Saturday, October 29, 2005

What you can expect next Fitzmas

Some of you may be wondering if there even will be another Fitzmas. It's not guaranteed, but it's probable. See this article. It mentions Fitz's activities in another case. To summarise the other case:

  • In 1998, the investigation of a fatal accident revealed truckers were purchasing commercial licenses from state official.
  • Fitz works his way, month by month, year by year, through 66 defendents.
  • In 2003, five years later, Fitz indicted the 66th defendent, former Illinois Governor George Ryan, on corruption charges

Like the Energizer Bunny, Fitz just keeps on going. And he doesn't stop until he's indicted everyone who is indictable, right the way to the top. He'll compare different testimony against physical evidence and use perjury, obstruction of justice, making false statements and conspiracy to leverage testimony out of people. Once he's driven the wedge in a little bit further, he'll use that to go after others.

I know, I know. You all want to know what you'll be getting next Fitzmas. There's no way of knowing for sure, but there are hints.

  • All but one of the journalists testified upon first (or maybe second) request. The only hold-out was Miller, and she went to jail for contempt of court. None of the others went to jail for contempt of court.

  • That means Novak testified.

  • Novak said, in the column that started all this, that he was told about Plame by two senior administration officials. And since Novak testified, Fitzgerald knows who those two are.

  • Read the Libby indictments carefully. It mentions his statements to several journalists, but Novak was not one of them.

  • Novak leaked Plame's name, remember?

  • I can't remember if it was the indictment, the press release or Fitz's press conference transcript, but one of them specifically stated that Libby had told both Miller and Cooper that Plame was Wilson's wife. He had not said that to Russert, and that was also specifically stated (in fact Russert says that Libby didn't mention anything to him about Wilson or Plame, although Libby said he did).

So either Fitz has some reason not to bring up Libby telling Novak about Plame (that's not impossible) or Libby was not one of the two senior administration officials who leaked Plame's name to Novak. And that would mean that there is not just one other person (almost certainly Rove, as he and Novak have done this sort of thing before) that Novak has implicated but two.

If Libby didn't speak to Novak and Rove did, who could be the other senior administration official who spoke to Novak? How senior? The same level as Libby and Rove? A lower level? A higher level?

Over in the UK we had a stupid TV game show where cards were turned over, one at a time, to reveal their value. Based on the last card turned over, the contestant had to predict whether the next card would be higher or lower. The audience would shout their advice: "Lower" or "Higher." I'll be screaming myself hoarse: Higher! Higher! Higher!


Post a Comment

<< Home