Rich Lowry Pegs It

Rich Lowry, at The Corner, has an excellent, and mercifully brief, appraisal of Plamegate.

As we await word from Special Counsel Fitzgerald, Lowry tells us this:

...2) Losing Rove would be a very big deal. If only Libby is indicted, it is still a story, it is still a loss to the administration, but it has nowhere near the disruptive effect of a Rove indictment;

3) I believe after all the build-up, an indictment of only Libby would be a big let-down for the eager Fitzmas revelers, and will probably create a mini anti-Fitzgerald backlash among them...

Just so.  After all the hype, the left is desperate for Bush's Brain; they won't be happy if all they get is Cheney's Mouth.

Folks who think that betting markets may provide some insight will be intrigued to learn that at TradeSports Libby is given an 84% probability of indictment; Rove is at 67%.

Both of these probabilities are a bit higher than yesterday.

Fitzgerald's website is here.

My predictions - Rove walks; Libby, Hannah, and Wurmser indicted; Fleischer and Hadley as also-rans - are here.

And, I kid you not, I may be entering a period of radio silence on Friday afternoon that will extend until Sunday.

UPDATE:  Those TradeSports numbers may be off a bit - as of late Thursday evening, the NY Times tells us this:

WASHINGTON, Oct. 27 - Associates of I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, expected an indictment on Friday charging him with making false statements to the grand jury in the C.I.A. leak inquiry, lawyers in the case said Thursday.

Karl Rove, President Bush's senior adviser and deputy chief of staff, would not be charged on Friday, but would remain under investigation, people briefed officially about the case said. As a result, they said, the special counsel in the case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, was likely to extend the term of the federal grand jury beyond its scheduled expiration on Friday.

TradeSports probability of indictments:  Rove - 28%; Libby - 94% 

As to Rove remaining under investigation - this could mean that Fitzgerald is hoping that Libby, or someone, will deliver juicy new evidence against Rove (see various left-leaning sites for more).

However, folks who remember Giuliani's Wall Street investigations from the 80's will remember that no one was ever exonerated except by a "not guilty" verdict - once an investigation was announced, the Feds did not follow-up with an announcement that the investigation was over.  That is probably all that is happening here.

Richard Wigton and Timothy Tabor, whose moment of fame evidently precedes the internet. As I recall, they were arrested in a blaze of headlines; the defense crossed Giuliani up by exercising their right to a speedy trial, rather than requesting the customary delays in order to prepare; Giuliani dropped the original indictment, promising a new indictment in "record time"; and years later, he finally admitted that the investigation into Tabor and Wigton was no longer active. Is that happening with Rove? Probably. Will the MSM or any leftish blog even identify this possibility? We'll see,

Comments

[Jenny B.]

I agree, with Libby it's a one day story...with Rove it will be a one week story. Who cares? Bring on the hardcore conservative SC nominee!!!!

[Jim E.]

Let's say it's "only" Libby. It's not a one day story. With a trial next spring, and with Rove (or other senior administraiton officials) as a possible witness, it will continue to have legs. Once the indictments happen, the story -- and the trials -- will just be starting. Most Americans haven't been following this story, but the words "criminal indictments" will wake then up quick, even if it's merely Libby on the chopping block.

And there's always the off-chance that Fitzy starts up a brand new GJ.

[pollyusa]

I hope for your sake Fitz makes his announcement in the morning.

[SteveMG]

I agree with Jim E (yikes, one of us is in trouble).

Even if it's *only* Cheney's mouth and a few underlings if there are conspiracy charges then the question remains who knew what and when. When did the conspirators get together, how did they agree on the conspiracy, who directed it?

If the conspiracy can be traced to Cheney's inner sanctum, then a whole set of questions can be asked. With legitimacy (hell, even without legitimacy as anyone who has followed this in the press realizes, cf. the Chris Matthews and David Shuster nightly routine).

Just think of the headlines for the next six months: "Libby in Conspiracy Trial", "VP Testifies in Conspiracy Case".

Ugh or yay, depending on where you sit.

SMG

[Jenny B.]

LOL. Keep on dreaming Jim Bob. People laugh at the main stream media these days. They no longer have a lock on news. I do hope Wilson gets more press...he is Mama Sheehan in a suit!

This Miers withdrawl has brought the GOP back together and any indictments will make the GOP even stronger. Bring it on!!!!!!!

By the way, no indictment on Rove, so don't get too excited. :D

[Cecil Turner]

Ugh or yay, depending on where you sit.

