It’s getting close.
Thumbs up for Looseheadprop. Great read. Thanks for sharing.
Years ago, the best advice I ever got from a seasoned trial attorney was this: The secret of successful litigation is to “keep the turd in the other guy’s pocket.”
I figure the stench around the White House is getting so bad, it’s as if the Rose Garden is buried under ten feet of manure by now . . .
Must be the NSA
This is all good, but it doesn’t change the fact that the key strategy is to keep Libby out of jail until after the November elections. After Nov 7th, Bush can safely pardon Libby (and Rove, Cheney, and the white house pooch, for that matter).
When hunting big game, you only get one shot. Steady….steady…
What a great article, CHS and great analysis from Looseheadprop. It certainly feels like there has to be a fire started with all the current smoke in the air.
As to the Leopold story, I’ve been quite sceptical BUT…I’m beginning to waiver. This is a career-ending move if Leopold is wrong and I just can’t imagine making a positive assertion about the indictments already being in without there being something to back it up. Particularly, where the source knows that they would be given-up in such a case. I’m still troubled that there’s been NO other reporting or leaks regarding this but DAMN…there is a current in the air similar to approaching rapids in a canoe…felt the same way right before Libby’s indictment.
Go Fitzgerald!
24 business hours…Thursday.
JWR - Thanks.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the Leopold interview.
hurm
OT: One of Ian Masters’ subsequent interviewees was Kevin Bengston, a lawyer with EFF. I wasn’t aware that they have a hearing on Wednesday vs. lawyers from AT&T re: a 20+-year employee whistleblower who apparently knows the ins and outs of technical arrangements in those highly-restricted rooms in switching centers. AT&T is claiming trade secrets (!) are involved.
Those interested can hear the interview (and Leopold’s as well)at Masters’ website once he gets today’s program up:
http://www.ianmasters.org/
One further thought, the interaction between Fitz, Rove, Luskin, et. al., sounds a bit like Scooter Libby Redux.
I’m guessing that Karl refused to accept any plea deal that compelled prison time, and Fitz refused to offer a deal w/o prison time, say anywhere from 6 - 24 months.
I’m sure this question has already been asked and answered before, but…can Cheney be indicted, or as a Constitutional Officer, can he only be impeached?
Also, could Fitz name him as an “unidicted co-conspirator”?
I missed this in the Leopold story: 24 *business* hours.
That means the announcement is Thursday, I guess.
LindyH -
I understand why you might think 24 business hours would bring you to Thursday (because you only count the business hours in each day, so Monday is 8 hours, etc., but Leopold indicated the 24 business hours would expire by the end of Monday.
In my work, we speak of “business days”, not “business hours”.
Anyone able to shed light on the meaning of “business hours”?
somebody is working on the FDL website: please insert in the template for all comments a string to erase any html tags from the preceding comment. I’d suggest: [/B] [/CODE] [/EM] [/I] [/STRIKE] [/STRONG]
I’m a little out of touch. What day is that 8 pm address happening?
FWIW,
I was reading another site today (I think talkleft) and someone who sounded knowledgable said that all the MSM outlets had heard about Leopold article and were desperately trying to confirm or deny it. Not sure what it means that it has been so long now and no one else is airing it. Could be no one else has mulitple sources and can’t go on the record without at least two on such a major story. Or could be that they have had direct denials and therefore don’t have to air them because the story hasn’t “officially” been broken.
I’ve never understood quite what was meant by the phrase “24 hours to get his affairs in order”. Is that supposed to mean, that after 24 hours the deal could be announced at any time?
It’s a very curious phrasing, so I wonder if it’s Fitzgerald’s phrasing or a paraphrase. It sounds very 18th century, like something you’d say the night before a duel.
Quick transcription of JL on his sources:
“First of all, it’s more than two, and they are definitely in the know. On Saturday, I received a level of detail of information on what took place this past Friday, that was quite explosive. Now these are people that I trust. They are also sources who KNOW, full well, that if they led me astray, they would no longer be anonymous sources.”
the Preznit’s 8pm speech is tomorrow. CNN is going apeshit over it! It’s supposedly about ‘brown folk taking over america’ or somesuch. A Rove indictment would sure mess up all their programming specials…
xyz #61:
There did seem to be definitional issues during the interview, but Leopold seemed sure that the announcement would be made “…anytime after Monday…” which would imply three calendar days from late Friday night.
So if there’s no announcement on Tuesday, we’ll have to sweat through Thursday.
It’s Fitzwatch ‘06! Keep that seatbelt securely fastened about you.
cbear: “I’m sure this question has already been asked and answered before, but…can Cheney be indicted, or as a Constitutional Officer, can he only be impeached? Also, could Fitz name him as an ‘unidicted co-conspirator’?”
Someone will have probably answered by the time I finish typing this but…
A) Yes, Cheney can be indicted. See e.g. Spiro Agnew.
The only citizen of the U.S. who cannot be indicted is a sitting president, who must be impeached by the House and fouind guilty by the Senate. If that happens, then the president can be indicted.
B) Yes, Cheny can be cited as an undicted co-conspirator.
You’re playing the small game. The big game involves pardons that will be issued at some point, probably soon after the 2006 mid-term election, if not, then in January 2009. Thus, all Libby (and Rove and Cheney, if we should be so lucky) have to do is engage in a holding pattern. Delay delay delay. Is Libby sitting currently in a cell? No. I wouldn’t want to be him right now, but it’s a certainty that he can expect a pardon within the next few years. At most he spends 18 months in club-fed.
This, of course, assumes that GWB’s penchant for loyalty outweighs his disdain for people who make him look like a fuck-up. I think it does. Shit, even Goss got a happy send-off, with the complicity of the press. Hookers? What hookers? And what is this “Watergate” thing of which you speak? (perhaps the press will come around, though by then it will be too late and everyone will be consumed by the finals of American Idol, the bombing of Tehran, or the meltdown in the housing market).
I think Fitz has been exemplary: if only all public servants had his integrity, professionalism and discretion. Unfortunately the President (and I hate to capitalize it when I refer to the current occupant of the White House) possesses none of these traits, and in fact considers them to be indicators of weakness. If he were the special prosecutor, why not use such power for political gain? Starr took his quasi-unlimited power and ran with it. He was a politician, not a lawyer. Fitz is a (true) lawyer first. He believes in truth, justice and the American way, and acts accordingly. To BushCo such things are for chumps. They’re selling-out the rest of us out for next quarter’s 10-Q filing.
GWB is a win at all costs kind of man. He is the Presidential equivalent of Barry Bonds. Even that comparison is charitable, Bonds played by the letter, if not the spirit, of the rules (”no rules against steroids in baseball? Shit, shoot me up”). Bush is motivated by winning, and, perhaps more ominously, outdoing his father. Tristero links today at Digby’s place to a prescient Vanity Fair article on W during the 2000 campaign. His father didn’t get re-elected and left Saddam in place, W did and didn’t, ergo W wins in the inter-family pissing match. God help us if Jeb wins on 2008 (though, in retrospect, we might have all been saved of the nightmare of W’s presidency had Jeb not lost his first bid for FL governor in 1994; he seems to be the true heir to his father, which, if still awful, I think would be 100 times better than W; but now his election in 2008 would only continue W’s legacy).
Right now, with his approval rating approaching the BTKWB limit at 29%, what does “winning” mean for the “President?” A few things. First, he doesn’t believe the polls (or perhaps the bubble protects him from them), and if he does they reflect biased reporting. This first view leads to the second: to him he has been an enormous success as POTUS. Tax cuts, no child left behind, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., the only real setback being the Harriet Meirs nomination, but she’s still his “main woman.” The semi-unbroken stream of successes provides him, in his mind, with a mandate to continue the chosen path to: Tehran.
And there, tragically (for the people of the United States of America, not to mention the rest of the world), hell will break loose on such a scale that even W will recognize the error of his ways. He might not beg for forgiveness in the eyes of the American republic, but he will know he should. Instead, he will be driven on by Cheney to further misdeeds, until we are in the arms of a dictatorship, or worse.
This is a more charitable comment to W than it sould be.
Wow. Looks like we got a helluva week coming up, gang.
Expect distraction and misdirection.
I’m with ProfFoland on the question of 24 hours to get things in order. What would Rove be doing during such 24 hours?
Also, parsing- no longer be anonymous souces– no longer be anonymous, or no longer be sources?
al scooter - thanks
This whole “business hours” thing is somewhat confusing.
If business hours are 8 hrs a day and run 7 days a week, then we can expect an announcement anytime after monday (8hrs sat+ 8rs sun+ 8hrs mon = 24 hrs)
However, if business hours run during the business week only, then we can expect an announcement no earlier than thursday, as the clock will not start until monday.
I personally have no idea, but Leopold seemed to think that Tuesday was the first day on which an announcement might be made.
I’m glad that Leopold is willing to out his sources if they steer him wrong here (and I hope he’ll out them for whatever they’ve told him, if they’re wrong on this). But I’d point out there is still a timing inconsistency (as there was in yesterday’s story).
24 business hours would be, presumably 3 8-hour business days from when Rove received the indictment. That is, Wednesday night. There’s no way 24 business hours would be Monday in any case, because if the 24-hour clock started Monday at 8:00, then it would mean Karl frogmarches on Tuesday AM.
The 24 business hours doesn’t seem to make sense.
a-S #57:
The AT&T whistleblower has said that the NSA installed a splitter, which means that all traffic coming into the center is also being captured by NSA. That goes way beyond the call records. I’m just afraid that the ‘gov’t secrecy’ argument is going to win out again here . . .
Sorry, that 24 hour point was made above.
And actually, the interview may have clarified the 15 hours/half a day discrepancy. Did he address that? That is, Fitz was there for half a day and Luskin and Rove were working for 15 hours?
LindyH: “24 business hours…Thursday.”
Point. Leopold is correct as long as the indictment is announced any time this week.
xyz: “Anyone able to shed light on the meaning of “business hoursâ€?”
Yes, it’s used the way Lindy described, usually by project managers as a gender neutral term for man-hours, At least I’ve heard it used this way before, though personally I tend to use ‘worker hours’, which is used more often in my experience.
JL says that during the meeting at Patton-Boggs, they MAY have been working out a plea agreement, but that it was ultimately rejected.
At the end of this meeting, Fitzgerald handed indictments to Rove’s atty, and instructed Rove that he has quote, 24 business hours, to get his affairs in order. Says he confirmed the story with his sources, and ran with it.
