There is an ad currently running on Comedy Central for David Spade's show in which the comic says that Michael Jackson is having a 50 foot robot of himself built which will roam the desert shooting laser beams from it's eyes. He then asks the viewer, "Wouldn't we be more shocked if he didn't?"

Looking around the net this morning and perusing a few of the thousands of "will Bush pardon Scooter?" stories, that ad kept popping into my mind.

I think that Bush will pardon Scooter, I will be shocked if he doesn't, the real question, for me, is when?

You can be sure the question is being discussed in hushed tones in the West Wing this morning, but the hand wringing is audible out here in the heartland.

"Obviously, there'd be a significant political price to pay," said William P. Barr, who as attorney general to President George H.W. Bush remembers the controversy raised by the post-election pardons for several Iran-contra figures in 1992. "I personally am very sympathetic to Scooter Libby. But it would be a tough call to do it at this stage."

In the West Wing, Pardon Is A Topic Too Sensitive to Mention
By Peter Baker - Washington Post

It was a veritable champagne popping occasion at the Weekly Standard after Robert Luskin, lawyer to Karl Rove in the continuing CIA Leak Case, announced last Tuesday that that he had been told by special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald that his client will not be charged.  

The Weekly Standard's editor, Fred Barnes, could not contain his glee in stating that Rove's "vindication" was a blow to Democrats in the 2006 campaign and welcome news to the White House in particular and Republicans in general.

Barnes was correct as far as the political spin is concerned arising from Luskin's announcement, and politics is the area of the right wing Republican journalistic partisan's concern, which gives him something in common with Rove.  

If there is one area where Karl Rove has made himself abundantly clear, it is in the all-important area of spin control and the valued place it holds in a Cheney-Bush political strategy context.

In his latest Plame filing, Patrick Fitzgerald states why it may be necessary to call Vice President Dick Cheney to the witness stand in Scooter Libby's trial:

Libby "shared the interests of his superior and was subject to his direction," the prosecutor wrote. "Therefore, the state of mind of the vice president as communicated to (the) defendant is directly relevant to the issue of whether (the) defendant knowingly made false statements to federal agents and the grand jury regarding when and how he learned about (Plame's) employment and what he said to reporters regarding this issue."

Am I wrong, or is Fitzgerald stating that Cheney's testimony will demonstrate that the VP wanted Plame outed, and Libby lied to the grand jury about outing Plame in order to take the heat off his boss?

Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post is reporting that Karl Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, "was stunned...when journalists started calling to ask about an online report that he had spent half the day at his law office, negotiating with Patrick Fitzgerald -- and that the special prosecutor had secretly obtained an indictment of Rove."

Instead of Luskin simply affirming or denying the report, Luskin was prepared to assassinate the messenger:

The "claim that President Bush's top political strategist had been indicted in the CIA leak investigation was written by a journalist who has battled drug addiction and mental illness and been convicted of grand larceny. That didn't stop more than 35 reporters -- from all the major newspapers, networks and newsmagazines -- from calling Luskin or Rove's spokesman, Mark Corallo, to check it out."

Seems Luskin did his homework before making his statement - and went a little bit overboard for a representative of an administration that has likely used such onine media outlets to their advantage in the past.

Perhaps Jason Leopold came a little closer to the truth that Luskin have would liked.

The real story behind Rove's demotion yesterday was not that he was "spread too thin" or that he needs to "focus on the midterms," as the traditional media universally reported.  The real story is that there remains a substantial chance that Rove will be indicted by Fitzgerald in the Plamegate investgation, and the White House needs to put as much distance between Bush and Rove as possible before that event occurs.

In a breaking article today, reporter Jason Leopold managed to get Rove lawyer Robert Luskin on the record confirming that a Rove indictment remains a strong possibility:

Cross posted at skippy the bush kangaroo.

Dear Mr. President,

In my last letter to you dated Nov. 9, 2005, I wrote:

"Confession is good for the soul, and you, Mr. President, need to remove the taint that stains your soul. Confession can be cleansing and it can help you on the path to healing.

Tell him everything. I suspect -- and I guess most of us suspect -- that the decision to out Valerie Plame as a covert CIA operative didn't come from Karl Rove or Scooter Libby or even Dick Cheney.

It fits the kind of thing you did for your father's campaigns.

Ambassador Wilson attacked your administration's rationale for war. And you wanted to be a war president and you didn't want anyone to question that. Of course you attacked back. It's what you do, whether it's Ambassador Wilson or Al Hunt or John Kerry or even your own father when you were a young man."

There are still many unsolved mysteries in Plamegate. The biggest? We still do not know the identity of the original leaker who disclosed Valerie Plame's status as a CIA agent to Robert Novak (Reporters have referred to this person as the mysterious "Mr. X").

Despite all that has been written about the story, and despite the fact that we have now learned much about Scooter Libby's unlawful leaking and subsequent perjury, as well as about Karl Rove's similar conduct (which remains under investigation), the identity of the Senior Administration Official who set this whole debacle in motion remains unknown.

Well, in the Libby Court hearing before Judge Walton  yesterday, we learned a little bit more.

Personal note. After seven weeks of Travel and Real Life interference, I am back at my computer. Thanks to the Political Cortex family for tolerating (encouraging?) my absence.

It's becoming more and more clear as to why our favorite gumshoe, Patrick Fitzgerald, indicted Scooter Libby for perjury and not espionage.

