Reidblog [The Reid Report blog]

Samuel Alito is a judge on U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Appointed to this position by President George H.W. Bush in 1990, Alito is often referred to as “Judge Scalito” because of his adherence to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s right-wing judicial philosophy. While serving as a U.S. Attorney, Alito failed to obtain a key conviction, releasing nearly two dozen mobsters back into society. Based on his Third Circuit opinions, Alito has established himself as a potential foe to immigrants, reproductive rights, and civil liberties.

“Scott, you said that – or the President said, repeatedly, that Harriet Miers was the best person for the job. So does that mean Alito is sloppy seconds, or what?”

He said Democrats too often aren't willing to talk about abortion because they're afraid of virulent reactions from anti-abortion groups.

But the vast majority of people fall somewhere in the middle, agreeing that abortion is a tragedy but not wanting "to go back to the days when we criminalized the conduct of scared young girls and their doctors," he said.

"So how come we can't talk about it?" he added. "Because we basically let political ads turn every player in this drama into a two-dimensional cartoon instead of a three-dimensional person."

Earle also subpoenaed records from the Texas Ethics Commission of political contributions from 2000 to 2005 by nine judges in Tarrant County, 17 in Dallas County and five in Travis County.

DeLay has requested that his trial be moved out of Austin's Travis County, where Earle is the district attorney and Perkins is the judge. Tarrant and Dallas counties are possible locations should the trial be moved.

Almost all Tarrant and Dallas judges whose records were subpoenaed have made federal political contributions to Republican groups, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

AP: Mysterious 'Official A' is Karl Rove

By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer

Published: October 28, 2005 10:12 PM ET

WASHINGTON
In a sign of the trouble lingering for the Bush administration, the indictment handed up Friday in the CIA leak probe refers to someone at the White House known as "Official A."

The unidentified official could become a courtroom witness against I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who left his job as vice presidential aide shortly after his indictment on charges of obstruction of justice, making false statements and perjury.

Several other unnamed officials mentioned in the indictment were identified Friday afternoon by Justice Department officials.

But not "Official A."

The mysterious official is identified in the indictment only as "a senior official in the White House."

No mention is made of Karl Rove, the president's political adviser who remains under investigation by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald.

It has been known that columnist Robert Novak spoke to Rove on July 9, 2003, saying he planned to report over the weekend that Valerie Plame, the wife of Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson, had worked for the CIA. Rove told the columnist he had heard similar information.

Friday's indictment says "Official A" is a "senior official in the White House who advised Libby on July 10 or 11 of 2003" about a chat with Novak about his upcoming column in which Plame would be identified as a CIA employee.

Late Friday, three people close to the investigation, each asking to remain unidentified because of grand jury secrecy, identified Rove as Official A.

An attorney for Rove, Robert Luskin, said in a statement this morning, "The Special Counsel has advised Mr. Rove that he has made no decision about whether or not to bring charges and that Mr. Rove's status has not changed. Mr. Rove will continue to cooperate fully with the Special Counsel's efforts to complete the investigation. We are confident that when the Special Counsel finishes his work, he will conclude that Mr. Rove has done nothing wrong."

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."

The grassroots are hated by the neocons for precisely that reason. The man on the street, the movement conservative, the Perot voter, the Libertarian Party man – they all want the troops brought home and the tyranny of the US empire brought to a halt. When the leaders of the empire try to talk down to normal people, they are jeered off the stage. The RRR position – no more war – is more and more the position of the American people. That’s a strike for peace and a strike for liberty.

More than half the North Carolina military members surveyed in the latest Elon University poll don't like the way President Bush is handling his job and the war in Iraq.

The survey results were released today.

Of the 539 adults surveyed, nearly 53 percent of military members said they strongly disapproved or disapproved of Bush's handling of his job. And 56 percent of that same group said they strongly disapproved or disapproved of his handling of the Iraq war.

Overall, slightly more than 53 percent of those surveyed did not approve of Bush's job performance, while 57 percent didn't approve of his handling of the Iraq war.

The telephone poll was conducted between Monday and Thursday and has a margin of error for the entire sample of plus or minus four-point-three percentage points.

"When an indictment is delivered at the front door of the White House, the office of the president is defiled. No citizen can take pleasure from that. As this case proceeds, Valerie and I are confident that justice will be done..."