If so, I expect there'll be something for everyone. At the very least, Wilson's story will be gone over with a fine-toothed comb. (And the fairly obvious improprieties in the mission, his leaks, and the problems with his op-ed will make interesting copy.) As a practical matter, however, I expect much of the proceedings would have to be classified. Dunno how that would affect the coverage, but you'd expect it to be a significant distractor.

[clarice]

If it's the JANITOR O'Donnell and Matthews, et al will make it a big deal; if there are NO indictments they will also make it a big deal (screaming something about the SP)..Face it, without an idea, this kind of crap is all they have in their quiver, and since Bush isn't running again , time is running out on a P-L-A-N which consists of more than reworking "I'm gonna fight for you" and hiring Shrum to piss away Soros' money..LOL

[Jim E.]

Waas has a new blog item. He's basically drawing attention to his new National Journal story. In his comments, though, he goes out of his way to emphasize an obscure name: David Addington. Is Waas dropping a hint about the Plame investigation?

[Rick Ballard]

TM,

Radio silence?

Do we need to take up a collection for a 'friendly' visit from Sal and Vin? I mean, given that there's no tip jar to hit to provide a positive stimulus.

[SteveMG]

Re David Addington

VP's Counsel.

[clarice]

Jim--No --this is about the administration;s refusal to turn over drafts of a speech to the Intel Committee--they did so on solid grounds, they reflected internal deliberative proceedings of the Executive.

Now, if Congress and the Judiciary are willing to turn over drafts of their reports and opinions to the Executive there 's a point..LOL..Nothing . And no connection of Addington to Plame case that I can see.

[politicaobscura]

Jim E., you're in fantasyland again... if it is just Libby, they'll be no trial - just a plea deal....

[Rick Ballard]

Tom Maguire,

I'd like to thank you for the service you have performed in following this matter. Your attention to detail and the insights you have provided have been extraordinary.

Thank you very much,

Rick Ballard

PS - If you must lay it aside for the weekend - Sal and Vin will stay home.

[clarice]

TM--Not only have you shared your analyses with us, provided us with all the best cites in one place, but for most of us you have offered up a pleasant substitute for much needed therapy..;)

[Keith]

Hey Tom,

Just curious: I'm not wanting to stalk you or anything, but who the hell are you? What do you do for living? How old are you? Did you get a degree, and if so, what was it in?

Maybe this is on the blog somewhere, but I can't find it. Share as much or as little as you like, but after spending months reading you on this case, I've always wondered.

[Jim E.]

Drudge says Rove will NOT be charged.

[Jim E.]

From NY Times: Rove "will not be charged on Friday, but will remain under investigation, people briefed officially about the case said. As a result, they said, the special counsel in the case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, was likely to extend the term of the federal grand jury beyond its scheduled expiration on Friday."

Er, if this is true, my above comment about how this is NOT a one day story holds up pretty well.

[SteveMG]

Drudge:
Drudge says:
Rove not charged but remains under investigation (who isn't?).

Libby charged with making false statements. That's pretty weak considering what we imagined.

If no charges on conspiracy or perjury or violations of IIPA or classified material, then this is a big loss for the left.

Merry Fitzmas, bah humbug.

SMG

[Jenny B.]

Told ya!!!! And Libby is extended to investigate leaks from CIA...nothing about WH!!!

Drudge: ROVE NOT TO BE CHARGED LIBBY, TOP AIDE TO CHENEY, APPEARS LIKELY TO FACE INDICTMENT

[Jenny B.]

I meant GJ extended to look into leaks from CIA.

Rove Rocks!!!!!

Scooter = false statments...LOL!!!

Merry Fitzmas, Lefties!!!

[Jim E.]

Did you guys miss the part about the GJ likely to be extended?

[Jeff]

In case you haven't found the Waas piece, it's here. It's quite interesting, especially if you pay attention to the sourcing. I'll admit I'm not surprised to see that clarice has already rationalized it away. I don't think she's ever met a Republican impropriety she won't rationalize away. And as for her comment about ideas, the bit about Democrats not having them is effective politics, but not true. On the other hand, Republicans have very effective slogans, it's true, but I'm not sure they amount to ideas. They certainly aren't beliefs, if by beliefs you mean something from which you can predict their conduct (see, inter alia, Republican government in action on fiscal matters, war, democracy promotion, and so on).

But back to the Waas piece. Even if we concede clarice's lame excuse, the fact remains that the validity and completeness of the SSCI report is seriously thrown into doubt by Waas' reporting with regard to at least one very important matter. That's for you, Cecil.

