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

[TexasToast]

Cecil

JBG did offer a link to Republican comments opposing the Bosnia episode - i.e., anti-war activity in the midst of a war. The Republicans were right, BTW, policy differences dont stop because the shooting has started.

This war was a mistake - and some of us thought that from the git-go.

[windansea]

This war was a mistake

please define mistake

[kim]

TT, it has not been ideal, but ask most any Iraqi if it was a mistake.
=================================================

[kim]

Truly, I don't know enough about Islamic fanaticism to know if the Bush/Rice approach is the best. I know the war was good for the Kurds, the Shia, and that it will be good for the Sunni.

But Juan Cole is sufficiently eloquent to be extremely dissuading, and I've spent a fair amount of time reading Iraqi blogs, so I believe in what we are doing over there.

Want a new thrill? Read Chinese and Iranian blogs. I've heard that a fifth of internet postings are in Farsi. And India is a whole nutha story.
==============================================

[Cecil Turner]

JBG did offer a link to Republican comments opposing the Bosnia episode . . .

What he didn't offer was evidence I supported those (nor is he likely to, for the very good reason that I didn't). I did, however, criticize the initial conduct of the war (specifically, the failure to target generating plants, and water and sewer facilities--because if you're going to rely on strategic bombing, you have to make the recipients uncomfortable--but the targeteers finally came 'round to my way of thinking, and we all got happy).

The Republicans were right, BTW, policy differences dont stop because the shooting has started.

If I were a hawk because I'm a Republican, I might agree. Since I'm the converse, I don't. I suspect that if you'd ever listened to carping politicians on a BBC broadcast while sitting in a front-line combat unit, you wouldn't either.

[jukeboxgrad]

Cecil: "Got any evidence for the last part of that?"

I guess "apparently" is another simple English word you have trouble with. Your distinct silence on the question (up to a few minutes ago), especially while you were responding to all sorts of other things I said, created the appearance ("apparently") that you had a certain position. If you have a different position, that's great, but it would be nice if you didn't have to be dragged kicking and screaming before you let us know what it is.

"Hence the 'anything I can do to help' offer was dishonest?"

Uh, asking you what you wanted is not the equivalent of promising you would get it. Surely you're bright enough to grasp such a simple distinction.

"nor does appealing to your better nature"

Calling me a "jackass" is an odd way of "appealing to [my] better nature."

"You are incapable of having a discussion without ascribing an ulterior motive to your opponent"

Uh, I've said nothing about your motives, so you're the one doing the "ascribing." I've said you exaggerate, distort and mislead. Your motivation to do this is less relevant to me than the fact that you do this. Surely you're bright enough to grasp such a simple distinction.

"thus aren't worth talking to. But since you persist . . ."

You said more-or-less the exact same thing months ago. I see you still can't make up your mind. Must be a tough place to be.

One more reminder: whether you choose to ignore me is your choice, not mine. Surely you're bright enough to grasp something so simple.

[jukeboxgrad]

Kim: "I know the war was good for the Kurds, the Shia, and that it will be good for the Sunni."

You're about two-thirds right. And you forget to mention Iran.

[kim]

The Ayatollahs comin' down. It's be farsical.
==============================================

[Cecil Turner]

Your distinct silence on the question (up to a few minutes ago), especially while you were responding to all sorts of other things I said, created the appearance ("apparently") that you had a certain position.

Only if you've both pre-judged the issue and are too lazy to read a few links up the thread:

A good part of the recently-lamented "irreducible 30%" are, like me, hawks who are stuck with the GOP.

Again, you're obviously not interested in ideas, just trying to figure out how to be insulting.

I've said you exaggerate, distort and mislead.

You've also called me a liar several times, and imply it in practically every post, usually based on a false assumption. (And when called on it, pretend a qualifier like "apparently" makes it okay.) The above is typical. The funny thing is that you can't see how dishonest that is, or how it's utterly destroyed your credibility.

One more reminder: whether you choose to ignore me is your choice, not mine.

It appears my choices are to ignore your insults or play the dozens with you. I'll play, thanks.