He sounds pretty confident to me.
emptywheel,
i think leopold may be guilty of the same mistake that i initially made.
leopold said that the indictments can come as early as tuesday. i think he may have said that because he believes that 24 business hours means the same thing as one business day. So once monday has passed, the 24 business hours are up.
i see now that this is probably incorrect, but it seems like an honest mistake that someone outside of the business world might make (as i did).
about indicting Veeps: Spiro Agnew was forced into resigning before he got indicted. Aaron Burr, on the other hand, was indicted for murder and other crimes in both New Jersey and New York. He fled the scenes of the crime but returned to D.C. where he continued Veeping to the end of his term…
If anyone can host it, I’ve created an 18 minute, 4.92mb mp3 of all but the very first few seconds of the interview.
Over at DU a brave fellow progressive ventured into freeperland and found this link. For your reading pleas…whatever. Sensation librement au ridicule
The Good Ship Fitzgerald Is Listing
Valley Girl,
Regarding your parsing question - JL seemed clear that he was willing to publicly reveal the identity of sources who burned him.
Professor F: I think Fitzgerald’s “You have 24 hours” is to say “You have 24 hours to deal with your situation–the spin, the exit, the various head’s-ups you need to give, etc.–before I make my announcement to the world.”
Whether this is all true or not is TBD, but Leopold is putting his name on the line here, and while Rawstory has been wrong, they haven’t been THAT wrong–am I correct? He’s not as iffy as Drudge, or Capital Hill Blue?
oldtree - very important point in your comment - this whole series of crimes begins way back with Cheney and friend’s first decision to seize oil assets in the middle east.
I just saw on CNN that they are calling tomorrow “Immigration Nation” and running immigration stories all day - it’s amazing how quickly the media fall in line with WH desires. All the news shows have NSA on the back page and immigration up front (well, plus Duke Rape case, Polygamists and such … it must be time for another Natalie Hollaway sighting!)
Chisholm,
FYI the leopold articles are on truth out, not raw story
Is it possible the 24 hours is to give the judge time to unseal a sealed indictment, after which Fitz holds a press conference? The meeting in Luskin’s office ended:
“So, no deal.”
I’m thinking the 24 business hours are consecutive hours that occur during the business week, which would mean 1 business day, starting Monday am and concluding Tuesday am.
Just my two cents.
IANAL, but would this be a lawyerly way of saying 1 business day?
Fitz me baby, one mo’ time!
it sounds like Jason Leopold needs a good editor to iron out ambiguities in his reporting…
we think it’s pretty clear - rove has 24 hours to get his $hi+ together, but that’s not counting the weekend. so it’s 24 hours from friday, excluding saturday and sunday (which aren’t business days)
xyz–why there, and not raw? is leopold still affiliated with raw?
ugh @ 70: I think that by the time ‘08 rolls around the very last thing the American people will want is another Bush presidency.
Bush fatigue set in during Katrina, and it’s only going to get worse–I’m starting to think he’ll be impeached even without the democrats controlling one house of congress.
My 2 cents, 24 business hours would be 24 hours, Saturday & Sunday excluded. So indictment announced Tuesday earliest.
God help me, I love the smell of indictments in the morning.
Okay here’s something else that I don’t get. The issue that was on the table, I thought (from Leopold’s earlier reporting) was did Karl get an obstruction charge in addition to perjury and false statements. That’s what they were bargaining over on Friday. But if Fitz handed indictments out and then left, does that mean he had two versions, the + obstruction and the - obstruction ones? And actually, Leopold’s clarification says Fitz only left perjury and false statements.
Finally, the 24 hour thing is weird. (Particularly since Truthout only clarified it 24 hours after Leopold first used it.) You give 24 hours to turn yourself in, to be arraigned. But the only reason Fitz would need a delay would be to submit the indictments to the judge. Which wouldn’t necessarily be 24 hours.
chisolm
Leopold hasn’t been associated with raw for some months.
oceanbreeze #88:
The commonly-understood business definition of “24 business hours” would be, in this case, three days of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (allowing an hour for lunch) commencing at 8:00 a.m. Monday.
But we might be parsing a paraphrase (or worse) at this point, so we’ll have to wait and see. Maybe we’ll get more from Jason Leopold or other sources.
It’s going to be quite a week, I think…isn’t this also the week that someone is supposed to testify before a congressional committee that the NSA program is just the tip of the iceberg?
Yes, I’m feeling like this could be it, finally. I’m a little confused over the “24 business hours” thing, but I’m wondering if what it meant was that Rove had 1 business day from the close of business on Friday to get things in order. Anyone remember when we first heard that Bush would be speaking on Monday night?
I’m trying to picture the pre-speech blather: “This speech, billed as a major address on immigration, comes on the same day we have learned that the man who is often described as the architect of two successful presidential campaigns, Karl Rove, will be indicted on multiple counts of perjury, obstruction and conspiracy in connection with the investigation into the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame, and a man already under indictment in the same case, Lewis “Scooter” Libby, will face a new charge in addition to the ones he already faces: conspiracy.”
Would anyone, other than Lou Dobbs, give anything more than lip service to a speech on immigration if there is confirmation on this?
Just what exactly would Rove be expected to be doing during this 24 hour period? Was Libby given 24 hours too? What is the point?
Cleaning out his desk? Erasing his HD? Also, once indicted (and he presumably resigns), is he allowed to confer with the prez in any official way? Or do they all just use throw away cell phones? IOW, how limited is he?
so if Rove has been given a heads up on indictment, does that mean he will resign before the indictment to spare the W.H. the shame of another indictment of a W.H. employee? It certainly would seem the honorable thing to do …
I’m still reading through this thread, but have to say thanks to xyz for conveying the info on the Leopold interview. And to say, WOWIE. If he is willing to burn the source that burns him, this is a whole new day. OMG, this will bring a new level of accountability to the whole whisper campaign all these weenies perpetuate. Zing!
Waiting for Fitz-O at 51:
I very much fear that you’re correct.
And that will be no problem, inasmuch as the Libby trial is set for next year.
The basis for the pardons: All of those people Libby has subpoenaed to testify (Rice, Hadley, Cheney, others) can’t be distracted in a time of war (in Iraq and Iran).
The cost? Dropping in the polls from twenty-three to twenty? Hurting Bush’s re-election chances in ‘08? Hurting Republican chances in the ‘06 elections, the ones that happened ten weeks ago?
It costs them nothing that they care about, and it keeps anyone who knows where the bodies are buried (like Howard Hunt) from rolling over on them when faced with a decade or more in prison.
Time of the pardons: Between Christmas and New Year’s Day.
Time of starting war in Iran: October or November, depending on whether the polling shows people will revolt, or fall in line behind the War President.
This, by the way, is the reason I place no stock in the propositions that one person or another is plea bargaining or cooperating for a reduction in sentence - no one has to do that, because all they have to do is wait for the pardon. The only cooperation / plea agreement in this case would logically come only from a person who either (1) can’t be sure he would get a pardon (Novak early on, or relatively low level executive branch offials?) or (2) a person with a vendetta against some of the people in the crosshairs. Rove certainly needs no plea bargain.
It’s also why, even though Fitzgerald seems aimed directly at Cheney, and maybe even Bush, he will never be able to get there. I think he might find vindication, however, in the fact that they had to be pardoned (who besides a criminal even needs a pardon?).
Professor Foland #65, got a laugh out of the 18th century refrenence.
Also, could “getting his affairs” together mean he needs to wrap up anything important he may be working on for the POTUS, or since he will now be spending so much of the next few months in court, say goodbye to his wife and kids, grab some clean underwear, and stock up on twinkies?
hey, I just saw a clip of al gore over at c&l…a skit if he were elected president
man, talk about laugh out load funny, you gotta see it
How about this: 24 weekday hours? That seems to make the most sense in this context.
kate o’beirne’’s vaginal dentata: “we think it’s pretty clear - rove has 24 hours to get his $hi+ together, but that’s not counting the weekend. so it’s 24 hours from friday, excluding saturday and sunday (which aren’t business days)”
Could be, but I’m more inclined to believe the ‘24 hrs. = 3 business day” explanation.
If for no other reason, it seems like 3 rather than 1 business day is the proper deference to pay to Turd Blossom’s duties, responsibity to document them, and help get the ball rolling to find his replacement.
BTW, not saying that TB deserves the deference, just that his position, and his responsibilities to the American people, do.
Another quick transcription:
“..and again I will reiterate, these sources that I have had on this story know full well that leading me astray, or leading my news organization astray, I would no longer be obliged to keep their identities secret.”
He doesn’t say outright that he will reveal his sources, should they be wrong on this.
56, you have the best ever blog handle. LOL
Thanks to the Leopold interview transcription xyz.
Couple of other points to consider with the Leopold information and the fact he will out his sources if they burn him… combine all that with….
-Shuster’s story last week
-Tweety’s story last week
-Didn’t Fitz tell Bushco previously they would all get a heads up before indictments were handed out…as a courtesy?
-Upcoming prime time Political Deflection Speech by Bushco using the macho guns/troops image for border control(just as Rove stated he would use to run on for midterms).
Plus on the Tweety angle….he’s a player and Rove buddy …he knows something big is coming down the pike on this….maybe they are off on the timing by a day or two or three..or four….but he knows it’s inevitable because he knows the truth and that is to use Karl’s own words to him, “Fair Game”.
JGabriel,
I agree with your analysis of the “business hours” time frame.
Unfortunately, it is at odds with Leopold’s understanding. Leopold thinks an indictment could come as early as Tuesday.
Based on what we know, I think Leopold simply misunderstood the meaning of 24 business hours ( I think he believed 24 business hours is the same thing as one business day) and, if Leopold’s story is true, the earliest we can expect to hear a public indictment announcement is thursday.
This would also explain why more about this story hasn’t leaked into the press. Rove’s people still have a little time to decide how to spin the story, so they won’t’ begin leaking the news until a time closer to the actual indictment announcement.
cbear — I beg to differ with you on whether Jeb would have been a better President than W. Judging by his tenure here in Florida, he would certainly have continued the family tradition of kleptocracy. Jeb could give his brother lessons in crony capitalism. He would also have been as much the willing captive of the religious right; don’t forget that the Schiavo case started here.
There is one way he would have been better, I guess. Jeb is very good at showing up for hurricanes. Other than that, though, his motto is “gubmint bad, bidness good.” It will take Florida decades to recover from his reign. Heaven help the country if he ever becomes President.
Even without corroboration it looks like next week is going to be Fitztacular. 24 business hours suggest’s thursday for mine and ‘ fitz’ with the previous hit.
Now Darth or the Chimperor might try their Jedi mind trick at this point…’ these are not the droids your looking for…’ and so on but it’s doubtful , at this late stage whether they can keep ‘ falling foward’ or retreating forward.
