.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Born at the Crest of the Empire

Tuesday, October 25, 2005

Indictments are coming - rumor.

This is unsubstantiated!!!!!! I am putting this up here cause the link through is real slow. It took me a couple minutes of trying. Not saying this is true, but it's obviously getting a lot of attention.

Steve Clemons of the Washington Note reports the following:

An uber-insider source has just reported the following to TWN:

1. 1-5 indictments are being issued. The source feels that it will be towards the higher end.

2. The targets of indictment have already received their letters.

3. The indictments will be sealed indictments and "filed" tomorrow.

4. A press conference is being scheduled for Thursday.

The shoe is dropping.

More soon.

Mike's Interesting Question of the day: Do sealed indictments mean that the invetigation is not over? Aren't they often used mid investigation to indict somebody and pressure them, without disclosing evidence to future targets?

Nothing has actually happened yet, I just want to place that out there.

(Clemons is also rumoring that in Republican circles it is currently being rumored that somebody from the WhiteHouse approached McCain inquiring as to his interest in the Veep job if Cheney were to step down from "health problems." This is like fourth hand and I find that one pretty hard to believe, but while I'm spreading Steve Clemons rumors.... )

UPDATE: Maybe I'm not the only one asking about the possible implications of sealed indictments. Wonkette, who despite all else, does have connections says this today.

Word on the rainy streets of Washington is that Patrick Fitzgerald will be recalling some witnesses soon. Conflicting word is that he will announce indictments Thursday.....

According to a reporter intimately familiar with White House operations, "these slimy thugs are turning on each other like runner-up beauty queens."

Later... I've been thinking a little more about this, I'm beginning to convince myself that this "first round of sealed indictments" theory might have some merit.

I mean, does Fitzgerald go through the legal minefield of jailing Miller for three months and attempting to jail Cooper, with the approval of several judges along the way, just for a perjury charge? Maybe for obstruction, but I still think that it might hint at something a little bigger and deeper.

UPDATE 2: Two quick ones. First, Think Progress has an interesting statement from CBS John Roberts. He says indictments are coming tomorrow, and that the primary leaker, a mysterious Mr. X, who is known to Fitzgerald, is possibly someone outside the administration. I have no idea.

Second, Holden has an interesting exchange from the last press gaggle which he claims shows Cheney is toast(his words.) I don't see that, but I find the careful wording around McClellan's Rove/Libby statements a very telling sign that he's building in deniability for his previous statements defending them.

Oh, and by the way, it's being reported on MSNBC that Tenet is denying being Cheney's source as was reported in this morning's NYTimes. I sure hope the indictments offer a little clarity. Since that NYTimes report broke last night, I've kind of lost the thread.

Olberman just said that NBC correspondent David Gregory reported that Fitzgerald was "still conducting interviews with mid-level White House figures as late as today about contact between Karl Rove and reporters."

Also, to back up the Olberman statement above, the LATimes says:
WASHINGTON -- As his investigation nears a conclusion, special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has returned his attention to White House adviser Karl Rove, interviewing a Rove colleague with detailed questions about contacts that President Bush's close aide had with reporters in the days leading up to the outing of a covert CIA officer.

Fitzgerald has also dispatched FBI agents to comb the CIA agent's residential neighborhood in Washington, asking neighbors again whether they were aware — before her name appeared in a syndicated column — that the agent, Valerie Plame, worked for the CIA.
More throughout the evening.

Popping back and forth with the Astros game, but look at this from Roll Call. "Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald was spotted Tuesday at the law offices of Patton Boggs paying a visit to Robert Luskin, the eccentric (for Washington, D.C.) lawyer who represents Karl Rove."

Is Fitzgerald trying to cut a deal with Rove? Or is he delivering the target letter/indictment himself?

And the Spook is running with the pretty good theory that Bolton is the mysterious Mr. X named in the CBS statement above.

And does this guy have the easiest job in the world. "Mr. Fitzgerald's spokesman, Randall Samborn, declined to comment." From tonight/tomorrow's NYTimes piece. Nothing new but confirmed recent interest in Rove.

And to feed Sini's fears, the rollcall piece mentioned above also contains this.

The rumor floating around Patton Boggs Tuesday was that there "may" be no indictments this week because Fitzgerald "may" need to seek an extension from the presiding judge to wrap up his investigation of Flamegate (or Plamegate for those of us who aren't Judy Miller)..


  • What about that other rumor from last week about Fitzgerald seeking a grand jury extension? Now wouldn't that be something---one set of indictments and then an expansion of the investigation? That's my dream scenario.

    By Blogger Sini, at 7:41 PM  

  • For whatever it's worth, someone on "Washington Week" Friday said it's already been extended once, and a new grand jury would have to be impaneled. That hasn't stopped Reuters and AP from reporting the possible extension, though, so it could be wrong. Mr. X speculation at our place.

    By Blogger the spook, at 9:31 PM  

  • Is that really true? You know, there has been so much misreporting on the law reagarding the story--on the unanimity required for grand juries, on whether the gj could be extended, on whether cheney was under oath. Amazing because you would think on such a major story the MSM would do some serious fact checking--isn't that what is supposed to separate them from the blogs they have such contempt for?

    By Blogger Sini, at 1:49 AM  

  • Sini,

    That's Roll Call so it's not really MSM . And because Roll Call is subscription, and I got this clip from somewhere else, I don't know what qualifiers or whatever else were in that story.


    By Blogger mikevotes, at 6:50 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home