Oct 28 2005
Well, we have now to only wait and see if the NY Times has finally learned to report leaks accurately…
My post on the news which broke late last night is below. Needless to say I am not keen on what might be about to happen to our justice system. We appear to be getting the ham sandwich indictment I prayed would not be coming.
Mark Levin of the Corner feels about the same way [hat tip Real Clear Politics].
The Washington Post article out today in preparation for the news is here:
The White House, District Court officials and two potential targets of the CIA leak investigation were making preparations yesterday for the possible announcement of indictments by Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald today, according to several sources familiar with the investigation.
Two sources said I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Vice President Cheney’s chief of staff, was shopping for a white-collar criminal lawyer amid expectations of those close to the case that he might be indicted for providing false statements or other charges.
At the same time, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove began assembling a public relations team in the event that he is indicted.
Two sources said Libby was searching for a criminal defense attorney, an effort that could be nothing more than a precaution or preparations for what might lie ahead, according to one person close to him.
That’s a lot different from the NY Times’ assertion Libby was pretty much going to be indicted. Then there was this:
Even if the outcome is not as bad as some expect, two administration aides said they are prepared for months of attacks over the leak of Plame’s name and the broader justification for the Iraq war.
Which leads me to believe the discussions were more likely about a range of outcomes – not predicting one. There is also this:
It was unclear yesterday whether Fitzgerald had issued formal letters notifying anyone that he or she was a target of the investigation. However, that step might not be necessary for Libby or Rove, who previously have been warned verbally that they face possible legal jeopardy.
That implies maybe no indictments? If Fitzgerald is such a stickler for detail and process, why would he not send out letters?
And these reporters are getting facts wrong right and left. Tom Maguire will catch the constant mistatement about Tim Russert’s very focused denial. And then you have this:
Libby has testified that he did not identify Plame by name to reporters or discuss her covert status with them. But New York Times reporter Judith Miller has testified that she believed she first learned of Plame’s CIA job from Libby, when the two spoke on June 23, 2003.
Actually, Judith Miller’s testimony appears to have said Libby never mentioned Wilson – just a ‘clandestine guy’. And her notes says this clandestine guy’s wife works at ‘the bureau’. What is missing is the fact that Miller knew it was Wilson going in, so she knew who Libby was alluding to anonymously, which is why his name is in her notes. I hate sloppy reporting.