On the downside we stand to create our own version of the slashdot effect ( the Fitzdot effect? ) and might set up a mirror - FDL.org or such - otherwise I’ll meet youse at Digby’s, Drums or maybe Kos if he sets something up.
This Fitzfirestorm should last from the 18th right through to Divine Strake and that could be our signal to storm the ramparts if the Bushindenberg’s not all crispy ashes by then.
I have a friend due in court on the eighth so it would be great to wrap by then but hey…that’s obviously up to youse on the ground.
May the Fitz be with us this week - the week where everything changed.
Difficult @ 101
If pardons come, they will be rightfully seen by the public as entirely motivated by CYA thinking at the WH and will only further weaken support for the GOP. The Nixon pardon lost Ford a 2nd term, and we have yet to see what else Fitz has been working on in terms of conspiracy and how high up this goes.
A great deal of time has elapsed since Libby’s indictment and those are industrious people; I think we’ve only seen just the tip of Fitz’s iceberg so far, even WITH Rove’s impending indictment. The WH will only further delegitimize itself with passing out pardons, it really would be political suicide for the GOP, in view of their present predicament.
The party of honor among thieves will not go over will with the public.
Michael Scott 49
With all that manure there must be a pony there somewhere!
Boyo boy, I’m getting excited at the prospect of truth and justice peeking out from under the manure. Even if it is only a peek, that will be more than we’ve had for 5 years.
happy day to all you FDL mamas.
goddess bless fitz.
xyz…..thanks for the overview of the Leopold interview….I couldn’t find it on the link you supplied….I too believe he has the Rove indictment nailed….
In the spirit of Mother’s Day, it certainly feels to me that this scandal’s water has broken, with contractions to follow. (Although we’ve experienced a lot of false labor before, heaven knows.)
In any event, Tom Yum 71 is right:
Expect distraction and misdirection.
As a longtime sometime magician, I want to point out that distraction and misdirection are overlapping but nonsynonymous.
Distraction is a dramatic nonsequitur, introduced to momentarily draw away attention from a narrative.
Misdirection involves false framing of the narrative in a way to redirect interest so as to lead the audience to draw incorrect assumptions.
We should expect both.
Prof.rat,
“May the Fitz be with us” perfect!
ABout the “24hrs” thing - didn’t they give Libby time to resign before they actually unsealed the indictment? So that the indictment would be against a *former* admin official…?
Or sumptin like that. It could be the same kind of thing.
Ian Masters: “Does that mean that the indictment is sealed and that the indictment will be unsealed after 24 business hours?”
JL: “That’s a legal area that I’ve tried to, like, figure out, from what I understand, yes, it’s sealed before it becomes public, and it would be 24 hours.”
He’s very shaky on that whole 24 hours thing and he knows it, but he quickly moves to say that he’s standing by his headline, Karl Rove indicted.
maybe the 24 hours is to get his family into witness protection?
Post #20 has something about March [sic May] in a July 14, 2003 Robert Novak column.
Here is my dairy enter on dailykos about that and why it was done. Only Fitz and the President know for sure, and maybe the grand jury testimony.
http://www.dailykos.com/commen...../293/55#55
Changing Executive Order 12958 (none / 1)
I think we may have a smoking-gun on conspircy against Joe Wilson. That and Bush is part of it, if not at the center.
Emails will most likely show direct evidence of this conspircy
It has to do with the Executive Order 12958 http://www.fas.org/…. It is the timeline of when this draft was first initiated. When was it first proposed that the original [EXECUTIVE ORDER 12958 http://www.fas.org/… ]dated April 17, 1995 be updated?
FAS Note: The following is a draft Bush Administration revision of Executive Order (EO) 12958 on national security information policy. When finalized, the new executive order will define information classification and declassification policy. This draft document was circulated among executive branch agencies for comment in March 2003. Deletions from EO 12958 are indicated in this way, while proposed new additions are underlined. The final executive order was signed by President Bush on March 25, 2003, and is posted here.
During March of 2003:
7 March 2003
“Based on thorough analysis, the IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documents - which formed the basis for the reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger - are in fact not authentic.
We have therefore concluded that these specific allegations are unfounded.”
UN nuclear inspector Mohamed ElBaradei’s report to the UN Security Council
In the New Yorker:
http://www.newyorker.com/…
WHO LIED TO WHOM?
Why did the Administration endorse a forgery about Iraqâ€TMs nuclear program?
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
Issue of 2003-03-31
Posted 2003-03-24
Joe Wilson himself stated in his book:
http://talkleft.com/…
Joseph Wilson wrote in his book and told Tim Russert on Meet the Press that the White House campaign to discredit him began in early March, 2003, after he had appeared on CNN and criticized the Niger documents as forgeries. In an earlier post, I quoted both:
Wilson’s Book:
…According to my sources, between March 2003 and the appearance of my article in July, the workup on me that turned up the information on Valerie was shared with Karl Rove, who then circulated it in administration and neoconservative circles.
….Apparently, according to two journalist sources of mine, when Rove learned that he might have violated the law, he turned on Cheney and Libby and made it clear that he held them responsible for the problem they had created for the administration.
The plan of the attacks on Joe started at this time. Here this EO update is Bush giving cover to Cheney, Libby, and other of the Iraq Survey Group.
Can we get a timeline of the events and some insider input on these events?
Demand the Truth in America
by EasyRider on Sat Feb 25, 2006 at 06:33:32 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
Re *ilson #67, “the Preznit’s 8pm speech is tomorrow. CNN is going apeshit over it! It’s supposedly about ‘brown folk taking over america’ or somesuch. A Rove indictment would sure mess up all their programming specials…”
Perhaps the Preznit scheduled the speech as a diversion precisely because he knows the turdblossom is going to hit the fan late Monday wheh the 24 hours expires?
EDITED BY SITEOWNER
Please use links for extended entries.
ReddHedd!!!!
Thank You so much!!
I am so flattered to have been block quoted this way.
This has been such a good Mother’s Day for me. My little one brought me breakfast in bed. All my sisters and all the assorted kids came together for brunch at my mother’s house (kids and babies everywhere) and I got home to find that my soon to be ex husband decided to remind me that he wasn’t all bad by doing my sunday chores for me and even bought me some flowers.
Then I come to check in at the lake and I find my comment quoted. What a great cap to my day!!
I think that the 24 hours is just legalese talk for - we’re done talking here. Get ready for a fight. Monday, I’m submitting the indictments to the judge, and then let’s get it on!
Minnesotachuck #165:
When was the Monday night speech scheduled?
I don’t know for sure, but if Leopold’s version of events is correct, I think the presentation of the indictment would post-date the announcement of the speech.
as I recall, the 8pm Monday speech was scheduled Friday morning…
Apologies in advance for the ignorant question:
Were Bush to be named an undicted co-conspirator in Fitz’s crriminal probe (for, say, false statements to a federal official - I’m just sayin’), would Bush face any penalties under criminal law for pardoning co-conspirators?
Or would the pardon simply efface all charges and hence leave Shrub in a “conspiracy” of one?
….a single co-conspirator as unitary executive
Everyone,please bear with me on this (I am a Neophyte to this web site,and I am in awe of all of you)
If it is true,that the Fabulous Fitz on late Friday told Rover that he had 24 hours, or three business days (? )to get his affairs in order…to me,this means Wednesday;heads up to the press on Thursday…and D Day= Friday,May 19 Press Conference on the Indictment of Karl Rove (possibly others) for Perjury,Obstruction of Justice and Lying to Federal Agents.
J Gabriel @20
egregious @34
I certainly did not mean my description of the very hunky fitzman to be insulting in any way. To the ccontrary I was quite concerned to see him looking that way.
At the time, I worried that the stress he was under trying to come to decision was crushing him. He is only a mortal after all.
As a pasty faced Irishwoman myself, I know from whence I speak. There is a big difference between that pale Sonw White complexion of his and the way he was looking during the period I referred to.
from a lurker at 112:
This administration cannot be “further delegitimize[d].” It is as illegitimate as it comes. In some people’s eyes, since Florida in 2000. In the the eyes of the majority, when a majority turned against Iraq, in late summer of 2005. The wiretapping (which we still don’t know the half of), gulags, torturing, kidnapping, and all the rest only add to the public’s sense of their illegitimacy. That’s why their approval is in the twenties. Pardons will only fit into the crowded “all the rest” category.
The GOP has no support to weaken. The only people still in line with the GOP are big business and the American Taliban. And pardons won’t make them go Democrat. Big business will continue to puruse its financial interests, and the American Taliban will praise God that Satan’s agent (Fitzgerald) has been stopped in his tracks.
As for ‘08, they’ve already thrown in the towel on that. That’s why you’re paying three and four dollars for a gallon of gasoline (and why you will be paying a lot more before ‘08 gets here). Even they know that no one {with the possible exception of John Edwards} who voted for or supported starting a war in Iraq can be elected President in ‘08, and that means the entire Republican party.
The only election they remotely care about is ‘06, and even if they lose a house, they still aren’t worried, because they can just refuse to comply with subpoenas for two years. It’s not as if they’re reluctant to obey the law.
As long as we’re nano-parsing the leopold interview, IIRC the Fitz meeting with Patton-Boggs began ~ 11:30 a.m. Friday and lasted ~ 15 hours, which would make the presentation of the indictment ~ 2:30 a.m. Saturday. Just thought I’d post this for correx by others who also heard the interview and for anyone doing a timeline.
takin’ a break from painting the apt to register my applause for the lhp comment from yesterday and above… well done.
Happy Mother’s Day, looseheadprop. You deserve it. BTW, if you need an alternative name for your soon-to-be-ex husband, you’re welcome to what I called mine back in the day: my “future former.” I did have to stop my mother from referring to him as “Barbara’s first husband,” though. I reminded her that Barbara hasn’t had a second and Barbara isn’t looking. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt, don’t need to do it again. Enjoy the rest of your day!
looseheadprop - Thanks for boiling it down so that even I could understand it.
One more bit on JL and the 24 hours:
From what he understands, the announcement could come either Wed or Fri, but he believes it will be earlier in the week, and that Tuesday is supposed to be the 24 hour “get your affairs in order” thing, that that’s the 24 business hours expiration.
I’m betting, if the source was correct, that we are looking at Thursday. Three eight hour business days. (All the gov stuff I’ve ever seen is Mon - Fri, 8 - 5 as a “working day”, holidays not included.)
I wonder if Fitz is first, being a gentleman.. and second, giving Rove a chance to reconsider the deal. I bet there are two indictments, one with obstruction of justice charges and one without. That is probably the “deal” for Rove. I can’t believe he is not right now trying to assure he has that pardon. And if he gets worried that it is not in the works, he may just go for the “deal”.
