PhotoDude.com

Before I get too excited and start peeing my pants….there’s the Robert Novak question. Why no orange jumpsuit? Common sense would say because he already revealed his source on the quiet. And if that source was Karl Rove, and I certainly haven’t seen him doing any frog-marches lately, cuffed and chained like a rat, then common sense would dictate that we probably won’t see any frog-marching in the near future. We may not even hear the outcome until there’s another administration in power. But maybe I’m just a party-pooper. Lord knows I’m ready for a big circus.

I Am Not A Lawyer, but as I understand it, the grand jury is investigating to see whether a crime was committed via this leak. They obviously haven’t determined that, as this case had to go all the way to the Supreme Court, just to seek out the source of the leak.

However, it is also assumed that Rove (and others in the White House) have testified before this grand jury, and presumably said they had nothing to do with it.

A charge of perjury requires not one, but two witnesses to the perjured statement.

If you’ve already got Novak in the pocket (and why else would he be free from this?), you need one more.

Kids, hop in the car. We’re goin’ to the circus! Those banging and thumping sounds you’re hearing is Nancy Grace’s staff pulling up stakes in Aruba.

I wouldn’t be loading up the kids just yet (and a pox on you for a gratuitous mention of Nancy Ghoul).

O’Donnell is a single source, and a demonstrably liberal one, at that. But still, there’s a certain instinctual sense to this. If Time is going to hand over the e-mails and other documents to the grand jury, they cannot simultaneously be the ones to break this story.

It has to come from somewhere else. And there’s probably more than a dozen people within Time, Inc. more than capable of leaking this to a peer, as they know it’s going to be out within a week or so anyway.

I can’t imagine O’Donnell going that far out on a limb, far enough that he expects to now be subpoenaed himself, without some damn good info. If he turns out to be wrong, his credibility drops to the level of “Iraqi Information Minister.”

More here: “Since I revealed the big scoop, I have had it reconfirmed by yet another highly authoritative source. Too many people know this. It should break wide open this week. I know Newsweek is working on an ‘It’s Rove!’ story and will probably break it tomorrow.”

When your best friend is the President, you can get out of anything. We’re not talking about some low-level flunky or a scapegoat, but the Man Behind the Curtain.

If it turns out to be Rove, there’ll be a lot of fireworks, there’ll be a lot of Clintonian tactics from the White House, but not much else.

But I’m a pessimist about these things. Assume the worst and you’ll never be disappointed, but sometimes you’ll be pleasantly surprised.

Ironically, it may turn out that the actual “crime” that was committed, outing Valerie Plame, may not be a crime at all. But perjury is. If this was the early sixties, The Frogwalk would be the next dance craze. “I’m a little pimp with my hair gassed back. I can do de frogwalk jus’ like dat.” Apologies to Frank Zappa.

And here’s the confirmation from Newsweek: “The e-mails surrendered by Time Inc., which are largely between Cooper and his editors, show that one of Cooper’s sources was White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove, according to two lawyers who asked not to be identified because they are representing witnesses sympathetic to the White House. Cooper and a Time spokeswoman declined to comment. But in an interview with NEWSWEEK, Rove’s lawyer, Robert Luskin, confirmed that Rove had been interviewed by Cooper for the article. It is unclear, however, what passed between Cooper and Rove.”

That’s not much of a confirmation. The strategy presents itself: They’re going to go Clinton and lawyer Rove out of this.

On the bright side, at least this will keep anybody from debating over healthcare, trade relations, gerrymandering, the war on terror, oil prices, right to life/die, eminent domain, environmental policy, nuclear power, bankrupcty laws, logging, emissions standards, manufacturing jobs, high stakes testing, capital gains taxes, Head Start programs, or other such political minutiae for a while.

I’m thinking that’s not such a bad downside, given that this 109th Congress would screw up an ass-wiping contest by not appropriating any toilet paper. Besides, they’ll likely be totally distracted for some time by shiny things, like the battle over a Supreme Court nominee, and Flag Burning Amendments.

I’m becoming more and more OK with that. In the short term, the more CSPAN looks like another episode of Wrestlemania, the better.

”...In fact, last week the Supreme Court ruled on the case, saying that the source must be revealed to the grand jury….”

Perhaps I’m misremembering, but I thought I recalled that the SCOTUS declined to rule on the case, and said nothing at all, which allowed the appellate ruling to stand, actually.

See here, for instance.

Okay, here? http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/27/scotus.reporters.ap/

One question that I can’t answer: per reports, Rove has given carte blanche, to anyone who interviewed him, to reveal what was discussed in those interviews. If it was Rove who whispered “Valerie”, what reporter would not come forth with that, and what would be the reasoning?

Gary, I’m sure you’re right, I mischaracterized what the Supreme Court did … but the result was the reporters were under an order to reveal their sources.

Scott, I don’t know. Many have said the downside for journalists at Time is that their company has let it be known that, if it comes down to brass tacks, anonymous sources will be outed in preference to continued corporate health. Which turns this into one big Catch 22: source gives info and reporter gives them standard anonymous treatment … source later changes mind and says you can reveal my name … journalist makes living by anonymous sources and thus is reluctant to breach the agreement, due to the larger impact.

There’s been so much heat on stories based on anonymous sources that I wonder if the Plame info would even be used by a reporter today, if the circumstances were to repeat themselves.

This whole matter is far from clear, or over. But it will be interesting to see what lessons result.

I can see that if it were the deputy under-secretary of the northwestern Idaho field office of the USDA talking about potato subsidies.

But Karl Rove & toppling the administration? That’s Woodward-Bernstein, rocking-chair material. The only work any reporter would have to do after that is decide whether gold or platinum is better for the bathroom fixtures on their primary yacht.