White House Watch: Cheney resignation rumors fly; Condi to be VP of US??

WASHINGTON, Oct. 19

NEWS SUMMARY
On April 8, 2002, when the federal courthouse in Washington, DC held a groundbreaking ceremony for a new annex, Vice President Cheney gave remarks that included the following (We aren't kidding.):

"Usually, when a crowd gathers outside this building, somebody is in trouble. (Laughter.) . . . The U.S. Courts Building does not really stand out in the Washington landscape. It's not known for special style or flare or extravagance; nothing at all flashy about it. In short, the perfect place for a joint appearance by Dick Cheney and Bill Rehnquist." (Laughter.) LINK

Scroll down here and check out the photo. LINK

As for 2005, the grand jury investigating the leak of a CIA operative's name gathered at 9:00 am ET today at that very federal courthouse in Washington, DC. And there is quite a crowd gathered, although the betting at this writing is that nothing will happen today of Note — at least not in public.

ABC News' Jason Ryan reports, "Grand jury 03-3 — the jury hearing the CIA leak case — is meeting, but indications from a court source are that Fitzgerald and his team will not be at the courthouse today."

"Currently two assistant US attorneys who work on drug prosecutions are using the grand jury for a case they are working on."

President Bush will need not be bothered with having to refuse to prejudge anything today because he has no public schedule as of this writing. (Be on the lookout, however, for a closed presidential meeting with Republican congressional leaders.)

With an added final paragraph pregnant with meaning, the New York Times' Johnston/Stevenson duo advances the CIA leak investigation on two key fronts. The Timesmen report that Fitzgerald "is not expected to take any action in the case this week" and "he has no plans to issue a final report about the results of the investigation," leading some to believe indictments are more likely than not to be forthcoming. LINK

Here's that final graph: "Officials who testified or were questioned by investigators also included John Hannah, Mr. Cheney's principal deputy national security adviser."

The timing of the Times seems to comport with Rove attorney Robert Luskin's guidance given to ABC News' Jonathan Karl that if indictments were coming down today he would "absolutely 100 percent" know about it by last evening and he did not.

And take a look at what might be a window into some new White House thinking on how best to position the President in advance of any possible indictments. LINK

Super-plugged-in Tom DeFrank of the New York Daily News reports exclusively that an "angry President Bush rebuked chief political guru Karl Rove two years ago for his role in the Valerie Plame affair. . . 'He made his displeasure known to Karl,' a presidential counselor told The News. 'He made his life miserable about this.'"

DeFrank has another source claiming that reports that Rove may have misled Bush about the "Wilson counterattack were incorrect and were leaked by White House aides trying to protect the president."

Yesterday's US News item about a possible Cheney resignation gives those of you in the Gang of 501-50,000 some insight into what is going on with the rest of us. LINK

While the Cheney quote above is absolutely real, the following "memo" "from" three top Democratic strategists is PHONY, FAKE, SATIRICAL, and NOT REAL.

This "memo," "obtained" by ABC News last night, offers insight into why the White House is not nearly as worried as it might otherwise be about all this.

-------------------------------------------------------

TO: The Honorable Harry Reid, The Honorable Nancy Pelosi, The Honorable Charles Schumer, and Rahm

FROM: Mark Fabiani, Mike McCurry, and Joe Lockhart

DATE: 10/18/05

RE: THE TIME IS NOW

The opportunity is at hand.

Within days, there seems to be a very good chance that Patrick Fitzgerald will indict one or more White House officials.

All too many members of our base around the country — including major donors — have no confidence that the party will do the right thing (politically and substantively) to plan for and react to these indictments.

If you all and our allies perform at what will we call "the usual" level of communications and political competence, we will waste the moment, and, incredibly, President Bush might politically survive something that should paralyze and devastate him.

If there are charges brought, the White House and the RNC will surely go into attack mode, and try to make all this about Joe Wilson and other distractions. We can't let them do that.

Also, we cannot let the White House flip this into yet another debate over which party will keep the country safe. We know how that debate comes out. We must keep the narrative focused on criminality, fraud, a fundamental breach of faith with the nation and its armed forces.

The legal issues will play themselves out as the prosecutor moves forward. There is a likelihood that this case will focus on the systematic manufacturing and leaking of classified information by the Bush Administration. The prosecutor will focus on the law — the dissemination of classified information and related issues — with some combination of conspiracy, suborning perjury, perjury, and obstruction.

Democrats need to provide the political narrative that explains why the breaking of these laws was so bad and damaging to our national security.