Re pardons, I can’t see Bush giving any until after the November elections. Then they will be handed out. But I don’t care, I want to see those bums indicted. The more the better. And if there are pardons, the Wilsons can sue their ass.
Interesting. Personally, I have no idea of what to make of this breaking news story on indictment of Rover. IF the story turns out to be correct (emphasis on IF), then I have a slight confidence in the following:
Leopold is sleeping with one of the gals in the secretarial pool down at Luskin’s law firm.
Ghostman
Re: the 24 hour thing
Back when I was doing public corruption cases (and with most white collar cases) where there is a low likihood of flight to avoid prosecution, it is considered the gentlemenly thing to do, to call the defendant’s lawyer, notify him of the indictment and allow the defendant to “surrender” rather than be arrested.
The defense lawyer often asks for a few days for the defendant to “get his affairs in order” because there will be banking and other business transactions that the defendant will need to do.
For example, he may update his will, transfer a chunk of money into a checking account that the spouse or someone else will use to pay the mortagae and other bills in the short term, arrange for automatic bill payment.
Many of them get a good quality physical exam and make sure they have a copy of their medical records and a full supply of prescription drugs.
“service” of the indictment usually happens “on the record” at the arraignment. The AUSA will state that he is servng the defendant’s lawyer, hand over the indictment and the defense lawyer will say something to the effect that he acknowledges having been served.
Soemtimes during crowded magistrate’s court calendars, I have served the indictment in the hallway while we were waiting for our case to be called. Then you announce the prior service and describe it’s circumstances and the defense lawyer says something corraborative.
al-Scooter
That’s one of the, um, difficulties of the earlier timeline. In the same article, Leopold said Fitz was there “more than half the day” and “15 hours.” While these are not logically contradictory, they are contradictory using common usage. Add in the 11:30 start time, and it all gets really muddy.
Bravo Mr. Leopold, for promising to out a confidential source who lies.
What I don’t understand about the (qualified) reporter’s privilege, and how the MSM treats it:
When a senior government official lies to a journalist under cover of confidentiality, the journalist should have as much interest as ANYONE in reporting that a government source is trying to plant lies in the press. This, in and of itself, is news!
Instead, the MSM act as if there is nothing more important than maintaining access to a governmental source. Judy Miller, for a time, said she’d go to jail to protect her weasel liar sources, and some First Amendment advocates applauded! In fact, there is support in the law for this- while a waiver by the source might carry some weight, where a litigant seeks information, the journalist maintains that the qualified privilege belongs to the journalist. Even though you can tell on the face of it that the source was lying.
I don’t think this should be primarily fought out in the courts, but among journalists. Whenever a reader sees a confidential source cited for support, she has to take it with a grain of salt, because as it stands now, we haven’t seen the MSM stick up for the truth.
IF,IF,IF
Karl has been given 24 hours to surrender, he will show up at the appointed time to be taken into custody, booked and arraigned. Bail will be set at that time.
If for some reason(which I cannot imagine here) there was no bail set for him or he could not make bail, the importance of having brought prescriptions and medical info with him and of setting up to have his personal bills taken care of becomes apparent.
Though I’m sure it is uneccesary in this case, White Collar defendants are usually advised to do these kinds of activities just to have every base covered in case of surprises.
Tom Delay waas allowed to surrender by appointment, re-reading the article about that would be instructive for the non lawyers in the house.
I would think that the 24 hours would be one business day,and thus an announcement on Tuesday.
It seems a very awkward use of language by a prosecutor who has chosen his words so carefully to say “24 business hours” rather than the far clearer “3 business days.”
And, I would guess that the business day reprieve has been given to make both financial preparations in case bail/bond were required and also political arrangements to clear his desk.
Mike
Generally, I think the best way to treat Leopold’s articles is to take the factual statements with a giant grain of salt and throw out entirely any second-level analysis or legal analysis that he offers.
He doesn’t seem to understand sealed indictments, or how “business hours” are calculated, etc. And he doesn’t seem that interested in understanding, either (based on the interview).
Looseheadprop at 138
Yea, like on the Sopranos when Tony took that bag of cash to his lawyers office to give to Carm when and if Tony got indicted by the feds.
BTW nice incisive commentary
http://www.billmon.org/
Please look at the photo. ;)
Barbara B
Future former, very cute.
JWR,
“From what he understands, the announcement could come either Wed or Fri”
This is SO fishy. So if Rove hasn’t been indited yet, but is on Wednesday or Friday (likely I think anyway), then the truthout
“story” will remain neither proven or disproven.
Difficult @ 130
I heartily agree with you on your characterization of the GOP but find 2 points debatable–the effect of pardons and GOP chances in ‘08–and think they’re inter-related.
I don’t think they’ve given up on ‘08 at all, they never give up on anything. If anything, I think their overall strategy is to take the body blows in ‘06, and when the congress goes Democratic to argue that, in view of what a disaster it was when congress and the WH were in one party’s (their) hands, they should keep the WH to save us from “Democrat” one-party rule. Of course it’s mind-bogglingly hypocritial, but get ready for it.
Re: pardons, of course if they’re issued after the ‘08 elections it’s a moot point but political pardons are such obvious moves of self-interested favoritism and so lacking in basic fairness that the public simply reacts to them with indignation and fury. It’s personal, not abstract—like a missing white woman on Aruba—and the public can relate. Remember the seething anger after Ford’s and Clinton’s pardons—no one wants to unleash that upon their party and it will only be done from real desperation. But grant you it probably will be done anyway, as these are desperados
Brilliant comment by Loose and great post by Christy. My knowledge of legal matters is practically nil, but I’m very interested in strategy and tactics, and it certainly does look like Fitzgerald is creating a masterpiece.
I look forward to reading the magisterial work that someone is bound to write on Fitz’s work over these past few years, and it won’t surprise me if she’s got red(d) hair and a razor-sharp wit.
Ooooops!
(slaps forehead)
So sorry about the gender mistake looseheadprop!
(I have to stop doing that!!!!)
Hold on, the whole 24 hour thing makes less and less sense. looseheadprop’s description makes sense if you’re not going to make a public announcement of an indictment. But, if Fitz is working like he did in October/November, he would give the indictment to the judge, then Karl, then have a big press conference (all that happened on October 28 last year). Then, several days later, Karl would be arraigned. So unless Fitz is just forgoing the press conference (which is possible, though it doesn’t seem like his style, not at all), then the 24 hour thing doesn’t seem to make sense.
Long-time, devoted lurker chiming in here. I’ve been addicted to Jane’s and Redd’s writing since early fall.
Re: Leopold’s scoop - my hunch is that Luskin asked for the Friday meeting to stall - the GJ was meeting on Friday and Fitz would have gotten his indictment from them then. Am I correct that this GJ meets only on Wednesday and Friday? The “plea negotiations” plus the 24 business hours (however computed) gave W a chance to schedule a speech for Monday. My hunch is that W pardons all on Monday (including Libby and Cheney), before the GJ has a chance to meet again.
Rove will NOT have been indicted yet - not until the GJ meets again on Wednesday. If Rove had been indicted (and then pardoned), W would have had to let him go. If pardoned before the indictment, W can say that only a GJ can indict, so Rove is ok. And the only source that an indictment was imminent is Leopold, whom the MSM won’t quote.
W (read Rove) probably thinks that his JAR ratings are so low that he can get away with a pardon now and that Rove (keeper of everyone’s dirty laundry) will be needed to extort media parroting of whatever spin they need to attack Iran and to rig the fall elections.
The end games for W at this time are 1) getting off an attack on Iran and 2) avoiding impeachment. Keeping Rove on the job is essential to both. He’s already convinced the kool-aid kids that Fitz is out of control. They’ll applaud pardons. The rest of us frogs just keep getting closer to boiling.
I think the 24 hours notice is just a way of saying, “stick a fork in it.” So yeah, we are done. Giving Karl Rove 3 biz days to straighten out Bush’s desk is laughable. It couldn’t be done in 24 years. So I’m thinking sooner rather than later if all this holds true.
Question about Leopold, though. If I was writing this story and doing this interview, I would get a lawyer on the phone to brief me about all these dangling questions about sealed vs unsealed and the courtesy of informing someone that they are a target about to get the bullseye treatment. But that’s just me.
This web site is going to get slammed with hits. Do we need to create a mirror or Yahoo group or Google thingy just in case? I know I’m not alone when I say that FDL is my cyber home. I would freak if I couldn’t get to this place when the shit hits the fan, if you know what I mean! And to Jane, Christy, Pach, et al, you can moderate any way you see fit. Take ads from whomever has the cash to support what you do. I really don’t care about doing the PC thing if it means that we have a place like this. More power to you for making all the right calls. You are divinely appreciated beyond words.
Btw, the Libby arraignment happened on November 3, so 4 business days after the announcement on October 28.
If the Grand Jury has already indicted Rove, does Fitzgerald then have the ability to make that indictment go away?
I guess what I’m puzzled by is the notion that The Grand Jury indicted Rove, and then Fitz and Luskin sat down to work out a plea bargain after the fact. That seems to be what Leopold’s story is implying.
My legal knowledge is spotty, so maybe this is normal, but it seems to me that the plea bargaining would need to happen BEFORE the Grand Jury indicted.
What am I missing here?
thank you, xyz!!!!
We all need to remind ourselves that Fitzgerald’s job is not to judge but to present the case for indictment where the facts warrant it, and to prosecute the indictment(s). Since it is not his job to judge (that belongs to a jury), the question of pardon or no pardon has nothing to do with Fitz. So, even if Bush pardons one or more indicted or convicted persons, Fitz would have no reason to feel frustration, failure, or regret. The man will have done his job, and that’s all he is expected to do.
And finally, a pardon does not exonerate the pardonee from guilt. In fact, a pardon implies that there is guilt, which is forgiven. I don’t care that much if Libby or Rove don’t go to jail, if they are found guilty by a jury of their peers. That is a shame a pardon cannot wash away.
Cozumel - All I can say from listening to the interview is that he seems unsure of the details of how, exactly, it’s going to play out, but not with the outcome itself.
One more bit of transcription:
“This is not a type of story that I, or my news organization, T.O., would go with if we were not confident that the details that we have received are bulletproof.”
Emphasis on “confident” and “bulletproof”.
looseheadprop –
Props to a prop! Thank you! And happy Mother’s Day to you and every other wonderful woman who’s celebrating the day.
Regarding HUMILITY: I was certain we were going to see that from Fitzgerald, [the real deal, that is, not the phony kind of fake pseudo-humility] from the moment I heard that he studied at a Jesuit institution, and that he took their philosophy of education seriously.
