Libby And Rove - Check The Markets

At Tradesports, contracts are available which let you wager whether Rove or Libby will be indicted by Dec 31, 2005.  Although I cannot find the contract specifications, I assume a plea bargain counts as an indictment.

Currently, Libby is at a 66% probability of indictment; Rove is at 60%.

I don't expect we will need to wait until December 31.  This week should tell the story.

Part of the case against Karl Rove may involve his talk with Matt Cooper.  From TIME:

Special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald appears to be seriously weighing a perjury charge for Rove's failure to tell grand jurors that he talked to TIME correspondent Matthew Cooper about Plame, according to a person close to Rove. Rove corrected himself in a later grand jury session. If charged with perjury, he will maintain he simply didn't recall the conversation with Cooper and told Fitzgerald as soon as he did.

And from Dan Froomkin:

...a variety of leaked reports suggest that Rove initially told the grand jury that he had never talked to Cooper about Plame...

I would re-phrase Mr. Froomkin's version slightly - I am familiar with leaked reports that suggest that the subject of Matt Cooper was never discussed in Rove's early testimony.  Rove may have given a hedged denial that he did not speak to other reporters, but Cooper's name seems to have been introduced by Rove only after the e-mail from Rove to Hadley was discovered in response to a second subpoena in January 2004. 

That strikes me as important because "I never spoke to Matt Cooper; oh, now I remember, yes I did" seems a lot less plausible as a simple failure of memory than "I never spoke to other reporters; oh, now I remember, I spoke to Matt Cooper".

From Mike Isikoff:

But after [Rove] testified, Luskin discovered an e-mail Rove had sent that same day—July 11—alerting deputy national-security adviser Stephen Hadley that he had just talked to Cooper, the lawyer says. In the e-mail, Rove said Cooper pushed him on whether the president was being hurt by the Niger controversy. "I didn't take the bait," Rove wrote Hadley, adding that he warned Cooper not to get "far out in front on this." After reviewing the e-mail, Rove then returned to the grand jury last year and reported the Cooper conversation.

The Anonymous Liberal has a detailed explanation of how this might have happened.  A plausible, innocent explanation is good for Karl.
 

UPDATE:  The WaPo has a long piece focusing on Cheney's office.   

Howard Kurtz, apparently seriously, tells us that passion in the Judy Miller debacle leak case is fueled by the war in Iraq.  Do tell.  Or am I missing his joke?

BONUS SPECULATION: Fitzgerald may be interested in hitting Rove with a perjury charge because perjury/obstruction is his best case against Libby.  An indictment of one perjuring aide may be viewed as one nit-picking prosecutor; two are a pattern of deception and non-cooperation.

UPDATE 2:  Murray Waas has a long National Journal article detailing Libby's possible problems with perjury and obstruction.  The non-barking dog - at this late date, shouldn't Mr. Waas' sources be dishing on conspiracies, Dick Cheney, and the Espionage Act?  Start making the t-shirt: "I Followed This Case For Two Years, And All I Got Was A Lousy Perjury Indictment".

WINPAC vs. DO: Did Libby (or someone) give Judy the wrong scoop when she wrote "Wife at WINPAC"?  TalkLeft says ignore; Billmon thinks that comes from the INR memo, if only by implication; the Anon Lib links it to Fred Fleitz, who worked for both Bolton and WINPAC.  Well, maybe "Fred Fleitz knew her at WINPAC" became "She works at WINPAC".  Or maybe she did work at WINPAC.

SIDEBAR:  Regarding related speculation about Ms. Miller and Libby, a Legal Eagle might want to connect this, from the United States Attorney Manual:

9-11.121 Venue Limitations

A case should not be presented to a grand jury in a district unless venue for the offense lies in that district.

with this old post, which criticized an argument recently revived here.  Just saying.

EXTENDING THE SIDEBAR:  My goodness - Judy can be a witness that helps Fitzgerald win a case.  These two have a complicated relationship - she tipped off suspects in his Islamic Charities case; she will be critical to a prosecution of Libby on perjury or obstruction; and she can salvage the confessions in the Muhammad Salah case.  Does this happen often, or have these two found something special?

Comments

[BurbankErnie]

So explain your conclusion to me like I am a six year old.

Are you saying here that Rove/Libby/someone in the Bush WH is going to cop a plea?? By Wednesday? In DC? Or am I reading your maze of links incorrectly?

GAK!

[windansea]

hmmmmm should I take a massive short position??