This cannot be a case about a leak (since the press doesn't like to cover leak stories as most of them are recipients of leaks and it sounds small bore); this cannot be a matter about White House aides (most people think Scooter Libby is something you ride on, and Karl Rove isn't as famous as you think he is); this cannot be about an isolated incident that smells, feels, and tastes like business as usual in Washington, DC (since that won't break through).

It's got to be about big things that impact the real lives of real Americans — and about how Bush pushed our country into a war.

Here are the specific steps to take:

(1) Message: Make this much bigger so that there is a political narrative that draws the connection between the manipulation of intelligence and the war in Iraq.

The Bush Administration manufactured and manipulated information in order to fool elected officials and the public into supporting a war where nearly 2,000 American soldiers have been killed. This goes all the way to the top — the Vice President of the United States appears to have been directly involved. Above all else this is a matter of national security and it is critical we understand how national security information was manipulated and manufactured to advance a political agenda — and that those who were responsible are held accountable.

(2) The name game: Give this scandal a name that makes it clear that it is more than about Valerie Plame or Joe Wilson or Karl Rove. "Iraq-WMD Affair" and "Iraq-gate" are too clunky. Maybe a contest on the DSCC website and outreach to the liberal bloggers to find a name? Or maybe ask Roy Spence for some ideas?

(3) Keep the focus squarely on Bush: Bush's changing comments; Bush's integrity; Bush as Commander in Chief. Seek documents; seek sworn testimony from the White House; get into fights over Bush's refusal to turn over information that would explain to the public exactly what the Bush White House did. This is not a "WDHKAWDHKI?" — this is "WDHD with WMD?" — what did he do with the weapons of mass destruction intelligence?

(4) The ties that bind: Make it clear that this scandal is just one of many — DeLay, Ney, Abramoff, Safavian, possibly Frist — that demonstrates an arrogant unaccountable majority dangerously controlling all the levers of power in Washington. Make sure people know the prosecutor is a Republican appointed by Bush's Justice Department and praised by Bush himself. And make sure they know the investigation originated with a request from the CIA.

(5) Apply pressure to the Republicans to hold hearings: The Republicans — especially those up for re-election in '06 and '08 — should be forced in their states/districts and in DC to explain why they are resisting holding bipartisan hearings.

(6) Feed the fire: Continue to pour fuel on the fire by giving out tidbits and creating news to drive coverage; work DC up into a froth; and leverage competitive pressures between news organizations. Judy Miller's New York Time colleagues will be hot and heavy for anything on this. The newsweeklies can't get enough. And you can float daily questions to The Note, which will likely run them without any filter/editing if you deliver them right before their deadline; White House and Hill reporters will then ask every Republican they see whatever is listed there all morning and into the afternoon. . .

(7) Be prepared to push reforms: If this really is as big as it could be — meaning it becomes clear that the Bush White House had created an off-line, out-sourced effort to manufacture information on WMD that they then put out in a carefully orchestrated way to generate support for the war — we will need to become the party of reform. This scenario — and we are not there yet though you can see it getting there — would be comparable to Watergate and be a watershed moment that we will need to be prepared to leverage by making it clear we want to put in reforms to make sure that such a thing would never happen again. And we say diplomatically: not every leader in the party is equally qualified to make this argument.

Last year, the President was holding an extraordinarily weak hand politically, and yet he won re-election. Although various factors (the war, gas prices, Katrina) have driven down his poll numbers, all of our leading pollsters (especially Stan) have research suggesting our party has not taken advantage of much of anything that makes Bush weak.

Now is the time, we are the party, this is our moment.

Respectfully we say: please don't blow it.

-------------------------------------------------------

See the rest of today's schedule at the end of The Note.

The Fitzgerald investigation:
Just as the DNC would want, the New York Daily News writes that the White House Iraq Group "morphed into a virtual hit squad that took aim at critics who questioned its claims," according to sources who add that Judy Miller a "charter member" of the group. LINK

"What has been depicted is an administration effort to refute the allegations of a critic (some of which did in fact prove to be untrue) and to undermine his credibility, including by suggesting that nepotism rather than qualifications led to his selection. If such conversations are deemed a crime, journalism and the public will be the losers," writes the Washington Post editorial board. LINK

The New York Daily News' Rush and Molloy say some New York Times colleagues heard Judy Miller and executive editor Bill Keller "screaming at each other" on Saturday in the hours before the paper's Plame stories went to bed. LINK

As part of its broader mission of holding the "brain-dead media" accountable, the American Progress Action Fund, the C4 arm of the Center for American Progress, is launching a Web site today designed to prebut what the group considers "right-wing myths" about the Fitzgerald investigation. LINK

The folks who created it want you to think of it as a handy-dandy guide for the Gang of 500.