While I have known some Jesuits who have been every bit the jerk that non-Jesuits can be, it is still true that their educational theory begins on the following premises:
A) Every human being has been given unique gifts by God — talents, abilities, interests, intellectual proclivities, etc. [In the case of humans with minimal “intellectual” powers, the natural skill may simply be a knack for openness and sharing, for example.]
B) There is only ONE purpose to receiving these gifts: to serve God.
C) Serving God always entails humility — lack of humility means that a person sets HIMSELF and his own “needs” and desires in the position God should occupy –> this amounts to idolatry.
D) Serving God ALWAYS entails serving others, selflessly. This is how one fulfills the “purpose” of one’s talents, by prayerfully putting them to use in the service of others.
E) If anyone believes that the purpose of their talent is to “get rich” or “get famous” or “get fancy friends,” that person is, by definition, an idolator and, as an old cliche puts it, is “on the road to perdition.”
This is the foundation of the Jesuit theory of education, which then is further built in such a way as to enhance the student’s intellectual talent for the larger purpose — and they are quite rigorous in teaching a person how to think critically.
I’m sure we are all aware how rare genuine humility is. While Fitzgerald is just as human as everyone else, it’s nonetheless clear that he’s a guy who has this virtue in spades, IMO. This is why he cannot be bribed, with money OR more subtle payments.
If it’s a SEALED indictment. Rove would not be served, Luskin would not be served, nobody gets served. Why? Cause it’s under seal. it’s a secret.
ealed indictments are used when the investigation will continue past this defendant and you don’t want to tip off you other targets.
IF IF IF there was a sealed indictment,, once Fitz tells Luskin/Rove the cat’s out of the bag.
Whioaa, kirk murphy at 1:19pm - that is twisted. My skin is crawling.
Bully!
It is “about justice, it is about truth” and the American way!
http://patrickjfitzgerald.blogspot.com
“We could be on the verge of a four fold cross-rip, a powerful, even dangerous PKE rip . . .
sorry, couldn’t resist
ugh @70
“GWB is a win at all costs kind of man”
he is also The Count of Monte Stumblo - am not taking exception to much of what you’re saying just that the last several months have me no longer relying on Fitz, but more so on the chronic incompetence of these idiots - the latest example being the NYT with Cheney’s scribbles - one more time - who in the hell would leave that around for a prosecutor - even if you thought it one appointed by Ashcroft ? Am betting hindsight will have us all saying these bumblers never had a chance against Fitz - it was all just a matter of time
Gosh, I thought the 24-hour thing had to do with the fact that this comment was made on a Friday afternoon, late. Fitz offers Karl 24 hours — but the clock can’t reasonably start ticking until Monday morning, the next business day.
Was Rove scheduled for a speech at AEI next week? And it was taken down off the AEI website?
To JWR, regarding the mp3 — is that something Crooks and Liars might be willing to host? I’d love to get a chance to listen!
Thanks to all commentators, especially LHP, EW, Christy and Jane, for the insights and analysis. And to anyone who offers a link to another story/blog/column — I am so grateful to all of you who create this community of ideas and discussion.
Would Rove be going to Jail? Won’t he get out immediately?
Tommy Yum says:
May 14th, 2006 at 12:20 pm
Wow. Looks like we got a helluva week coming up, gang.
Expect distraction and misdirection.
dont forget Tice’s testimony!!!!
Well, I also think that he let Team Libby do their all before he indicted Rove. That way, he has seen all the possible defenses and is prepared for them. It’s like the first few plays in the Super Bowl.
Loosehead, since you’re on a roll.
So if it was sealed, then Fitz would never tell him about it right? I can see the logic for a sealed indictment now, but that doesn’t seem to correlate–at all–with JL’s story. I’m assuming, too, that if there’s a sealed indictment, than Rove doesn’t get a target letter or a plea negotiation? Can you say more about that?
But if it weren’t sealed, then wouldn’t the “24 hours to get your things in order” only pertain to immediate incarceration, no bail (which ain’t going to happen) or an arraignment?
From the WAPO:
If those attending yesterday’s annual Republican “Pep Rally Breakfast” in Fairfax County did not pay much mind to the scrum of protesters outside, all they had to do was take a seat and flip open the program to see what all the ruckus was about.
There it was, smack in the middle of the first page: The man scheduled to deliver the keynote address in support of Virginia gubernatorial candidate Jerry W. Kilgore would be Karl Rove, the White House senior adviser who is embroiled in the investigation of a leak that revealed the name of a CIA operative. Tickets were hot. The press was barred.
Here’s what I think happened Friday (based on my years practicing fed. crim law)—Fitz and Luskin were negotiating a plea to an information (the charging doc when a defendant agrees up front to plea). It was probably a speaking information with lots of facts in it—and that’s probably what all the back and forth was about—and trying to negotitiate the federal senencing guidelines (good luck with that). When they couldn’t agree, Fitz said you have 24 business hours to change your mind, then I get an indictment from the gj—that would be Wed.
BTW–sealed indictments—actually do get released to some folks even when they are under seal—that’s the practice in my district, but it’s for a very limited purpose (i.e., get court appointed counsel lined up)
new thread
Oops—old story at 169 above-Sorry :(
Clem @ 155
A defedant can enter into a plea bargain with either an indictment or he can waive the right tindictment and plea to a “criminal information”.
The right to have a grand jury decide that there is proabable cause is like the right too trail by jury. It is there to protect the defendant and he can waive that right if it suits his purpose.
The plea negotiations can happen before, they can happen after. Mpost of Elliot Spitzers negotiated pleas happened before.
Hell, it’s gotten to the point that Spitzer W/C targets try to sign on the line right after he drops the first subpeona on ‘em. Makes me wonder how he figures out what the charges should be if it’s still at the ealiest stages of the investiagtion.
Point being, it’s never too early and seldom too late to plead guilty. The timing (an what you have to give in testimony) just effects how good a deal your gonna be able to cut.
I’m not sure on all the speculation about the pardon question. It seems improbable that this could politically be done before November - the GOP is already at a disadvantage and if the Bush Administration had to face a Democrat controlled House or Senate for two years it would not be comfortable times (impeachment or no impeachment). That is unless the WH is already resigned to November losses. The other uncertainty is precisely how low W’s approval rating could actually go. If you look at the historical comparison of JARs over at Political Arithmetik, Ford’s seems to have dropped around 30% after the Nixon pardon (http://politicalarithmetik.blogspot.com/2005/11/presidential-approval-in-historical.html ). Now, I think the basement for W could not quite get to 0% ;), but that’s a massive political gamble to take (especially if Fitzgerald has some more charges up his sleave). Are you feeling lucky punk? Well, are you?
I’m just afraid that Bush will pardon Rove before the indictment becomes public - and if he does, given our compliant MSM, EVERYTHING will just fade away - no story here anymore, move along.
I’m sure BushCo is extremely busy right now, calling in all its markers - twisting arms, paying bribes, extorting sinners, threatening exposure and bodily harm - and all operatives (including “journalists” and pundits) will be dutifully in place to sweep the whole episode under the rug and discredit all the (non-BushCo) players - “Bush did the right thing - overzealous prosecutor, witchhunt, Wilson is a liar, she wasn’t covert….”
This whole regime has made me so freakin’ paranoid - I’m getting really scared now…
anyone else not able to access the new thread?
Emptywheel,
I saw that “sealed indictment” part as an internal contradiction in Leapold’s story, but I think Loubarr may have a narrative that allows all the statements to be correct.
Loubarr is doin’ better than me with the leapold story which just had me scratching my head.
I got onto new thread. Left my “Fitz!”
This really IS my day.
Addendum,
I do hope the announcement comes Friday,so we can all break out our preferred spirits (Champagne,Rum,Vodka,Tequelia,Wine,Liquors,and any combination of) and get s… faced,and not have to worry about going to work the next morning…
Thanks xyz for your play by play.
Been out mowing the lawn and ready for a snark…
So he wants to trump NSA and Rovian tales.
First Bush has to invade Mexico, CA, AZ, NM, and TX. Oh Baja, Padre Isl., and Indian Reservations have got to be full of terra. The media will have a hundred year war they can broadcast fancy pictures, heroic tales, with just enough blood and tears to trump A.idol ratings. We have the advance notice of next weeks schedule.
Before he starts troopin’ the border this time. May we please have an exit strategy.
I am beginning to think the safest place in the world is Pakistan.
End Snark….
Mom, Momma Nature,
The Constitution, Fitz, and FireDogLake !!
FYI - I just learned that the standing FDL book discussion rule is that we can’t post on the new thread unless it is about the book under discussion there. So those who want to discuss Rove, etc. should remain here.
Thanks, looseheadprop! I figured it was just a hole in my legal knowledge somewhere. Your explanation helps a great deal… the Leopold story is making a great deal more sense to me now. Sounds to me like Fitzgerald was basically saying “Here’s where you stand now, and unless you’re willing to give me something good in a plea bargain, then I go public with this early next week. If you’re willing to cut a deal, then I go back to the Grand Jury next week and we get the indictment amended to something less severe and then announce that.”
(That would be the general procedure, correct? If the Grand Jury had already indicted Rove last week, and Rove had agreed to a plea bargain Friday, would Fitzgerald have then gone back to the Grand Jury to get the indictment changed before making an announcement? That’s what I assume would happen, but again… not a lawyer here.) ;^)
Looseheadprop -
for some reason, I get to ‘Fitz!” a lot - if you like, next time the oppty presents itself, I’ll fitz as you - I know it isn’t quite the same, but we’ll keep it on the low-low
I think people are parsing tje 24-hour thing too closely. If I were Rove (thank all the GODS I’m not!!) I’d take “you have 24 hours to get your affairs in order,” if said on a Friday, to mean Monday. As this conversation apparently took place late Friday, that would be Monday evening, with any announcements, indictments unsealed, etc. happening Tuesday or Wednesday.
I could be wrong, of course, but remember, the 24-hour phrase is not an exact quote…it’s third hand.
from a lurker at 148:
It appears that the only disagreement you and I have is on the GOP’s estimation of its chances in ‘08. Everything else we agree on.
I simply look at it this way - After all that Bush and Rove have been through, in Texas as well as nationally, after all that they’ve done, can Bush really afford to have Rove sitting around in a prison, willing to talk or do anything else to get out? Hunt flipped. Judy flipped. They all do when they get familiar with the inside of a prison cell. It just takes some a little longer than others. Some just need to get close to the prison walls before they roll over. Its simply something Bush cannot afford, under any circumstances. If it takes a pardon - or anything else - then so be it.