[Syl]

Well, we already knew (well, been told) that Fitz told Judy she's off the hook. I never thought Judy had to worry about that old stuff during this case, except to have to face someone who doesn't like her very much.

[Keith]

The idea that Rove might be charged with perjury for failing to tell about Cooper seems unlikely, at least to me, if it was Rove himself (or his lawyer) who first told Fitz about Cooper after they found the email. And that is what we have heard happened--Rove said he didn't talk to anyone else, found the email, and then immediately alerted Fitz.

It is perjury when you make a mistake and correct it yourself as soon as you find out? Especially if that mistake is entirely plausible (like forgetting a 2 minute conversation on a Friday afternoon several months ago would be)?

[Mikey]

Problem is this is all based on speculation (Fitzgerald appears ready to indict) and not any actual information.

We're just gonna have to wait and see.

[Cecil Turner]

Especially if that mistake is entirely plausible (like forgetting a 2 minute conversation on a Friday afternoon several months ago would be)?

Especially if internal e-mail shows Rove's version of the conversation is more plausible than Cooper's? Is this is all there is? I'm having a hard time believing it. And if so, what's the propriety in Fitz grilling him for four hours without warning him he's a target?

It also seems to me any useful information at Tradesports would be the result of insider trading. Anybody know which way Novak's betting? (And his testimony still hasn't leaked? Inconceivable!)

[Newby]

You forget a two minute conversation where you were discussing the very subject of the grand jury investigation?

And then your lawyer finds the e-mail which contradicts your earlier story-a lawyer who has an obligation not to suborn perjury?

And as Mikey says-this is just on what's out there-which I have to assume is the tip of the traitorberg.

I thought conservatives were tough on crime. You wussies.

And who knows what else is in those emails

[Jerkweed]

Oh come on-there's 8 pages of redacted material just in the Appeals Court opinion itself. And you think the whole thing is premised on a 4 line e-mail?

Everything you know you've learned from defense attorneys. Get a grip people.

[Jerkweed]

"Anybody know which way Novak's betting?"

Yes. He bet his sorry ass would be better served by cooperating with Fitzgerald. Ought to tell you something.

[Kmind]

This whole thing is a confusing mess.

The one certainty for me is that if people want to get you for anything they can find something.

The media will no doubt run with even the littlest thing as if Rove or Libby or whoever has been charged with the ultimate crime to humanity.

Then three weeks from now the story will be dead, maybe Rove will be back in Texas, but, alas, polls will still show people will vote for Republicans and the media will turn to Delay in preparation for the Ken Lay story.

[Appalled Moderate]

If all we get out of this is a couple of indictments of Libby and Rove for perjury and obstruction, color me not impressed. I think jerkweed has a point -- there has to be more here. (And, with respect to Libby, if he did not disclose that June 23 meeting, I think he merits indictment.)

And, if we end up with the original source for Novak revealed but not indicted, but the supporting case doin' the frog march -- I wonder how that will play...

[Cecil Turner]

Everything you know you've learned from defense attorneys. Get a grip people.

A rare point of agreement, CD. This might be wishful thinking on the part of "a person close to Rove." Or there might be nothing. But it doesn't tell us much.

[Keith]

You forget a two minute conversation where you were discussing the very subject of the grand jury investigation?

Yes, if (a) you had no idea at the time that the conversation was important at all; (b) you talk to dozens of reporters every week and have for years (we're talking about hundreds of conversations); (c) you are incredibly busy with details flying around all the time; (d) you had no specific logs of the conversation because it was patched through the main White House line.

Add to this the fact that it was Rove himself who, when he found out, informed Fitz, then Rove's story seems quite likely and his motives seems quite honest. And, he had four hours to clear up any misunderstanding on Friday.

The eight pages of redacted material? For all we know, it has to do with a CIA plot to set up the White House. Who says it had anything to do with Rove at all?

[Jimmy The Freak]

Who cares which way Novak bet on Tradesport's? I want to know which way Fitz's housekeeper bet.

[TexasToast]

I think jerkweed has a point -- there has to be more here.

I agree - but less, much less, led to the impeachment of a president. These guys have been wielding hot pokers for years - looks like they grabbed the wrong end this time.

[kim]

I like your image, TT. Is it the CIA that has been wielding hot pokers for years? I can tell you that MSM is licking it's fingers today.

