October 28, 2005
Scooter Goin' Down?
Tucker Carlson has opened about every show this week by breathlessly intoning a new development in l’Affaire Plame courtesy of the NYTimes. Being on live at 11 gives him a head start that is interesting, he can be first to discuss "tomorrow's" Times.
Oddly enough, none of these leaks (on a leak investigation) have seemed to be real stories with any legs.
Last night's was that Scooter Libby was to be indicted for perjury but not for outing Valerie Plame. The headline I see today is the superior "Rove Not Expected to be Indicted Today."
So, two years and $22 million (starting to sound like a 90's Democrat) and Fitzgerald may drop the hammer on a Vice President's Chief-of-staff -- not for outing a CIA operative -- but for lying about it.
I'm not the only one who thinks this is sad, Jason at G e n e r a t i o n W h y ? agrees.
Just one problem... the corruption conspiracy never existed. And the indictment that's expected today will show that... or rather the lack of any indictment for revealing an undercover agent's identity will show it. Sure, the Left is likely to cheer gleefully when an indictment comes down today against Scooter Libby, but the absence of an indictment for actually outing an undercover agent will reveal that this was never a story to begin with.
We still, of course, are punditing on punditry of speculation of anonymous leaks. Carlson thinks there has to be some hidden bomb in there somewhere, that this cannot be all there is.
Can it?
Hat-tip: Insty
From the other side Posted by John Kranz at October 28, 2005 12:41 PM
The more interesting question to me is if there are no indictments did we waste $22 million? I am especially looking forward to the pundits views on this. Tempting as it is to say yes, you are in effect saying that something should be found. The sticky wicket here is that I am sure Fitzgerald (and others before him) felt pressure to come up with something, something for the $22 million. This begs the question of whether just appointing a special prosecutor pre-judges the case really both against the subjects and the prosecutor themselves. If a failure to bring an indictment is a failure of the investigation and of the special prosecutor themselves then you have biased the outcome from the start.
Posted by: Silence Dogood at October 28, 2005 1:03 PMThe special prosecutor is a bad idea but certainly tempting to political opponents.
Judge Starr has been maligned (rightly i some instances) but his tenure brought down a sitting Governor and resulted in many indictments. Fitzgerald seems to be coming up short.
Posted by: jk at October 28, 2005 1:38 PMSilence makes a very good point: Does the mere appointment of a special prosecutor NECESSITATE an indictment of some sort?
Senator Schmucky Chumer of NY said on O'Reilly last night that "the only explanation" for why Libby would lie about something that wasn't a crime is that there really was a crime (a conspiracy to damage Plame and Wilson) and he's thrown himself on his sword to protect higher ups.
I'll posit another possible explanation for what, by all accounts, seems a stupid mistake on Scooter's part. Being beltway insiders, the administration realized the axiom that Silence just enlightened us about from the very beginning, and Scooter volunteered to be the fall guy.
It's at least as plausable as Chumer's "there really was a crime" hypothesis.
Posted by: johngalt at October 29, 2005 10:44 AMJust this once, jg, have a little pity on the Senior Senator from New York. Not only is he overshadowed every day by the dadgummed JUNIOR Senator form New York, but he is also feeling the disappointment not unlike “a dagger in his heart.”
The anti-W camp pinned their hopes on the Fitzgerald star and all they get is Scooter. Poor Senator Schumer…
Posted by: jk at October 29, 2005 4:09 PM | What do you think? [4]