Ditto for Scooter and Cheney. And maybe even Bush and Scooter.
People like Rove are even more vulnerable to this kind of pressure, due to their pride. They think getting a real job is beneath their dignity. Going to prison is simply beyond the pale.
{As an aside, why does no reporter at a presidential press conference simply ask, “Do you promise not to pardon Karl Rove? Do you promise not to pardon Lewis Libby? I’m not asking about the legal, judicial process; I’m asking about the pardon, executive process.” An answer won’t be forthcoming, but the refusal to answer will speak for itself.}
Now, it’s possible that appeals and such could put off actual prison time until after the ‘08 elections. Still - and it’s just an opinion - it seems to me that these people are bound and determined to start a war in Iran, and there would no better cover (to these people) for pardons than “we’re in a time of war, don’t question the president right now.”
Look, I would like nothing better than for these people to spend the rest of their lives in prison. They deserve it, for all of their crimes. It’s just that I don’t see a day of actual prison time ever being served. And I hate to see people’s hope for prison time get too high. I think we’re going to have to be satisfied with indictments, the tacit confession that accompanies acceptance of a pardon, the disclosures by subsequent administrations, and, we can only hope, non-Republican administrations that last as long as the Roosevelt - Truman administrations, and even into the Kennedy - Johnson years.
lhp at 130: “hunky fitzman”, Ha, I love that. Have thought that myself.
The National Guard idea is another surefire loser that will never fly. No one believes it’s actually appropriate and it is too obviously nothing but a short-term quick news cycle fix. And yet another example of just how much of a grip W is losing. But he can go on TV and give his typical assy speech and do the ratings sweep week thing or whatever. Not many are listening anymore. Bush has managed to piss off Schwarzenneger (whom I detest) by all but laughing in his face about our levee situation, so Arnold does not support the border scheme. The Minutemen will go apeshit and there will be many hostile, scary confrontations that will take center stage in the news because it’s red meat for the 29% who still thinks Bush is their guy. Sad.
fwiw - I think the “24 hours to get your affairs in order” is nothing more than another way of saying that plea negotiations are, offically, very much closed. (with a touch of pissed-off-about-it).
I know we’re in EPU territory now, but I’ll post this (ignorant) question anyway - is it possible that what Fitz delivered on Friday was the target letter, rather than the actual indictment, after the plea deal didn’t work out? I remember hearing (J.L. again?) a week or two ago that Luskin had already been given the target letter, but that was never confirmed. That would fit w/the overall timeline, at least.
emptywheel, if you’re still here:
Leopold’s article at truthout isn’t time-stamped, and it hasn’t yet migrated to the “Town Meeting” comments area that does display same.
I keep wondering how long Leopold took to do his sourcing, fact-checking, drafting, and posting and if that time frame makes sense. I’m especially interested given that the actual event occurred in the wee small hours yesterday. Then again, maybe he got a heads-up during the meeting and pulled an all-nighter or something close to it.
During the interview, I got the feeling that this might be a Drudge/blue dress moment for him. As Jane and others have pointed out upthread, he’s painted himself into a bit of a corner that I don’t think after-the-fact parsing can get him out of. If he’s right, he’s right. If he’s wrong, his sources should be outed. If they aren’t, he’s done.
Next stop: FDL archives from yesterday to see if I can find the first mention of the article’s existence.
And the answer is obsessed’s post at 2:50 p.m. PDT yesterday, whick would yield a maximum of 15 hours or so to have accomplished the above. Not being a journamalist, I don’t now if that’s realistic, but as a scoop, it sounds reasonable to me.
As a Chicagoan, I just want to thank Patrick Fitzgerald in advance of next week’s indictment for restoring my faith in public officials and the important role they play in our society. His fans–and they are legion– back home in blue-state Chicago promise to provide him free ribs and hotdogs as well as Cubs, Sox and Bulls tickets for the rest of his live-long days.
A target letter does not really make sense to me at this stage. It is usually given before you testify voultarily so that you may decide that you don’t want to testify after all.
It alerts you to your potential peril b/c you have to waive immunity when you testify in th GJ at your own request.
I don’t think anyone would believe that Karl did not appreciate his peril (in the legal sense–being in denial doesn’t count)
Former MSM at 192
Glad to know Chicago appreciates the big guy, but remeber he’s only on loan from NYC.
He will always be one of ours. And a huge welcome home will be waiting when he returns, even if I have to organize the brass band myself.
15 hours of negotiations? Can’t see it.
Luskin: Ok, Karl might plead to a false statement charge if you’ll drop the obstruction and perjury charges. And no jail time, of course.
PJF: He pleads to obstruction and offers full and continuing cooperation, I’ll drop the other two and we’ll argue at sentencing.
Luskin: No way Karl’s doing jail time.
PJF: Sorry. Plead to the lead and we’ll drop the others.
Luskin: We can’t plead to anything which involves jail time.
PJF: Sorry.
Luskin: I think we’re done here.
Obviously it’s not that simple, but - 15 hours?
jayt –
Perhaps I’m thinking simplistically here, but maybe an argument over what exactly constitutes “cooperation” could last a long time. (?)
Can a sitting President be indicted?
al-Scooter, it was actually a little earlier, but not by much. I tried to post it (that post, and I gather, several others, were delayed by moderation following the previous days’ extravaganza) immediately following comment number 45, after having read an announcement from Will Pitt over on DU, time-stamped 4:58 Eastern (which would be 1:58 FDL time). So, put it about an hour earlier. Still, 14 hours is certainly enough time to check some sources and write an article.
Mrs. K8 -
I doubt Fitzgerald allows any flexibility on the definition of “cooperation”. He probably has a standard agreement that basically says tell us everything you know that has any bearing on this case and answer all of our questions pertaining to this case
The debate, I would guess, had to do with whether Rove was going to have to serve time. Not sure how long a conversation like this would go on.
jayt @ 195:
You’ve left out one major aspect of many legal negotiations - the discussions between the target and the target’s lawyer.
Luskin: “Karl, you know and I know that your case is crap.”
Rove: “I don’t care.”
Luskin: “Karl, Fitz has the goods on you.”
Rove: “So? This case will play in the papers, not the courts, so why do I care if he has the goods?”
Luskin: “Karl, as your attorney [NOTE: this phrase is always, ALWAYS a tipoff phrase for a CYA manuever], I am obliged to recommend that you take the deal.”
Rove: “Deal, schmeal - I ain’t gonna squeal.”
Luskin: “Squeal or not, but once Fitz decides he doesn’t need you, you’re toast. The more that I hear about Cheney’s handwriting on Wilson’s op-ed, the more I think this is your last chance. The media called you ‘Bush’s Brain’ - why don’t you use it for yourself, once and a while?”
The dialogue between Fitz and Luskin was probably fairly short - I agree that there’s no way that they go at it for 15 hours - but the back and forth between Luskin and Rove could go on for 15 weeks (and maybe it has!). Meanwhile, while Luskin tried to talk some sense into his client, Fitz just sits back in another conference room and catches up on some of his reading . . . smiling all the way.
Favorite song on Fitz’s ipod is from Blondie: “One way, or another, I’m gonna find ya, I’m gonna getcha, getcha, getcha . . .”
Crank it up loud, folks - all week long!
Thanks, lhp @ 2:58. We’ll just have to wait and see what happens.
Christy and all’
Thank you, thank you for the dilligent work!
Couldn’t the dialogue between Fitz/Luskin/Rove be lengthy if Fitz wants something very specific from Rove? From what we know, Rove’s testimony won’t be required for Libby - so it must be for other charges (the main course). Then this become a poker game of how much Rove thinks he can give up to Fitz, without breaking the firewall. IF the 15 hours report is accurate, then that’s the only explanation that seems reasonable to me. I can’t believe a negotiation over jail time and a guilty plea for perjury/false statements would take too much time, and Rove will know the WH indictment/pardon strategy.
Maybe it’s as simple as Rove (and Libby) trying to carve presidential culpability out of any agreement to cooperate? i.e., You can’t expect me to screw the guy with the pardons now can you?
peterr
Yeah, I think that’s exactly how it would go. Underscored by the fact that Luskin is a known Dem and Rove is a known Dem-hater (unless they leak as well as he does), so once Karl goes down Luskin’s got some heat coming his way.
I think Karl would have had to give a lot, most notably dirt on the obstruction charge, proof that Dick orchestrated the cover-up. That’s a lot of details and it might make later pardons impossible.
Via TL, illumination on “24 Business Hours”. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/5/14/152723/909
Could be, Will.
After this entire flurry, I’m back to wait-and-see mode. Still, the first business day (tomorrow) should provide revealations on a number of fronts.
I hope I’m around long enough for some of the books about this whole episode (written by reliable authors) to be published.
looseheadprop at 2:58 pm -
Now I’m really confused. I thought that Fitz always served a last minute target letter to those about to be indicted so that he made sure he was following the DOj guidelines. I’m almost sure that it was reportedly widely (after the fact) that Libby was given a target letter the Friday morning before he was indicted. Help me out, does anyone else have information on this, because I think that a target letter spelling out the charges that Fitz is about to hit him with makes a lot more sense that an indictment in hand.
Also, does can the grand jury only meet on Wednesday and Fridays or can he request a Monday meeting because otherwise why give a 24 hour notice on something that can’t happen for three days. Doesn’t make sense to me, so seems like a weakness for truth of JL story.
What is “Jenks Act and Giglio”?
158/Mrs. K8: You’re right. Fitzgerald is the best possible example of someone who internalized the lessons of his Jesuit education. And while his natural integrity (the strength of the righteous) can probably get him through the stresses of these last few (and the upcoming) weeks, I hope that anyone who believes in God, Goddess(es), G_d, Allah, the ultimate positive energy, and anything/anyone else I’m not mentioning would ask their deity to support Fitz and would throw their own positive energy his way. It’s clear that darker forces (and they are legion in Washington) are conjuring up their own Anti-Fitz campaign. So let’s head ‘em off at the pass.
If Rove and Libby get pardoned for perjury, OOJ, can they LATER be brought up on treason without being pardoned? These guys + Cheney are traitors - outing an Iran WMD operative, her cover and her whole ntework - resulting in sedition re US interests. Can they be pardoned by W for lying and then indicted LATER for treason and join Moussawi? Just curious.
Will #206:
So “24 business hours” is supposed to mean 24 consecutive hours beginning @ 8:00 a.m. Monday, right? So Tuesday morning’s the likely time for a Fitz announcement, though it could be later. We’ll all be looking for an announcement by Fitz’s office tomorrow of the presser on Tuesday, if he decides to have one.