I'm reminded of an ancient method of determining justice. The suspect had hot metal placed on his(More men criminals than women) tongue and if it burned he was guilty. The rational makes perfect physiologic sense. The innocent, sure in his innocence, will continue to salivate; the dry-mouthed guilty one's tongue confesses.
==================================================

[kim]

rationale. Gad, I also almost wrote it's for its.
===================================================

[Jon H]

"Yes, if (a) you had no idea at the time that the conversation was important at all;"

Except that, soon after, it would have become clear to Rove that it was important. As soon as the poop hit the fan, when the media figured out that a covert agent had been outed, Rove would have been thinking back about who he'd talked about her to in the press in the prior weeks.

You're looking at days, not months, after which Rove would have been recalling the phone call.

[Geek, Esq.]

Good news and bad news for the Bush admin.

Good news: Scooter gave incorrect information Plame's CIA division. That bolsters the theory that he came to know about her status through dinner parties and that the Bush administration played an internal game of telephone with the information. Not conclusive, but helpful.

Bad news: "They have got a senior cooperating witness - someone who is giving them all of that," a source who has been questioned in the leak probe told the Daily News yesterday.

More from the Daily News:

WASHINGTON - A special prosecutor's intensifying focus into who outed a CIA spy has raised questions whether Vice President Cheney himself is involved, knowledgeable sources confirmed yesterday.
At least one source and one reporter who have testified in the probe said U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald is pursuing Cheney's role in the Valerie Plame affair.

In addition, at least six current and former Cheney staffers - most members of the White House Iraq Group - have testified before the grand jury, including the vice president's top honcho, Lewis (Scooter) Libby, and two top Cheney national security lieutenants.

Cheney's name has come up amid indications Fitzgerald may be edging closer to a blockbuster conspiracy charge - with help from a secret snitch.

[Creepy Dude]

An excellent point TexasToast. Here are the two articles of impeachment passed by the House on December 19, 1998:

"1. The president provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury regarding the Paula Jones case and his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

3. The president obstructed justice in an effort to delay, impede, cover up and conceal the existence of evidence related to the Jones case."

(Articles 2 and 4 failed to pass).

Now if that was enough to impeach a President (and I agreed it was btw)-why isn't it good enough for two aids to get indicted?

[Jimmy The Freak]

Too bad the source for the Media (including the Daily News article) on today's story was the DNC:

"Evidence is building that the probe conducted by Patrick Fitzgerald, special prosecutor, has extended beyond the leaking of a covert CIA agent's name to include questioning about the administration's handling of pre-Iraq war intelligence.

According to the Democratic National Committee, a majority of the nine members of the White House Iraq Group have been questioned by Mr Fitzgerald. "

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/ff92e968-3f4b-11da-932f-00000e2511c8.html

[Cecil Turner]

That bolsters the theory that he came to know about her status through dinner parties and that the Bush administration played an internal game of telephone with the information. Not conclusive, but helpful.

Not sure the initial source matters all that much. The leaker knowing it was classified is the critical piece of information. "Internal game of telephone" is nicely put.

Cheney's name has come up amid indications Fitzgerald may be edging closer to a blockbuster conspiracy charge - with help from a secret snitch.

The problem with the "conspiracy to discredit" theory is that Wilson was in fact lying. (And the leaked information was pertinent.) If the goal was to set the record straight, there's no "there" there.

[boris]

The problem with the "conspiracy to discredit" theory is that Wilson was in fact lying. (And the leaked information was pertinent.) If the goal was to set the record straight, there's no "there" there.

Which in turn depends on which side of the parallax illusion Fitz is on. If the Wilsons are intrepid whistleblowers instead of subversive schemers, then the ride could get bumpy.

[kim]

This has become titanic, and I'm getting tetanic.
=================================================

[kim]

I see clash of titans rather than parallax illusion. The truth is the razor, and very little seems to lie with Joe.
===========================================

[cathyf]

Cheney's name has come up amid indications Fitzgerald may be edging closer to a blockbuster conspiracy charge - with help from a secret snitch.

The problem with the "conspiracy to discredit" theory is that Wilson was in fact lying. (And the leaked information was pertinent.) If the goal was to set the record straight, there's no "there" there.

Doesn't matter. Even if it was a "conspiracy to accurately report the facts" it's still illegal if the facts are classified.

The leaker knowing it was classified is the critical piece of information.

This is still the money question. Maybe they chose to push back on Wilson's "Cheney sent me" lie precisely because they "knew" that Mrs. Wilson was not covert and so this was the way they could push back without revealing classified info.

cathy :-)

[Geek, Esq.]

