Libby to Be Charged in CIA Leak Probe

The AP is reporting that VP Cheney’s Chief of Staff Scooter Libby would be indicted on making false statements. Regarding Karl Rove:

A person outside the legal profession familiar with recent developments in the case said Thursday night that Rove’s team does not believe he is out of legal jeopardy yet but likely would be spared bad news Friday when the White House fears the first indictments will be issued.

Fitzgerald signaled Thursday he might keep Rove under continuing investigation, sparing him from immediate charges, the person said, speaking only on condition of anonymity because of the secrecy of the grand jury probe.

I’m sure we’ll find out more about this tomorrow. It thought I had read yesterday that Fitzgerald wouldn’t be able to extend the term of the grand jury after Friday but it appears from this article that he may be able to. Stay tuned …

More via the NYT:

Karl Rove, President Bush’s senior adviser and deputy chief of staff, will not be charged on Friday, but will remain under investigation, people briefed officially about the case said. As a result, they said, the special counsel in the case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, was likely to extend the term of the federal grand jury beyond its scheduled expiration on Friday.

I blogged about this more at Blogs For Bush.

Friday a.m. Update: See Jason Smith’s “The Plame-Non Story” .

Tom Maguire has a roundup of links and speculation.

Bowling for cats

….. perfect for playing right here at Halloween. (Warning: it can be addictive! LOL)

PS: Remember, I *am* a cat owner but I thought this game was ok :)

Lemme know what your score is. Mine was a weak 75. A case of art imitating life! 😀

Thanks to Sierratango.

It’s The Fault Of The “Extreme Right Wing”

That seems to be the official Dem talking point today in response to Harriet Miers’ USSC nomination withdrawal. Via the San Antonio Express News:

Democrats accused the White House of buckling to extreme right wing of the Republican Party.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., a member of the Judiciary Committee, said not one Republican lawmaker called for the withdrawal.

“It was the very extreme wing of the president’s party,” Schumer said. “If the president continues to listen to that extreme wing, on judicial nominations or anything else, it can only spell trouble for his presidency and for America.”

“It’s an astonishing spectacle,” said Ralph Neas with the left-leaning People for the American Way.

“The un-elected power brokers of the far right have forced the withdrawal of President Bush’s own Supreme Court nominee, before a confirmation hearing has even been held,” Neas said.

Watch for the media to pick up on this talking point as well. I’m reminded of a piece Media Research did on how the media treats Republicans and Democrats differently in terms of how they portray fulfilling campaign promises to their respective bases. Flashback:

— On ABC, Peter Jennings claimed that “President Bush begins by taking a tough line on abortion.” White House reporter Terry Moran alleged that the re-instatement of a ban on U.S. funding of pro-abortion groups overseas “was designed to appeal to anti-abortion conservatives.”

But exactly eight years ago, on January 22, 1993, Jennings said the opposite deed by Clinton was the act of a promise-keeper: “In a moment, President Clinton keeps his word on abortion rights,” he announced before a commercial break. Introducing the story by Jackie Judd, Jennings repeated, “President Clinton kept a promise today.” No one at ABC that day said Clinton was merely trying “to appeal to pro-abortion liberals.”

— CBS’s Dan Rather spun the news of Bush’s new order as a pay-off: “This was President Bush’s first day in office, and he did something to quickly please the right flank of his party.” White House correspondent John Roberts stated Bush had “waded into controversy on his first day….abortion rights activists fear there’s more to come.”

When a Democrat president does something to, in part, please his base, he’s “keeping a promise” or “keeping his word.” When a Republican does it, he’s acting to “quickly please the right flank of his party.” I’m sure over the next several weeks we’ll hear a lot of terms being thrown around by the MSM like “extreme right wing” or “far right flank” and other such descriptions of the people who opposed Miers nomination.

More: Jeff Goldstein writes:

Question: how many “bases” does the President have, exactly? I mean, for years we’ve been hearing from Democrats and the legacy media how James Dobson, Hugh Hewitt, the evangelicals, et al, are Bush’s “right wing” conservative base—but these are the very people who, in addition to GOP party pragmatists, by and large were most supportive of the Miers nomination.

And yet today, all I’m hearing is that Bush caved to his “extremist” “right wing base.”

Read the whole thing. I’m with Jeff in wanting the media to please clarify just exactly who they think “Bush’s base” really is in hopes that they’ll settle on one definitive description.

(Cross-posted at Blogs For Bush)

Friday a.m. Update: From a ‘Senior Administration Official’ (heh) in the comments section here :

We used the “extreme right wing” phraseology in a flowchart we just made of what we can expect from Barbara Boxer and her ilk when they get the next nominee in their sights. We think it’s kinda funny; it shows a Republican President just can’t win.

If interested, it’s here.

It’s called the “Bork-o-matic” 😀

Harriet Miers has withdrawn

Hooray! Now Patterico can come back inside from being out on that ledge ;)

How much do you wanna bet Bush has already got in mind who he wants to pick to replace Miers as the nominee?


WASHINGTON – Confronted with criticism from both the left and right, Harriet Miers on Thursday withdrew her nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In a statement, President Bush said he “reluctantly accepted” her decision to withdraw, after weeks of insisting that he did not want her to step down.

Bush blamed her withdrawal on calls in the Senate for the release of internal White House documents that the administration has insisted were protected by executive privilege.

“My responsibility to fill this vacancy remains” he added. “I will do so in a timely manner.”

Back to the drawing board.

Here’s Ms. Miers letter to the President where she requested to be withdrawn.

Link roundup of blogger reax at Michelle Malkin’s blog.


John Hawkins at Right Wing News: “Happy Harriet Miers Withdraws Day, Everyone!” (a must-read post)

California Conservative predicts Judge Edith Hollan Jones (5th Circuit United States Court of Appeals) will be W’s new pick.

Brian at Iowa Voice says: “Now, Mr. President: nominate the most hard-core conservative you can find!!!” Heh.

Bryan Preston at Junkyard Blog: “Now let’s get a real conservative nominated and get ready to rumble.”

Jay at Stop The ACLU has more links to blogger reax.

Jim at bRight and Early suggests Justice Karen Williams, currently serving on the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Afternoon Update: Ed Whelan at NRO’s Bench Memos makes a good point:

Harriet Miers deserves the deep respect of all Americans for her courageous decision to withdraw her nomination. President Bush likewise deserves great credit for accepting her decision.

Indeed. I hope this post didn’t come across as gloating, either. Especially considering the fact that I was neutral for the first two weeks of the nomination. I came out a few days later in official opposition but this blog hasn’t devoted a good chunk of time to why she should have been opposed. Plenty of other fine blogs out there took care of that. So bottom line is no gloating is coming from this corner (and my “Hooray” at the beginning was because I knew Patterico was finally gonna come inside from that ledge ;)).