Libby's lawyers' recent request for potentially classified material in this case is most telling. Mark Kleiman spells it out:

Scooter Libby's demand for information about Valerie Plame's work for the CIA is of a piece with his demand for copies of the Presidential Daily Briefs: graymail, pure and simple. The idea is to ask for something arguably relevant to the defense which the government can't allow to appear in open court for national-security reasons, hoping to force a dismissal.

"Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald will present additional evidence to a grand jury Wednesday morning in the CIA leak case that could result in an indictment being handed up against White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, sources close to the investigation told RAW STORY.

"MSNBC's Hardball has confirmed the story..."

http://rawstory.com/news/20 05/Fitzgerald_to_present_mo re_information_to_1213.html

Lawrence O'Donnell, who has been pretty clear about the Plame case, has this to say about the Fitzgerald investigation and Karl Rove's present predicament:

You're the special prosecutor. You're on the verge of indicting one of the most powerful White House aides in history on lying to the FBI and perjury. His lawyer makes a last minute pitch that really muddies your waters. At trial, the lead prosecution witness is going to be a Time reporter testifying about his conversation with the defendant. Now you learn that the lead defense witness is going to be another Time reporter testifying about her conversation with the defense lawyer. You know this is going to sound too weird for a jury to get past reasonable doubt. You don't indict.

Instead, what Fitzgerald is doing now is getting Viveca Novak under oath to check how her story is going to sound to a jury. If Fitzgerald does not indict Rove after hearing from Novak, then it will be Viveca Novak who saves Rove. Which is to say it will be Luskin's relationship with the press, with Viveca Novak in particular, that saved Rove. If Rove beats the rap, it will definitely be the product of Bob Luskin's particular skill and cleverness.

I'd hate for Rove to get off.

According to The Washington Post, Patrick Fitzgerald and a bunch of prosecutor types are back in front of the Grand Jury today for the first time since the Libby indictment. They've got a bunch of boxes and briefcases with them. That means that there will be some legal stuff flying around the room.

With the new grand jury, Fitzgerald continues to consider charges against Karl Rove, White House deputy chief of staff, who failed to reveal to the FBI and the grand jury in the early days of the investigation that he had provided information about CIA analyst Valerie Plame to Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper.

So we can follow the timeline:

1.  Late Tuesday night/early Wednesday morning the news comes out that Woodward had, in fact, heard about Valerie Plame's working for the CIA from a Non-Scooter Admininstration Official (for which I would love to coin the acronym NSAO, but it now appears that it was Stephen Hadley, which consigns my not so clever acronym immediately to the dustbin of bloggery).

2. In the original WaPo story from Wednesday morning Libby's lawyer is quoted already trying to use this to discredit the prosecutor, saying that Fitzgerald had claimed in his press conference on indictment day that Scooter was the first administration official to talk to reporters.

3. Said talking point makes its way quickly into the SCLM Day 2 round of stories on the new development. Tony Locy and Pete Yost of the AP declare Woodward Claim on CIA Leak Disputes Charge:

Bob Woodward's version of when and where he learned the identity of a CIA operative contradicts a special prosecutor's contention that Vice President Dick Cheney's top aide was the first to make the disclosure to reporters.

The WaPo itself, in an article by Carol D. Leonnig and Jim VandeHei, explains that Woodward Could Be a Boon to Libby:

Woodward testified Monday that contrary to Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald's public statements, a senior government official -- not Libby -- was the first Bush administration official to tell a reporter about Plame and her role at the CIA.

And USA Today chimes in a similar Reporter's account could help Libby's defense.

There's only one problem with all this wonderful stenography.  

Ron Brynaert at his blog, Why Are We Back in Iraq, has a spot-on analysis comparing Bob Woodward's role in the Plame outing to Judith Miller's role. But what makes the read most intriguing is Brynaert's observations that it appears Woodward's original notes weren't consulted. First, Brynaert quotes Woodward:

I testified that on June 27, 2003, I met with Libby at 5:10 p.m. in his office adjacent to the White House. I took the 18-page list of questions with the Page-5 reference to ``yellowcake'' to this interview and I believe I also had the other question list from June 20, which had the ``Joe Wilson's wife'' reference.

I have four pages of typed notes from this interview, and I testified that there is no reference in them to Wilson or his wife. A portion of the typed notes shows that Libby discussed the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, mentioned ``yellowcake'' and said there was an ``effort by the Iraqis to get it from Africa. It goes back to February '02.'' This was the time of Wilson's trip to Niger.

When asked by Fitzgerald if it was possible I told Libby I knew Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and was involved in his assignment, I testified that it was possible I asked a question about Wilson or his wife, but that I had no recollection of doing so. My notes do not include all the questions I asked, but I testified that if Libby had said anything on the subject, I would have recorded it in my notes.

Via Josh Marshall, a stunner from tomorrow's Washington Post:

Washington Post Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward testified under oath Monday in the CIA leak case that a senior administration official told him about CIA operative Valerie Plame and her position at the agency nearly a month before her identity was disclosed.

In a more than two-hour deposition, Woodward told Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald that the official casually told him in mid-June 2003 that Plame worked as a CIA analyst on weapons of mass destruction, and that he did not believe the information to be classified or sensitive, according to a statement Woodward released yesterday.

Woodward's Statement is here (pdf file).

Further, in the main Post article:

Woodward did not share the information with Washington Post Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr. until last month, and the only Post reporter whom Woodward said he remembers telling in the summer of 2003 does not recall the conversation taking place.

In his lastest article for The National Journal, Murray Waas states that Fitz might be waiting for Libby's testimony before indicting Karl Rove in the Plame/CIA Leak case, and gave some interesting insight as to why Fitz decided not to indict Rove in October.