The problem with the "conspiracy to discredit" theory is that Wilson was in fact lying. (And the leaked information was pertinent.) If the goal was to set the record straight, there's no "there" there.

The motive for the conspiracy is irrelevant. What's relevant is the means they intended to employ in order to realize that end.

For example: Five guys gathering to conspire on a way to raise money for someone's medical procedure isn't illegal. Five guys gathering to conspire to set up a Ponzi scheme to finance someone's medical procedure is illegal.

If they conspired to "push back"/set the record straight by using illegal means, then they've all committed a crime.

[boris]

The dire predictions and leaks suggests that Fitz is letting his foreign policy politics color his investigation. If he winds up jumping the shark one can hope it draws a sharp rebuke from the electied official actually in charge of foreign policy and defending the country.

Even if it was a "conspiracy to accurately report the facts" it's still illegal if the facts are classified.

I would consider this to be jumping the shark.

[JayDee]

One of my favorite points, Creepy Dude, and EJ Dionne makes it more cogently in today's WaPo ed Rule of Law? That's so 90'2

I think they'll understand my surprise and wonder over this new conservative concern for the criminalization of politics. A process that was about "the rule of law" when Democrats were in power is suddenly an outrage now that it's Republicans who are being held accountable.

But it's fun to watch them whine.

And what's the speculation on who the inside snitch is? Best bet is Ari. Dark horse? How about Pigboy Rove himself?

[Cecil Turner]

If they conspired to "push back"/set the record straight by using illegal means, then they've all committed a crime. [emphasis added]

Which gets us back to proving the means were illegal. And in this particular case, that means proving they knew Plame was covert. Which, as you pointed out above, is looking increasingly unlikely (on the basis of admittedly incomplete information).

[kim]

I think this is just Fitz convincing himself of the unindictability(read innocence) of the White House officials. Time, and time again, the expectations given us by the MSM have foundered with analysis of Fitz's tactics. Who's been reluctant to talk? Well, besides the press? I mean as reporters not spin doctors. We've certainly heard the chanting and the drumming of the which doctors.
=========================================

[drjohnk]

He said-he said is not a good case to take to trial, but I am still wondering why this is really procedding since 1. Wilson himself identified Plame as his wife in May 2003, and 2. she had not been covert since 1994, acccording to factcheck.org. So there was no crime to begin with.

[Wolfman]

What has caught my attention is that Libby openly talked about the facts that Wilson's wife promoted her husband for the Niger trip and that she worked at the CIA. That is inconsistent with public claims that he wasn't involved with outing Plame except in the limited sense - if true - that the reporters he talked to already knew.

[kim]

I got it. It explains why the Purloined Letter has come to mind several times in the last few weeks. Where do you hide a covert(still) agent? In plain sight, as an outed ex-spy, now in an analytical position.
=========================================

[Jeff]

boris - I haven't checked carefully yet: have you adopted your new talking points yet? That is, Libby should get off because he said Plame worked for Winpac when in fact she was undercover at the Directorate of Operations. Or are you waiting on definitive word from Powerline or the Corner?

Or maybe you now think indictments are coming down and you're setting your sleaze machine on "Fitzgerald."

[Jimmy The Freak]

Which part was classified? "Valarie Flame", "Victoria Wilson" or "WINPAC"?

[kim]

And just why, Jeff, was she still covert? What was she working on? There is an immunity there, similar to the marital immunity.

And Fitz is probably excruciatingly aware of all the immune disease running around.
==============================================

[kim]

What do you bet Porter Goss has had a thing or two to say to Fitz?
=============================================

[pollyusa]

There is some new information in the 10/18/05 WAPO that hasn't been mentioned.

WAPO puts the 6/10/03 INR memo in a meeting at the WH in June 03.

As a former State Department official involved in the process recalled it, Grossman wanted the letter as background for a meeting at the White House,

To clear up any questions as to why this quote says letter instead of memo, the WAPO also has this

The letter to Grossman....It had a paragraph near the beginning, marked "(S)," meaning it was classified secret, describing a meeting at the CIA in February 2002, attended by another INR analyst, where Plame introduced her husband as the person who was to go to Niger...

The article goes on to say that the INR anayist's meeting notes are attached. This describes the known contents of the INR memo.

One more point of interest, a former CIA official reviewed the INR memo in the summer of 2003. maybe at the Senate Hearings?

according to a former intelligence official who reviewed the document in the summer of 2003

[topsecretk9]

windandsea had the most interesting news, the Colin affrimed strongly that plame was not in the memo

and now there are 3 sneakies saying she never worked where the leakers said she did?