Rove got the target letter weeks ago (I’d be willing to bet) — true believers like him don’t give up power (his demotion from policy issues) unless it’s pried from their cold, dead hands. Fitz allowed him to testify a fifth time (as looseheadprop says, killing him with kindness) but that only dug him in deeper, as Fitz knew it would. Over at Luskin’s office, Karl made like he was going to bargain but weaseled around Cheney and Bush during fifteen hours of Fitz’s questions, whereupon Fitz said, no deal, I’m indicting. I think Leopold’s source is the receptionist, who knew what time Fitz got there, what time he left and overheard the conversation as Luskin walked him out: “How much time have we got?” “24 hours.”
al-Scooter, Tuesday or beyond … there’s still a spirited debate at DailyKos about Leopold’s credentials. It never made sense to me that “24 business hours” would equal 3 business days. Will Pitt’s explanation of the editing points to why it was written that way - they added “business” after a lot of people got twitchy on “24 hours”, which would have been today.
Just to join the hilarity–
ugh at 70: Good pernt. (Because I’ve been saying for years that W’s motivation was always to Oedipally “kill” dad, not “avenge” him.)
All: what do you think the fallout will be if/when W pardons all miscreants? Rioting in the streets? Ironic shrugs? Seriously–will he get away with it, and what does NOT getting away with it mean?
And yes, as I said to the wife this morning: It’s starting to feel very Watergate-y.
Here’s my theory regarding pardons. Bush can’t do it before November because he doesn’t know if he will have control of Congress. Apparently, a pardon can only be retrospective (so to speak) and cannot be applicable to future actions. I think it was Christy or Jane (apologies if I’m wrong) who argued in a thread this week, that if Bush pardons them now that they can no longer plead the fifth and that if subpoened before Congress they would have to tesitfy and testify truthfully about the whole matter including the Pres and Vice Pres roles or Fitz could hit them with another perjury charge. So I think that Bush would be taking a huge risk by not waiting to see what kind of Congress he’s looking at.
What is “Jenks Act and Giglio�
“There are a number of times that the terms “Brady,” “Giglio” and “Jencks” are brought up in the context of discovery. All are different issues — dealing with either case law or actual law passed by Congress, which deals with when and how certain materials are to be given to the defendant. Suffice it to say that some material (Brady) is given to the defendant prior to trial to assis in the preparation of a defense, some material (Giglio and Jencks) is held back for impeachment purposes, and given over only when such material becomes relevent during trial.”
http://www.firedoglake.com/200.....e-part-ii/
john in sacramento, if you’re still here, the weight of authority says no, but the question is not settled. It divided the Jaworski office, and Jaworski decided just to name Nixon an unidicted co-conspirator. Even that was litigated, but it didn’t reach the Supreme Court. I suspect a good prosecutor would prefer not to be bogged down in the certain litigation an attempt to indict a sitting President would cause, particularly since there is no question (or not much) that that President could be indicted the minute he leaves office (which is why Ford pardoned Nixon.) If you go back a few threads, you’ll find a longer colloquy on the issue — yesterday, I think, but time flies when you’re having fun.
Maratha Klein — They have to do with pre-trial discovery. I think looseheadprop defined them in her post yesterday, for the benefit of those of us — and we are legion — who don’t do criminal law.
Will #214:
Of course! I had it stuck in my head that the phraseology was Fitz’s, but Pitt mentioned the editing right off,and that explains the (IMO) inaccurate usage of the term “business hours”.
Still, it’s comforting that “…a dozen eyes looked at this…”, etc. Probably means there were several folks pulling all-nighters working on this story, and I know how cognitively-impaired one can get by the next morning. So the mechanics of truthout’s reporting are making more sense now.
Choochmac @ 208
A target does not lay out the charges in an indictement. A target letter is a warning to a person who has requested to testify before the grand jury that their testiminy will not be immunized and that they are a possible target for indictment.
It’s kinda like a Mirands warning, ytou know, what ever you say can and will be used against you and we have already got an idea about how we’re gonna use it.
If you go to the DOJ website and click on the link for the US Attorney’s Manual, you can read about target letters. They are recommende not required.
Also, maybe I missed it, but I don’t remember seeing any reliable report that Libby got a target letter.
Kahn @209
Jenks Act (a/k/a 3500) materail and Giglio material are discovery that the prosecution gives to the defense
Mr Heads says:
May 14th, 2006 at 4:31 pm
That’s an interesting one. I think that PJF could (and I hope he does) hold back some charges until after January of 2009. Bush’s pardon power would be gone then, and assuming that there would be no statute of limitations problem (conspiracy statutory period doesn’t start til conspiracy ends) everybody’s fair game and vulnerable.
I just can’t imagine a pre-emptive pardon for the intentional betrayl of a CIA undercover agent. He’d have to move to Bolivia.
IMO, GWB can only play the pardon card once. I don’t see him as a good enough poker player to know when to do it.
looseheadprop
Thanks for the info, makes things a little clearer for me.
Just to review some bidding on pardons we’ve touched on the last time we thought Fitzmas had arrived:
Presidential pardons are NOT likely and it has little to do with PR or electoral considerations ( though those are considerable, at least until after November ‘08).
If Rove or Libby were pardoned, they would lose important 5th Amendment protections agains self-incrimination. If a Congressional investigation or court asked them “who gave the orders”, for example, they would have to tell the truth. Lying again wouldn’t be a good idea, because they would have to commit ANOTHER crime of perjury with a new President on the way. There is not an upside to either the WH or them in this.
PLUS, the plenary powers to pardon have one exception–cases of impeachment. So if Libby or Rove’s crimes were related to an impeachment inquiry, it is not likely that a pardon of crimes related to that impeachment would stand up to judicial review.
In other words, if Chimp pardons anyone preemptively before the 2006 elections it is political assurance he will have an investigating Congress the next two years…If he waits until after the 2006 elections, impeachment proceedings may negate any pardon anyway.
In either event, a pardoned Rove, Libby or anyone other than the POTUS or VPOTUS, would be compelled to testify as to the involvement of the higher-ups. And THAT, would provide not only wonderful political fodder, but plenty of ammo for impeachment, indictment (of the VPOTUS) and civil suits by the Wilsons against both.
So be of good cheer, FDLers. Fitzmas will not be Screweged by pardons.
IMHO.
choochmach–
We were on the same wavelength on pardons. You just said it more pithily and quicker.
Jeez. 24 hours is 24 hours…a full day. If Fitz had meant four eight-hour business days, he would have said something like: I’ll give you four days to get your affairs in order….or four business days. But I seriously doubt Fitz meant to give Rove four days, if he actually said, ‘24 hours’?!
I know we want to be prepared for more disappointment and delay since that’s the name of the game for anything resembling justice regarding the current administration, but second guessing what 24 hours means is showing a bit of (understandable) impatience, imo.
@ 220
Many typos, I am SOOOO bad.
But it’s Miranda not Mirands.
I should not be allowed near a keyboard w/o a keeper.
WW in 3 minutes here in NY.
oops. 24 hours is three business days, but I still say he meant one full day.
al-Scooter #219: Yes, it was just a badly worded amendment it seems (I imagine they wanted to change the original text as little as possible, inserting “business”, and probably didn’t imagine it would lead to much debate).
I think the editing/sourcing issue is somewhat revealing about the importance of the story to Truth Out/Leopold (whatever people say about his past record), but there is still a lot of mystery there. I don’t have a position, but it seems that Leopold (unlike Murray Waas) is quite a polarizing figure among the Plame-addicted.
al-Scooter @207–
Re the books being published: there are not currently extent on planet Earth enough trees to provide the paper. Just for masochistic fun I jotted down a W’s Greatest Hits list yesterday of the disasters ethical, moral, social, and military, and hit 24 before I had to stop and think–each of which will generate three or four good books and two or three bad ones. You can hear the entire profession of historians reaching for the steroids…
What bothers me about the Leopold report from truthout (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051306W.shtml/ may be the latest) is his claim that Fitz indicted Rove, in some sense, but didn’t report it to the media - huh? It doesn’t scan, much as I want to believe it.
BarbaraB at 218
Did you click?
I agree with what you said (even though I think there’s a special place in Dante’s Inferno waiting for them) which is why I ended with “Impeachment then Conviction!”
This may be a EPU’ed thread, but it is okay, I am “ecoasting” myself, that is, knowingly use a semi-dead thread to write a comment. At this point, no more controversies or discussion points. It is all settled (settled law?).
But still a few observations.
1. That 15 hour thing is Thurs/Fri, when Fitz and Luskin may be going back and forth on phone
and probably email. While that was full-time for Luskin (all billable in gold bars), Fitz was interleaving and multi-tasking with all his other stuff. But to close the deal, he went to Patton Boggs at 11:30AM Fri and spent the rest of the day there with final discussions. This accounts for the 15 hour and 5 hours thing. That 5-hour thing was the actual face time between Lusking and Fitz on Fri PM, but the 15 hours thing was the ongoing discussion on Thurs/Fri.
2. That 24 business hour thing was an awkward phrasing from Leopold. What must have happened was that his source said it that way, and Leopold had no way of getting back to that source for clarification. Fitz must have said something to the effect that your client has 24 hours to clean up his stuff, not counting the weekend. Because when business/Govt people say tomorrow (I say it all the time), they
mean the next business day in a business context. What Leopold should have written was: 24 hours (presumably not counting the weekend)
or something like that.
3. Rove did not take the deal that Fitz offered. Fitz wanted jail time (I am glad Fitz was taking my advice), but Rove would have none of that. He will stonewall and take pardon instead. At that point, Fitz said - you have 24 hours.
4. So the question is: Did Fitz already hav the indictment in his pocket, or does he have to go to the GJ on Wed? I think the answer is both - or yes to first and conditional yes to second. He would never say “you have 24 hours” unless he has the indcitment in hand.
He probably got the indictment on Fri AM
and went to the judge and said - Judge, I have the indictment, but these guys still want to talk. I want to give them one more chance and if something comes of it, I will go back to GJ on Wed to change the indictment. Otherwise, we will go with what we have. Judge must have said Okay. Remember, Fitz has excellent relationship with all his judges (remember Judge Hogan and appeals court judges in Miller/Coper case); so he keeps them informed on everything.
5. The question is: will Fitz give you or me 5 hours of his time, if there was already an indictment. Surely, he will not. He is showing this courtesy to Rove, because of his politcal position. No one can say Fitz railroaded Rove. But then on the other hand, for you or me, if we were caught in that situation as a low level person, he would indict us. He would say - Okay, you made a mistake. But tell me everything, I mean everything, you did. I will use you a witness if I need.
In summary, Fitz will announce this week Rove’s indictment and Leopold has the general contours of the story right.
