General Impressions of Libby Indictment

It's actually been a pretty somber day perked up with an occasional chuckle as a "White House Under Indictment" graphic flits across my TV screen accompanied by that music of gravitas that the cable news channels do so well. I feel tired and kind of sad, like a secondary aquaintance has succumbed after a long illness.

And as I look about the blogs that I regularly read, I don't think I'm alone. The general level of posting seems lower than normal and the fevered pitch of rumor and gossip has pretty much gone away. I'm really surprised that there isn't much sniping, no shouts of schadenfreude. Everybody seems to think we've had enough for today.

There are a few key elements that are out there. The unnamed Undersecretary of State seems to have been collectively identified by the blogosphere as Marc Grossman, and "official A" appears to be Rove. As all other references to second parties were by title, that identification as "official A" does support the theory of further investigation of Rove.

And there is the question of this cryptic paragraph from the WaPo.

Rove provided new information to Fitzgerald during eleventh-hour negotiations that "gave Fitzgerald pause" about charging Bush's senior strategist, said a source close to Rove. "The prosecutor has to resolve those issues before he decides what to do."

Two possibilities I see in that. One, Rove suddenly pulled up some kind of exculpatory evidence or, Two Rove offered some new element as part of the plea deal that was being negotiated in not so secret earlier this week.

And my gut tells me that Fitzgerald knows what happened, he just can't prove it, yet. The indictments against Libby are meant to allow some leverage on Libby if he wants to plead down and testify, and also offer to Karl Rove a threat. The pieces are now positioned, and it's now a question of how well Fitzgerald can play the end game.

The key to this playing out will be Fitzgerald's ability to predict, or better yet, force the series of moves by those he is stalking. That's why the above paragraph is noteworthy. Somehow a new piece seems to have appeared on Rove's side of the board.

And lastly, I would say this. After watching the press conference this afternoon and reading the indictment a second time, I think that during the investigation, Fitzgerald saw something that he views as morally wrong and that he's not going to let go until it gets punished. Just a general impression, nothing I can put to facts.

As a little support I found this curious statement from Fitzgerald at the press conference.

(in response to the question)The indictment describes Lewis Libby giving classified information concerning the identify of a CIA agent to some individuals who were not eligible to receive that information. Can you explain why that does not, in and of itself, constitute a crime?

Fitgerald: But at the end of the day, I think I want to say one more thing, which is: When you do a criminal case, if you find a violation, it doesn't really, in the end, matter what statute you use if you vindicate the interest. If Mr. Libby is proven to have done what we've alleged -- convicting him of obstruction of justice, perjury and false statements -- very serious felonies -- will vindicate the interest of the public in making sure he's held accountable. It's not as if you say, "Well, this person was convicted but under the wrong statute."

In other words, Fitzgerald is saying, "I know Libby did it. I can't prove it, but it was wrong. And I'm gonna make damn sure he's not gonna walk out of here a free man. "

If I were Rove or Cheney, this would cause more than a little trepidation.

UPDATE: I also want to leave open the possibility that there were other sealed indictments that were not made public at this time. Or perhaps, better said, plea deals for someone or someones who might be cooperating. Because if there are cooperative witnesses, Fitzgerald would not want to bring them forth with an investigation still ongoing. No proof any exist, just putting it out there.