alternative hippopotamus

Asked to explain his choice, Senior White House Official A responded: “We’re giving up on the Neocons for right now, and sticking with the Fundies and the Freepers. That should gin up approval Big Time. Heh. Big Time. Indeed.”

Yet, liberal Democrats remained skeptical. “Why Commander Bunnypants wants to turn this country into a right-wing pseudo-Christian theocracy is beyond me,” one Senator noted. “It will take at least a generation to undo the damage this president has done to the country through his judicial picks alone.”

Still, Bush nominee Scalito remained upbeat. “I totally rock,” he said in his typical light-hearted manner, justifying Bush’s choice. He added, regarding his controversial dissent on Planned Parenthood v. Casey, requiring a woman to notify her husband if she wished to have an abortion: “It totally rocks to be a dude. It’s just awesome.”

So, did this Fitzgerald guy show up today or what?

“We are at a critical crossroads with the nomination of Harriet Miers. We have fought 20 years in tough political campaigns and engaged in many philosophical debates about the Constitution and the proper role of a judge. We should expect excellence in a Supreme Court nominee and a dignified confirmation process.”

Elizabeth Dole in a NRSC fundraising mail of 09/15:

“I ask that you contribute to the NRSC as we continue to fight off attacks from the Democrats and their radical allies, like MoveOn.org and Alliance for Justice, as they attempt to put a strangle hold…on this confirmation process.”

Joshua Green via Froomkin:

“Anyone who takes an honest look at his history will come away awed by Rove’s power, when challenged, to draw on an animal ferocity that far exceeds the chest-thumping bravado common to professional political operatives.”

Funny. I was just saying the other day that I find Rove insufficiently feral.

Often times the indictments are, in fact, “un-sealed” , i.e, made public, upon the arrest and arraignment of the person named in the indictment. But they don’t have to be.

Remember that this grand jury expires this friday. So unless Fitzgerald wants to empanel a new grand jury he needs to hand down indictments by then. If there are sealed indictments handed down by the grand jury in this case I would wager one of two things (that have already been reported by others, by the way): Either some of those that are to be indicted are working on plea/cooperation deals with Fitzgerald currently and by sealing the indictments he is allowing them to negotiate some sort of deal and then will dismiss the indictments against them. This may mean that the public never hears the extent of such person’s complicity.

In the alternative, Fitzgerald may be planning on empaneling another grand jury to buy him time to further investigate matters and is only handing down the indictments he knows he can get from this grand jury at this time. This would allow him to empanel another grand jury without publically releasing the details of the indictments handed down by the expiring grand jury.

Of course the most-likely scenario is that the prosecutor perhaps did not want to deliver the so-called “target letters” (he is not required to do so) because of the over-whelming amount of leask that have been occuring recently and is just sealing the indictments in order to give himself time to give those named in the indictments notice thereof. Given the magnitude of the case and the press coverage related to it I wouldn’t be at all surprised if this last scenario is the one that plays out. Fitzgerald seems like the type of guy who would be diplomatic and courteous in delivering the news to those indicted in order to possibly allow them to avoid the press frenzy that would ensue if he filed unsealed indictments.

But never fear…….. if sealed indictments are handed down the leaks will come even more fast and furious.

Take for instance this thread, in which Tom Maguire wants to know what Rove’s best course of action might be.

Here’s some of my favorite responses:

• If Fitz has no smoking gun memo and is relying on these forgetful reporters, chances of proving anything beyond a reasonable doubt seems slim. Plus, if perjury/obstruction is due to the Cooper call, Rove came forward with that on his own. Finally, as you mentioned, Bush will pardon him anyway (at least by Jan 2009).
• I don’t think Rove will be indicted. I have been wavering on Scooter. I wonder how many more column inches Scooter — let alone Rove, God forbid — would get for copping a plea than CLINTON’S NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR WHO STOLE ACTUAL, TOP-SECRET CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS.
• “Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.” Conservatives, he said, “saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war,” firebreathed our little pudgebull.
• Miller was forced to write a story by the paper according to her lawyer today. She didn’t want to.
• I want him to get up on the witness stand and talk about how ginning up a case for war and outing a CIA operative because her husband dared question the ginned-up evidence is “just politics,” while the families and friends and coworkers and Congressional representatives of the 2000 dead and 40,000 maimed are watching.
• And, along side that battle bring out Able Danger. My guess is the two are tied together by CIA associations heldover from the prior adminstration.
• It sounds triffling to me. People mishandle classified info all the time.
• Surely there are CIA guidelines about remaining covert. How has Val not violated thses guidelines?
• Our putative pundits got promiscuous with the truth and a lot of loud little bastards have proliferated.
• Rove is probably seething and would opt for a trial which he will play into a loser for his enemies.
• Remember, throughout the whole GJ process, the White House could not mount a defense or give its side. That ends with the filing of charges.
• If I were Rove, Libby or even Wilson, I’d fight relentlessly ’til my last penny was spent, because I don’t see the prosecutor winning in court on anything but the most egregious perjury charges - which if anything may put Wilson in as much jeopardy as Rove or Libby but that’s not a topic the MSM is the least bit interested in.
• Things are very different in the Alterman Reality and there is nothing to be done about it. Well, maybe chuckle a bit at the noisy minority which has never had the support of more than 20% of the electorate continuing to believe that things will be different tomorrow.

Meanwhile, a little bit of idle chatter regarding the Plame/Rove/Miller black hole from which no Bushie will be left behind (hopefully).

The whole notion of unattributed sources rests on the idea that if you have two sources that confirm the facts of your story, then it’s very likely accurate. Among other things, this guards against, say, a powerful figure in the government using the reporter to print malicious gossip. If you’ve read All the President’s Men and/or Secret Man, you know that Woodstein goes to great length to double check anonymous leaks.

What if Mark Felt had recruited friends to verify his leaks? Surely, this thought must have crossed Woodstein’s mind at some point. They reasoned, however, that Felt’s revelations put him in such a vulnerable position, that he wouldn’t have risked something like that.

In the case of the White House Iraq Group Libby, Rove, and possibly Cheney planned to discredit Wilson. They came up with a line that went something like: Wilson’s trip to Niger was a boondoggle set up by his wife who’s a covert agent for the CIA.

This accomplished three things:

• Wilson is discredited.
• The CIA is discredited.
• Potential whistle blowers are warned that they will be punished to the limit of the law, and then some.

My point is that when this level of coordination exists the use of multiple sources is meaningless. Granted, Miller didn’t know this, though her mia culpa in the NYT suggests that the possibility had occurred to her. And unlike the hypothetical example of Felt coordinating sources, WHIG did not put themselves in a vulnerable position.

There are other reporters who now are aware that they were customers of a product manufactured by WHIG. Why do they feel themselves bound by promises of confidentiality?

If a reporter’s shield law ever came about (I’m not sure if that’s a good idea, by the way) how would it deal with a conspiracy perpetrated by the anonymous leakers?

Personally, I’m keen on getting rid of the secret government, that I talk about here.

Now, your turn.