[kim]

Your mother's so porky, you're still linked.
==============================================

[jukeboxgrad]

"like me, hawks who are stuck with the GOP"

It's nice to know that you claim not to be a knee-jerk Republican. I'll take your word for it, for the moment. Funny thing, though, it doesn't ring a bell (I don't recall you making such statements in the past). In fact, it's quite at odds with your track record of parrotlike faithfulness to RNC talking points. This tends to create the impression that you're a fair-weather Republican. Or maybe a rat deserting a sinking ship. In any case, even if it's just a latter-day conversion, that's still nice to know.

All that aside, this is still not an answer to the question I raised. It's just a clue. I realize you like guessing games, but a clue is not a substitute for a straight answer. Surely you're bright enough to grasp such a simple distinction.

"you're obviously not interested in ideas, just trying to figure out how to be insulting"

Aren't you the guy who very recently made a fuss about "ascribing an ulterior motive to your opponent?" Aren't you the guy who is currently making a fuss about "false assumption[s]?" Your double standards and transparent acts of projection make my head spin.

"You've also called me a liar several times"

Uh, no, although this is another nice example of how you can hardly get through a sentence without distorting or exaggerating.

I called you a liar exactly once, here, and apologized very promptly, here, immediately after you demonstrated that I had made a mistake. That whole pathetic episode, which basically took the form of an extended guessing game on your part (speaking of your penchant for guessing games), is summarized here.

If you can point out another occasion where I called you a liar (even if you didn't prove I was wrong, but most especially if you did, and most very especially if you did and I neglected to quickly take responsibility for my error), I would be very interested in seeing it.

"imply it [liar] in practically every post"

I'm responsible for the words I use. You're responsible for the inferences you choose to draw from my words. Surely you're bright enough to grasp such a simple distinction.

"how it's utterly destroyed your credibility"

It would be hard for me to exaggerate how little I care about your assessment of my credibility. But I do appreciate the reverse endorsement, if you know what i mean.

"usually based on a false assumption ... pretend a qualifier like 'apparently' makes it okay"

Making assumptions is not ideal, but also unavoidable. Occasionally making false assumptions is also unavoidable, since we're all human and therefore are not immune to error. The important thing is to acknowledge the difference between an assumption and a fact. Using the word "apparently" is a way to do that. If you can't understand that, that's your problem.

Another important thing is to take responsibility for one's errors. I've shown I know how to do that. If you can show that I haven't, I would be interested in seeing your proof.

"I'll play"

This isn't a game to me. If it is to you, that's your problem.

[Cecil Turner]

It's nice to know that you claim not to be a knee-jerk Republican. I'll take your word for it, for the moment. Funny thing, though, it doesn't ring a bell . . .

[Snort.] What a shock, whichever answer I give means I'm a liar. Might be a clue why you don't get many answers to that sophomoric crap, eh? Did you really think that was clever? How old are you, anyway?

I'm responsible for the words I use.

Pseudonymously, of course. Very courageous. Why don't you try some of that verbal jujitsu at a local bar, and see how it works out for you? (Or do you have to wait a couple years?)

This isn't a game to me.

If not, it's a perfectly asinine waste of your time.

Your mother's so porky, you're still linked.

Heh. Very nice.

[jukeboxgrad]

"whichever answer I give means I'm a liar"

On the contrary. There's nothing wrong with sincerely changing your mind (especially if it means coming to your senses with regard to Republicanism). In other words, you're putting words in my mouth. Nothing new about that. It would be better if you stopped.

On the other hand, you obviously know a lot more about who you are than I do, so I'm hardly in a position to contradict the statement you just made about yourself.

"Might be a clue why you don't get many answers to that sophomoric crap"

I notice I actually get lots of answers from you, or, rather, responses. What's interesting is how rarely they take the form of straightforward answers, as compared with evasive, inscrutable guessing games.

"How old are you, anyway?"

Old enough to understand the difference between a guessing game and a direct answer. That's a skill most of us picked up in kindergarten. The answer to your question hardly matters, in other words.

"Pseudonymously, of course"

That's the same choice made by lots of other folks here and elsewhere, for all sorts of reasons. If you don't like that, maybe you should give up blogs and take up some alternate activity. I know people who find serenity in needlepoint, for example.

"Why don't you try some of that verbal jujitsu at a local bar"

For all you know, I spend countless hours doing precisely that, or any number of close variations on that. For someone who makes a fuss about questionable assumptions, you make more than your share.

"If not, it's a perfectly asinine waste of your time."