The indictment showed that Libby began seeking information about Wilson and his wife in late May 2003, some six weeks before Plame's identity was publicly disclosed in a July 14, 2003, newspaper column by Robert Novak.

It appears that Libby first learned that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA -- and that she was involved in organizing his trip to Niger -- on June 11 or June 12, 2003 in conversations with the undersecretary of State and a senior officer at the CIA, who were not identified by name. The undersecretary referred to in the documents is Marc Grossman.

The indictment also highlighted Cheney's role. Libby learned from Cheney himself on June 12, 2003, that Wilson's wife worked in the counterproliferation division of the CIA.

Fitzgerald declined to predict when Libby's trial would begin but said he would not be arrested.

As for Rove, legal sources said the key Bush aide could at a later date face perjury charges for initially failing to tell the grand jury he talked to a Time magazine reporter about Plame.

The Undersecretary of State referenced in the indictment is not John Bolton -- it is Marc Grossman, the former U/S for Political Affairs. Because Powell and Armitage were out of the country at the time, Grossman was Acting Sec State. Hence, the State Department's INR forwarded Grossman the memo on the Niger stuff and Plame and Wilson's role, and Grossman forwarded it on to the White House.
Nothing sinister -- Grossman was just peforming his bureaucratic function.

Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security -- Robert Joseph
The Under Secretary leads the interagency policy process on nonproliferation and manages global U.S. security policy, principally in the areas of nonproliferation, arms control, regional security and defense relations, and arms transfers and security assistance.

"... the Under Secretary attends and participates, at the direction of the President, in National Security Council (NSC) and subordinate meetings pertaining to arms control, nonproliferation, and disarmament and has the right to communicate, through the Secretary of State, with the President and members of the NSC on arms control, nonproliferation, and disarmament concerns. ..."

Mr. Libby has informed me that he is resigning to fight the charges brought against him. I have accepted his decision with deep regret. Scooter Libby is one of the most capable and talented individuals I have ever known. He has given many years of his life to public service and has served our nation tirelessly and with great distinction.

In our system of government an accused person is presumed innocent until a contrary finding is made by a jury after an opportunity to answer the charges and a full airing of the facts. Mr. Libby is entitled to that opportunity.

Because this is a pending legal proceeding, in fairness to all those involved, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the charges or on any facts relating to the proceeding.

Another Fitzgerald paraquote from his presser today on the "why no leak charge" question: "Knowing that [Libby] learned the classified information [about Plame] and knowing that he gave that information to someone outside the government who was not entitled to receive it, and knowing it was classified, is not enough." You need to know that he understood all of those things and disclosed it anyway. "It doesn't matter what statute you use to vindicate the [public] interest. If Mr. Libby is found guilty of the charges, it will vindicate the public interest and hold him accountable. You wouldn't say that he was convicted under the wrong statute."

Fitzgerald is essentially saying that prosecuting Libby perjury and obstruction is another way to get at the same end that prosecuting him on the leak itself would: getting to the bottom of how and why classified information was leaked to unauthorized persons, and punishing those involved (starting with Libby) ...

More Fitzgerald: "This indictment is not about the war, and persons who oppose the war or persons who favor the war ... should not look to this indictment to vindicate their feelings. ... They would be disappointed and I think it would impede the process..." (Fitzgerald also made the point that "there is no law that says if you simply give classified information to someone else, that's a crime." There is no "official secrets act" as in England. There is a narrow statute under which you could charge someone with a serious national security violation.) What it seems is that if Libby hadn't lied to the grandy jury, no indictments would have been handed down, at least at this stage... which leads to more questions -- why would Libby take that chance? He's a lawyer and surely understands the jeopardy he placed himself in. Why did he go so far as to lie to the FBI and "repeatedly" to the grand jury? To protect Cheney? To protect someone else?

I've got more questions than answers or any form of "vindication" at this point...

Updates:

Bloomberg says the Indictment of One weakens Bush further.

RawStory is reporting that Fitzgerald may be holding out for much more serious charges against Karl Rove, stemming from those forged documents and possible "misuse of classified information..." (more RawStory scoopola here) ...

Libby's replacement has been named, and he's not without controversy...

The Daily News reports on the despondency of the Bush-bots...

Fitzgerald is out with a press release on the charges ...

LAT has a brief history of scandal-plagued aides ...