[Public Citizen]

Is Drudge's source, the New York Times, considered to be reliable?!

[SteveMG]

If all Fitzgerald can come up after two years of this sturm und drang is charging Libby with making false statements then it's over.

Rove walks but continues to be under investigation? For what? Either charge him or clear his name.

Merry Fitzmas? Bah humbug.

No doubt the coverup and conspiracy charges will emanate from the usual suspects, those who think Iraq and al-Qaeda had no relationship.

SMG

[Gary Maxwell]

Guys much as I want it to be true please remember the reporter is Drudge. Ugh. The only person who I can think of with a spottier record is Dick Morris. (Maybe John Zogby too).

But if its right!, it will be left wing nut suicide watch time. Come in off the ledge buddy, you still have DeLay ( chuckle chuckle smirk).

[Jenny B.]

Hey Jim Bob,
The CIA needs to worry about the GJ extension, not the WH!

Rove for Supreme Court!!!

[boris]

So, it appears no laws broken until the investigation conjured something out of smoke. Fitz jumps the shark.

[clarice]

NYT

[quote]WASHINGTON, Oct. 27 - Associates of I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, expected an indictment on Friday charging him with making false statements to the grand jury in the C.I.A. leak inquiry, lawyers in the case said Thursday.

Karl Rove, President Bush's senior adviser and deputy chief of staff, will not be charged on Friday, but will remain under investigation, people briefed officially about the case said. As a result, they said, the special counsel in the case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, was likely to extend the term of the federal grand jury beyond its scheduled expiration on Friday.

As rumors coursed through the capital, Mr. Fitzgerald gave no public signal of how he intends to proceed, further intensifying the anxiety that has gripped the White House and left partisans on both sides of the political aisle holding their breath.

Mr. Fitzgerald's preparations for a Friday announcement were shrouded in secrecy, but advanced amid a flurry of behind-the-scenes discussions that left open the possibility of last-minute surprises. As the clock ticked down on the grand jury, people involved in the case did not rule out the disclosure of previously unknown aspects of the case(more)[/quote] http://nytimes.com/2005/10/28/politics/28leak.html?ei=5094&en=f4b9e5edc0a35fdf&hp=&ex=1130472000&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print

[Jenny B.]

Drudge links to NYT article (not that they can be trusted either).

[Keith]

TM is two for two!

[SteveMG]

Jim E.:
Climb down from the ledge, it'll be okay.

Given the expectations that have been generated over the past two weeks, for the only (apparent) charge to be for Libby making false statements this is sound and fury time - signifying nada.

What will the GJ investigate that they haven't? After two years of this, if Fitzgerald can't nail Rove for IIPA violations or mishandling classified information, he won't be able to get him later.

To be sure, one never knows what will turn up later. But this is a big loss for Bush critics.

No other way to spin things.

SMG

[clarice]

Authors of article DAVID JOHNSTON
and RICHARD W. STEVENSON

How reliable have they been? Anyone know?

[PaulS]

I sincerely hope that Fitzgerald makes public what he's been up to for the past two years.

Indicting Libby on a much lesser charge than his original mandate is one thing--it leaves a bad taste in my mouth, but it's not unusual for these kinds of investigation.

However, failing over two years to compile enough evidence to indict Rove even on a much lesser charge, and then telling him in essence that he's under permanent "investigation"? That's downright Kafkaesque.

I have a theory: Fitzgerald attempted to indict Rove but the grand jury turned him down (something which would explain his behavior over the past few days). But not wanting to give up, Fitz is determined to keep this going as long as possible.

[Jim E.]

The NY Times seems to have the most confident sources. Heck, maybe the NY Times has the best sources, and is spot on. But two other just-posted stories are more tenative about Rove.

Here's the LA Times:
"People close to the investigation said that, as of late Thursday afternoon, Rove had received no notice that he was going to be indicted. Some observers took that as a sign that the longtime Bush strategist might emerge from the investigation without being charged.

But others said that Fitzgerald might be waiting until Friday to alert those being charged to reduce the chances of last-minute leaks about his intentions."

And the Wash Post similarly has Rove still holding his breath.

For me, I think the NY Times seems to know more than the other papers. Therefore, Rove I wouldn't expect Rove to be indicted. But I thought I'd share the other two accounts.

[clarice]

I expect that the "people briefed about the case" were briefed by his counsel and they did so after they heard from Fitz..