[kim]

Was State supposed to know she was covert?
===========================================

[pollyusa]

SusanG at Kos contacted Wilson yesterday and asked him flat out: "Are you a source for Miller? Is she protecting you?" His response:

No. I have only spoken to Miller once in my life and that was on election night 2004 when we were at the same birthday party. She came up and introduced herself. Legitimate question but it was not I
SusanG Kos

[MeTooThen]

BTW,

Father Saddam is going on trial today for mass murder, of his own people.

...

BusHilter!

RovEvil!

Halliburton!

No Blood for Oil!

...

Also, did anyone hear, the Iraqi people have voted on a Constitution?

...

And no, neither Libby or RovEvil will be indicted.

Nope.

Sorry.

Just sayin'

[topsecretk9]

Ask Susan to ask him what Fitzgerapld said a few weeks back.

[cathyf]

Except that, soon after, it would have become clear to Rove that it was important. As soon as the poop hit the fan, when the media figured out that a covert agent had been outed, Rove would have been thinking back about who he'd talked about her to in the press in the prior weeks.

You're looking at days, not months, after which Rove would have been recalling the phone call.

The problem with this is that the language is misleading. "To forget" is a verb, and the phrasing implies that he did something. "To remember" is much more accurate. Remembering is doing something; forgetting is not doing something.

The neurobiology is that short term memory is in one part of the brain, and is recycled every 15 minutes. If your brain decides that the memory is worth keeping, it copies the memory into a different part of the brain which contains long-term memories. If the brain doesn't have some reason to save the memory within the 15 minutes, then it's simply gone. If it doesn't look important important until hours, days, months, years later, then too bad, it's just gone. (And those repressed-memory recovery specialists are charletens.) So every single memory that every person has was forgotten from short-term memory. "To remember" means that you made a copy of the memory in long-term storage before forgetting it. So the assertion that Rove did not remember the conversation is simply the assertion that he did not copy the memory over in the 15 minutes before it got automatically recycled.

The interesting thing is that the existence of the email suggests that Rove expected, because of his lifetime of experience in his brain, that this memory was not going to make it into long-term storage. Everyone else who writes emails about 2 minute conversations does so precisely because he/she realizes that the conversation is not memorable enough for long-term memory and so transfers it to an email or other note because he/she knows that after it's gone from the short-term memory it's going to be gone from the brain entirely.

This really is the fundamental issue in dispute between Wilson on the one side and every other participant on the other side. Wilson claims that his wife's identity was vitally important to everybody and that they were conducting a conspiracy to make it public. Everybody else -- Novak, Rove, Libby, Miller -- claims that they had no idea that Mrs. Wilson's identity was anything other than a triviality. They all have a very consistent story -- that none of them can remember anything about these conversations and they only have their notes. If you argue that this must be a lie because these were vitally important to their illegal conspiracy to disclose classified info, then you are simply assuming your conclusion.

cathy :-)

[AJStrata]

WINDANDSEA,

Tradesport: I would! ;)

But I don't bet or speculate - you can probably guess why.

[pollyusa]

Topsecretk9

I did ask her that exact question and here is her reply. The question I asked was about Fitz's call to Wilson on 9/29/05 as reported in the LATimes.

Didn't ask

He was busy and on his way somewhere.

Plus, the first report of this Fitzgerald-Wilson phonce call was in the LA Times, and he refused to comment to the Times on anything about the call beyond confirming it had happened. I doubted I'd get any other response.

Fitzgerald seems to have this investigation in quite the lockdown, and I'm sure Wilson wouldn't want to do or say anything about the nature of any communications.
SusanG

[TexasToast]

Also, did anyone hear, the Iraqi people have voted on a Constitution?

A sandstorm that muddied Baghdad’s skies cleared, allowing officials to resume flying ballot boxes to the capital Tuesday so “unusually high” vote totals in 12 Shiite and Kurdish provinces can be checked by election officials.

The investigation by Iraq’s election commission has raised the possibility that the results of the referendum could be called into question. As many as 99 percent of the voters reportedly approved Iraq’s draft constitution in some of the provinces being investigated.
MSNBC

Who taught them this?

[kim]

cf, assuming the conclusion, in human interaction is disclosing yourself. Joe put his own evil on Rove. Fitz will see that.
============================================

[kim]

TT, maybe undergoing criminal siege taught them that.
================================================