Previous:

• Down goes the neocon
• Indictment watch: round 3
• Indictment watch: round 2
• Indictment watch
• Rampant rumors, wild speculation...
• The 'uh-ohs' keep coming

• Down goes the neocon
• Indictment watch: round 3
• Indictment watch: round 2
• Indictment watch
• Rampant rumors, wild speculation...
• The 'uh-ohs' keep coming

Previous:

• The gang of four?
• The long short list
• Peering inside the bunker
• With hat in hand...

This is SO far from over
By: maberlin

We'll see what happens with the SCOTUS nomination, but this is NOT over. It is just beginning. Unless Libby cops a plea, there will be a trial. Even if he does cop a plea, it is likely that there will be congressional hearings and perhaps most damaging, a civil 1983 (depravation of civil rights) lawsuit by Joe Wilson. The burden of proof is much lower for a civil case, and you can force anyone, including POTUS, to testify (Remember Paula Jones?).

I see a lot of people here at RS burying their heads in the sand. Do not kid yourself, this is bad.

• Indictment watch: round 3
• Indictment watch: round 2
• Indictment watch
• Rampant rumors, wild speculation...
• The 'uh-ohs' keep coming

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A federal grand jury investigating the leak of a covert CIA operative's identity met in secret on Friday and was expected to bring criminal charges against Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff and possibly other White House officials.

But special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald informed President George W. Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, that he would not be among those indicted on Friday, although Fitzgerald indicated that Rove would remain under investigation and in legal jeopardy, legal sources said.

• Indictment watch: round 2
• Indictment watch
• Rampant rumors, wild speculation...
• The 'uh-ohs' keep coming

Tags; CIA leak, Plame, Valerie Plame, Joe Wilson , Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, White House, PlameGate, Iraq, Middle East, War, Terrorism, Foreign Policy, politics

• Indictment watch
• Rampant rumors, wild speculation...
• The 'uh-ohs' keep coming

• The gang of four?
• The long short list
• Peering inside the bunker
• With hat in hand...

The right's embrace in the Miers nomination of tactics previously exclusive to the left - exaggeration, invective, anonymous sources, an unbroken stream of new charges, television advertisements paid for by secret sources - will make it immeasurably harder to denounce and deflect such assaults when the Democrats make them the next time around. Given the overemphasis on admittedly ambiguous speeches Miers made more than a decade ago, conservative activists will find it difficult to take on liberals in their parallel efforts to destroy some future Robert Bork.

Not all critics of Ms. Miers from the right used these tactics, and those who did not will be able to continue on with the project of restoring sanity to the process that went haywire with Judge Bork's rejection in 1987. Conservatives are also fortunate that no Republican senator called for Ms. Miers's withdrawal.

But the Democrats' hand has been strengthened. Voting for or against Ms. Miers would have forced Senate Democrats to articulate a coherent standard for future nominees. Now, the Democrats have free rein.

The next nominee - even one who is a superb scholar and sitting judge who recently underwent Senate confirmation like Michael McConnell of the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, or a long-serving superstar like Michael Luttig of the Fourth Circuit - will face an instant and savage assault. After all, it "worked" with Ms. Miers. A claim of "special circumstances" justifying a filibuster will also be forthcoming. And will other nominees simply pass on the opportunity to walk out in the middle of a crossfire? A White House counsel with distinguished credentials was compared to Caligula's horse and Barney the dog on National Review's Web site. George Will denounced as "crude" those evangelicals who thought Ms. Miers's faith was a good indication of character in a nominee and a hopeful sign on issues involving the unborn. She was labeled a crony before lunch on the day of her nomination by scores of commentators. Attacks on her competence within the White House followed immediately. She never had a chance, really.

Harriet Miers wasn’t denied an up-or-down vote in the Senate. She withdrew after it became painfully obvious to all but the most partisan hack that she had no coherent judicial philosophy, questionable writing skills, and a tendency to tell folks whatever they wanted to hear. These are not the attributes I, or many other conservatives, look for in a Supreme Court justice.

And so what if many legal and political conservatives placed pressure on the president and/or Miss Miers to withdraw the nomination? What exactly is wrong with that, Hugh?

Moreover, I don’t recall any prominent legal conservative blogger arguing that the Miers nomination should be filibustered or that she should be denied an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. But hey, why argue the Miers nomination on the merits when you can easily knock down a strawman of your own making.

I am sorry, but if being a member of the Republican Party requires me to engage in the kind of blind and foolish loyalty you’ve demonstrated over the past few weeks, then count me out.