[Keith]

I think the idea of Rove still being under investigation makes sense. They probably told him, "You're not off the hook if something else comes up and we find out you lied--and our investigation will still be ongoing through the Libby trial."

So, he's off the hook, but if they find something later, they reserve the right to indict him.

[politicaobscura]

Whatever the result tomorrow, it would be pathetic to extend the grand jury. This issue has been with us for a year and half and Fitz STILL doesn't have his ducks in a row?? Sad.

[Dumbguy]

What is the difference between "perjury" and "making false statements"?

[clarice]

Yes--but it surely will not be adequate for the left--some Fitzmas--

I think we ought to demand a Federal statute forbidding such things again--if there is no crime a regular prosecutor operating under regular reules can find and prosecute in a reasonable period of time--fergettaboutit..Who wants to take a pay cut, work his rearend off only to have stuff like this always hanging over him?

[Jim E.]

Back to the NY Times article. Their lead paragraphs are definitive about Rove's fate. But a bit further down, they have this sentence:
"Mr. Fitzgerald's preparations for a Friday announcement were shrouded in secrecy, but advanced amid a flurry of behind-the-scenes discussions that left open the possibility of last-minute surprises."

Seems like they're covering themselves for just about anything with that "possibility of last-minute surprises" phrase.

[PaulS]

If Fitzgerald has indictments in hand and wants to spring this information on his targets in a press conference without letting them have time to prepare public statements or a legal strategy, then he has all the instincts of a Stalin era Soviet Kommissar.

There's absolutely NO legitimate reason to be so obsessed with leaks that a need for secrecy could outweigh the need for fundamental decency. What possible damage could be done to his investigation that would warrant keeping the knowledge of indictments from the accused?

Although I'm troubled by Fitgerald's desire to investigate people for years in secret--even in the absence of enough evidence for a simple perjury charge--I don't believe yet that he's an unethical bastard.

Hence, if Rove hasn't been told by NOW that he's been indicted, then he hasn't been.

[Gary Maxwell]

How about this for a real liberal mind blower. Bush comes out and announces Libby to stay in WH as he is innocent until proven guilty. And then Ann Coulter starts a big deal about the Dems said perjury was no bar to working in the WH so that he wont ever even have to resign.

Or is it just perjury about blowjobs? I am confused.

[Jerry Miller]

The NYT sources are Rove & Libby attorneys. Fitz called them today as a courtesy before his announcement tomorrow. There may be other indictments, but not for those two.

[Gary Maxwell]

Trade Sport contract on Rove srops to 20. Come on Libs you can make a killing. Just step right up and lay your Hailtons down. Besides you wont need it where you are going when you step off the ledge anyway.

[bethl]

don't remember where I read this---but this grand jury has already been extended once and can't be extended again, if that's right Fitzgerald will need a new grand jury to keep investigating Rove.

[Geek, Esq.]

I think Rove does escape for now.

But, this is going to be more than a one day story.

And we'll see what the future brings.

And, everyone can now take Raw Story off their blogroll.

[Jeff]

I'll say this -- either the NYT or the WaPo is going to look pretty bad tomorrow, as there are just downright contradictions between their stories, such as: FItz is extending the investigation/no he's not. Of course, it could be the best of both worlds for Rove: he's not going to be indicted tomorrow, and Fitz is not extending the grand jury.

I do find it pretty surprising that the indictment of the Vice President's right-hand man is being seen as a victory for conservatism.

[Jerry Miller]

Where's pollyusa? I'd like to hear her insight about the these latest revelations.

[PaulS]

Since this grand jury's term CANNOT by law be extended yet again, then an entirely new grand jury will have to be assembled. That much is known.

Now, I'm not a lawyer, so I wonder: is Fitzgerald permitted to investigate the very same charges he failed to get out of the first grand jury or does he need to come up with a totally different angle?

If he's alowed to pursue the same charges, then why have time limits on investigations at all? How would seeking indictments from as second grand jury that couldn't be extracted from the first grand jury be different from Ronnie Earl's grand jury shopping in Texas?

I must say that this is deeply disturbing unless we get what we haven't had until now: a clear explanation of what Fitzgerald is up to. At least Ken Starr was able to bring charges and didn't ask for 2, 3 or 4 years to hound people without the clear ability or intention of bringing indictments.

[Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest)]

If you're silent, we'll miss you, Tom. I mean, since Instapundit tipped me off to one of your posts, you've saved me a lot of work as I research my own on this imbroglio.

You've done a good job on this -- and with good humor.

We'll be glad to have you back on Monday.