Read the whole thread. Thanks xyz for your reviewand explanations. Cheers.
Watching WW and reading FDL on the side — my cup runneth over. One small point on pardons — I don’t do Con Law, but I’m pretty sure the “except in cases of impeachment” clause means that the President cannot pardon someone being impeached for the “high crimes and misdemeanors” that form the basis of the impeachment, and thereby prevent conviction and removal from office. That doesn’t mean he cannot pardon Libby, who has resigned, or Rove, who will resign if indicted; they would no longer be subject to their own impeachment proceedings.
The fact that he would be crazy to do so, given that they would then lose their 5th Amendment privileges, is another matter. Of course, IMHO Bush is crazy, but his lawyers aren’t. Not gonna happen until Bush is on his way out the door, and maybe not then.
And now, back to WW. Any bets on whether Toby will get that pardon?
I remember this post from last night and how much I enjoyed reading it. It’s the kind of thing that keeps me going through these long comment threads. I do have one question, then and now: Is “Not only that, he may well disagree that the criminalization of policy disputes is a slippery slope that the nation cannot afford to go down” a typo for “he may well *agree* that the criminalization of policy disputes…”?
ecoast - See my comments at #119 and #135 for a rough transcript of how he dealt with your observation #2 on the radio this morning.
John in Sac’to — Sorry, I didn’t realize that was a link. I am such a technoklutz that if it isn’t in a different color, I don’t recognize it. It’s not easy being old (if incredibly well-preserved.) There are days when I’m amazed I ever learned to use a mouse. You’re so right about the Inferno!
Yes, it should have been “agree” not “disagree”.
The sentence start out as “may not disagree”
I was editing the senteence after it and accidently erased part of that sentence and evidently didn’t put it all back.
When I write, my thoughts come very fast, you should here me talk–like a hummingbird. Even though i type really really fast, I have zero accuracy. And I can’t proof read worth spit and usually my attampts at editing make things worse. As they did in this case.
Thanks for the answer, Looseheadprop.
I wouldn’t worry about the occasional typo. Your writing is excellent.
http://tinyurl.com/a6erq
^^^ HELP IMPEACH TODAY
Keep the pressure on Congress… Talking about impeachment wakes people up… They question, it’s a strong motivator to get people thinking. It also lets Congress know how intense the dissapproval is for this President… They seem to be a little slow on the uptake. So please:
1) Sign petitions if you have not done so
2) Send a letter to Congress (both Senators & House rep)
3) Send a copy to the media
4) Enlist friends and family to help, ask them to chip in time
5) Spread the link around, email it (with a request to forward) post it on a blog, or in the comments of a news story.
Help out!!!
Thanks :)
lhp - applause.
I am repeating myself here some, but a few new things too. On the 24 hours v. 24 business hours, that would have to be three business days – very odd way to phrase it though (why not say the more typical 3 bus days?). It seems awfully odd that no one has confirmation of Fitzgerald and Luskin meeting too?
Hope the story is for real – the 15 hours is actually the easiest part for me to buy – if it involved trying to do a one-last-shot-deal. In addition to courtesy, I can see giving Rove a little extra “get it together†time if I were maybe mulling conspiracy charges and wanting to, oh, say, see if there were any unusual contacts over the few days after Rove finds out he’s getting papered. ????
I do tend to think pardons are going to be on the table right after the 2006 elections, even if Rove is indicted. The thing about Rove, Scooter, Cheney, Hadley or whoever else, is this: they likely know about other scandals/criminal activities and they are part of the core who can tie things directly to the President. Bush has, except for Fitzgerald taking the NIE releases to him, ducked any direct ties to the scandals. Each of those guys potentially could cause tremendous damage to the President, if not on Plame, on other fronts.
For example, re: Black being removed as acting USAtty in Guam and ordered not to investigate Abramoff or corruption/fraud. There have already been reports that Rove might be involved somehow. But how do you get a new USAtty? Rove can’t do that – he has to go to the President and have him nominate someone on an expedited basis. If, for example, Bush knows Rove could trackback Black’s removal/replacement right to the Oval Office and the President, do you think Bush would let him twist over a perjury/obstruction charge in Plame and just hope he never wants to deal on the other scandals?
????????
Sadly, nationalreviewonline (HREF=”link”>http://corner.nationalreview.com/)has an exchange between Byron York and Rove lawyers, with telling “No” answers to pertinent questions. Unless the lawyers are liars, the Leopold story looks real shaky (do some digging on Leopold and you get reasons for doubt.) If Leopold blows this one, many of us are going to be really pissed about our roller-coaster disappointment!
Mary — You could be entirely right. Guam, the N. Marianas — no place was too remote for the Abramoff tentacles. On the other hand, even I — second to none in my loathing for Bush — would believe that someone could slip an extra page in to a bunch presented for his signature without his noticing. Or that someone told him they had a sudden vacancy in an office and it was important to fill it right away, so sign here, please. Rove has to have better stuff than that on the Chimpster. Stuff he could be forced to testify to, as a witness, if someone like a Congressional committee or an AUSA somewhere — not necessarily Fitz — wants him to.
In a way, though, I hope you’re right. It is going to be very hard for the Republicans to find someone to run in ‘08 who hasn’t had a picture taken with Bush. Without pardons, a Republican candidate might get away with saying Bush’s heart was in the right place, but the people around him just weren’t very good managers. The old “pure heart-empty head” defense. With pardons, the Democratic campaign ads would write themselves. Something along the lines of restoring honor and integrity to the White House…
Love your comments, and always look for them, by the way. It’s a pleasure to watch your mind at work.
Emptywheel,
Leopold did not “clarify” the meaning of the 15 hours. If anything, he corrected it. He wrote very clearly in the original story that Fitz was in Luskin’s office for 15 hours. If he now says that isn’t the case, he has changed his story, not clarified it.
Neil –
I am concerned that Rove is trying to spike the story of his possible indictment by luring media elements (including non-MSM) into predicting his imminent indictment, only to see it not happen. After a few of those, anyone predicting indictment will be accused of crying “wolf”. While it may be very likely Rove will be indicted sometime in the next year, it is very useful for him to kill the story until it actually happens, especially with 2006 elections less than six months away. Remember how the Bush AWOL story got killed in the MSM–the story of the faked memos killed off the fact that Bush quit four years into a six year term of service.
Having read Leopold’s “News Junkie,” and therefore being apprised of his therein self-described faults, falsehoods, and felonies, I pose to others: can he, can we, be the beneficiaries of a John Dean-like, (even a Dean-wannabe), figure in this cabalist quagmire? Pondering the imponderable, but is not that where we are?
On Will, Jason and the Dozen Eyes:
>Still, it’s comforting that “…a dozen eyes looked at this…â€, etc.
Will Pitt has now posted a ‘clarification.’ When he said a dozen eyes had looked at the Leopold piece, he now says that he meant a baker’s dozen.
Ooops. That has now been re-corrected. It was pointed out to Will that a Baker’s dozen would yield an odd number of eyes. He and Jason then caucused (for something less than 15 hours but more than half a day) and came back with different answers, Jason insisting that a one-eyed man had been among the proofers, while Will described the process of editing by a committee of 13, each of whom edited one sentence in the piece while covering one eye, so as not to spoil the confidentiality of the sources whose names were only half-hinted at.
When we pointed out to Will that a baker’s dozen was 11, not 13, his disarming smile and response “maybe with the baker’s you know”, was unconvincing. Jason suggested that they had meant Dusty Baker’s dozen, referring to an old custom among African American who play “the dozens”, or pass insults against each other. Justin insisted that the process of editing had seemed to him like a mere passing of personal insults against him.
This still left us somewhat in the dark, since it was hard to see how this new understanding of the dozen eyes could help give us confidence in the article they had all scanned.
At this point, Will began doing riffs on the words “dozen” and “doesn’t”, saying things like - “does Jason make up fax? No he dozen.” Leopold took umbrage at this line of conversation, and began to talk about the issues of literacy and numeracy, insisting he had never been good with numbers anyway, and this was one source of the confusion in “24 business hours” and the “15 hour” negotiation. He also began referring to the “24 business hours” as “two dozen business hours, and it was only when he added, “give or take a few” that we began to worry.
Finally, we asked Will for the names of the editors, thinking this might clarify some of the confusion. Will said he would only name the editors if it turned out the sentences they had looked at included grammatical misusages. When I raised an eyebrow at Roberta, Will added a coda - that he no longer considered “business hours” a grammatical error, since it has come to his attention that Fitzgerald uses the term business hours to mean the hours of the Starbucks at 15th and K. This particular Starbucks has a back room that is only open for reading and sipping weekdays from 5 pm to 9 pm, so the meaning of 24 business hours is clearly 6 business days. Leopold nodded, saying he had thought all along that the indictments would be announced on Memorial Day, probably inside the oval track of the Indy 500.
Still, we were no closer to the truth, or the truth was no closer to out, or something. But we were hungry, having now discussed this for many business hours, so we adjourned to the Starbucks, and clarity set in.
Mel (#82),
I always read the “About” page on anyone’s links. Yours leads me to Little Green Footballs and Powerline. Nuff said.
al-Scooter:
I read the 15 hours and had a hard time with it. I was wondering if it wasn’t a typo? Also, someone mentioned that Jason got “24 Hours” from the receptionist. During highly confidential bargaining, why would anyone keep a receptionist until 2:30 in the morning? Isn’t that asking for the info to leak out? Wouldn’t it be more likely to have someone deliver sandwiches and roll all the phones to voice mail? Even if the meeting goes on longer and you need more food/coffee–wouldn’t you just order delivery?
Barbara B: I’m not so certain that resignation precludes a pardon. I believe one of Lincoln’s cabinet faced this question.
Ah, Ken Starr. Gone but not lamented. And where is he gone to? Why, right here in Alaska. Seems a kid wanted to get on national TV and so he paraded around with a sign that said Bong Hits for Jesus. (Personally, I have absolutely no idea what this means.)
Anyway, though his actions were off school grounds and in no way related to or disruptive of school activity, the principal wanted him suspended. Well, that whole freedom of speech and first ammendment thing got in the way, according to the trial courts. Enter Ken Starr, to take the appeal.
I shit you not.
Visit the Schapira Blog, What we know so far …
… and tell ‘em Big Mitch sent ya!
David Shuster last week on Hardball reported that it’s a fairly sure thing among the D.C.’ers that Rove will be indicted because anyone mentioned in the past as “Subject A”? in Fitz litigations, has always been indicted.
Rove is referred to in the Libby case as “Subject A”? says Schuster
The news agencies must be sitting on their hands to avoid any embarrassment. I think it’s happening ;o}}