I aspire to someday have your mindreading skills, so I'll be able to look into the soul of men and pronounce whether or not they're wasting their time. Kind of like how Bush looked into the hearts of Putin and Miers, I guess.

"'Porky' ... Heh. Very nice."

That was Kim, not me. I realize putting words in my mouth is a habit you find hard to break, but now you're taking it to extremes.

[kim]

Your father threw your mother's combat ribbons over the White House fence.
==============================================

[kim]

Your cousin Joe tried to sell me a bridge he'd just fenced, and your other cousin Joe sipped tea in one place in Africa for a week and tried to tell me he had comprehensive knowledge of the continent.
===================================================

[kim]

Sippin tea,
Jivin' ye.
Why duh ye,
Believe he?
============================

[Cecil Turner]

In other words, you're putting words in my mouth.

As opposed to that little exercise of yours? Again, did you think that was clever? Why won't you answer?

Old enough to understand the difference between a guessing game and a direct answer.

Why are you sidestepping? Was the question too difficult for you?

I notice I actually get lots of answers from you, or, rather, responses.

Ah, you've finally noticed the two are not synonymous. The crap I'm giving you isn't worth much, is it? Notice a parallel with your own posts? Work on it.

For all you know, I spend countless hours doing precisely that, or any number of close variations on that.

Prove it. Or just admit you're lying (it's okay, we know already).

I aspire to someday have your mindreading skills . . .

You've been pretending that capability for months. You just suck at it.

That was Kim, not me.

No kidding. He came up with a very nice, traditional "snap." (And now, several more.) Note the approval, conspicuously absent from any comment addressed to you.

[Cecil Turner]

Err, "She." Sorry.

[jukeboxgrad]

"Why won't you answer?"

Uh, you're asking so many pointless questions I've lost track of which one you have in mind at the moment. Maybe you have too, for all I know.

"Was the question too difficult for you?"

Uh, no, I actually do know my age. I also find it hard to imagine a less relevant question, so you'll have to do something else with that particular mini-obsession of yours. Likewise with your interest in my bar-related activities.

"Note the approval"

I realize you approve of Kim's comments and don't approve of mine. The reverse endorsement is much appreciated.

"The crap I'm giving you isn't worth much, is it?"

Every so often you reveal penetrating insight into yourself.

[Cecil Turner]

Uh, you're asking so many pointless questions I've lost track of which one you have in mind at the moment.

Exactly.

I also find it hard to imagine a less relevant question . . .

Two in a row. Nicely done. Side-stepping a difficult question isn't the only possible answer, is it?

Every so often you reveal penetrating insight . . .

Thanks. Now, back to the real question. What do you get out of this? You can't possibly believe you are winning friends and influencing people . . . Or do you?

[jukeboxgrad]

"What do you get out of this?"

Whatever motivations I once had have now been wholly transcended by the sheer fascination of wondering how many insipid questions you can manage to pack into a single comment (in your last 3 or 4 comments I count roughly 15).

I'm sure you have many more up your sleeve. I hope you won't let me down.

If what you're trying to prove is that I'm not shy about ignoring dumb questions (a shocking revelation, I guess), you might as well go for broke and remove any lingering doubt.

[kim]

Your mother's so dumb she never heard of Valerie Plame.
================================================

[TM]

Well, I checked both my memory and my cool Typepad data base - Jukebox has not been here for three months, and I never missed him.

Nor do I now. Why don't you see if can contribute something that might be taken for insight or evidence, OK, JGB?

[kim]

He's got skills. See my JunkYardDog post.
=========================================

[Cecil Turner]

If what you're trying to prove is that I'm not shy about ignoring dumb questions . . .

Wow, talk about obtuse. Is there any possibility you could generalize that concept to apply to someone other than yourself? I can't believe you managed to miss the point of that little exercise, but apparently you did. (Actually kinda impressive, in a single-minded thickheaded sort of way.)

[kim]

I'm trying to figure out if BDS precedes or follows pathology. I have a new name for it, too: Liberal Paradigm Derangement. LPD is epidemic, because there are so many cracks in the facade. I mean, why do liberals not support the Purple Fingered Majesty of the Iraqis? Why do they prefer to preserve the Ponzi scheme aspects, and the involuntary servitude aspects, and the irresponsible income transfer aspects of Social Security? How come they are so ignorant on defense and so trusting of the UN? The paradigm is in deep trouble.
============================================