When conservative "yappers" say things like "leaking classified information is no big deal" because that kind of thing happens all the time in Washington, the Web site directs readers to text — and video — of Bush 41 saying on April 26, 1999 that exposing an undercover CIA agent is "the most insidious of crimes."

Or, if someone tries to paint Fitzgerald as a "runaway prosecutor," the folks at the C4 arm of John Podesta's shop want you to remember that Bush 43 said Fitzgerald was conducting a "very dignified investigation" as recently as October 11, 2005.

WASHINGTON, Oct. 18

NEWS SUMMARY

1. The New York Daily News says the Vice President is becoming an increased focus of speculation in the leak investigation. "Cheney's name has come up amid indications Fitzgerald may be edging closer to a blockbuster conspiracy charge - with help from a secret snitch. 'They have got a senior cooperating witness - someone who is giving them all of that,' a source who has been questioned in the leak probe told the Daily News yesterday." LINK

(Note well Mr. DeFrank's grand presence in the byline.)

2. The Washington Post's VandeHei and Pincus report that Fitzgerald has assembled evidence that suggests Cheney's "long-standing" tensions with the CIA "contributed" to the unmasking of Plame. In terms of timing, the Washington Post duo report that some lawyers "close to the case" cited "courthouse talk" that Fitzgerald might announce his findings "as early as tomorrow, though hard evidence about his intentions and timing remained elusive." LINK

3. The criticism of Judith Miller and the New York Times' top management continues to mount, according to the Los Angeles Times, in a story that deconstructs about 15% of the holes in Miller's story. LINK

The Fitzgerald investigation:
Now that the people running the government are about to face "their day — or days — in court," the "old conservative talking points" about perjury, the obstruction of justice, and the rule of law are "inoperative," writes the Washington Post's E.J. Dionne. LINK

The New York Times J. Tierney has his own views of these matters.

The Los Angeles Times' editorial board argues that Miller and her employer "have abused the public's trust by manufacturing a showdown with the government." LINK

The New York Post's John Podhoretz speculates on Bob Novak's role in the Plame case, while questioning why Fitzgerald hasn't handed down any indictments yet.

"As for what else the prosecutor is up to, the next two weeks will tell the tale — but Bush's enemies should prepare themselves emotionally for the fact that the Fitzgerald tale might be one about how no crime was committed." LINK

"It's not something affecting the daily business of the White House," said Karen Hughes to NBC's Katie Couric when asked about the impact of the investigation inside 1600. (Gone from the morning version was the soundbite aired on "NBC Nightly News" last night where Hughes expressed some compassion and concern for her friends Karl and Scooter.)

Bush agenda:
President Bush fell below 40 percent approval for the first time in the latest USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll. Congressional job approval fell to 29 percent, the lowest level since 1994, and 68 percent of Americans say they are dissatisfied with the country's direction. Stuart Rothenberg provides this analysis: "These numbers suggest an electorate ripe for an 'it's-time-for-change' argument. They don't like the way things are going, and they are blaming the people in charge." LINK

"The confluence of crises, all running through Mr. Card's suite just steps from the Oval Office, has some critics asking whether he needs to clean house or assert himself more forcefully - or at least consider a course correction before Mr. Bush is downgraded permanently to lame duck status," writes the New York Times' Anne Kornblut in her look at Chief of Staff Andy Card's responsibility for and response to the current political climate in which the Administration finds itself. LINK

Bloomberg's Ryan J. Donmoyer has William Gale, a senior fellow at Brookings, betting "big money" that President Bush's tax advisory panel will recommend overhauling the current tax system by replacing it with a variation of the flat tax that would abolish most deductions and end levies on investment income. The plan would raise concerns about whether it would "shift the tax burden from wealthy individuals to salaried employees," experts said. LINK

Conservatives rethinking President Bush:
Bruce Bartlett has been dismissed from his research fellow position at a conservative think tank in Dallas in advance of the publication of his book, "The Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy," reports the New York Times. LINK

We're guessing Mr. Bartlett will need the extra time to return all those phone calls from TV bookers.

I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, first learned about the C.I.A. officer at the heart of the leak investigation in a conversation with Mr. Cheney weeks before her identity became public in 2003, lawyers involved in the case said Monday.

Notes of the previously undisclosed conversation between Mr. Libby and Mr. Cheney on June 12, 2003, appear to differ from Mr. Libby’s testimony to a federal grand jury that he initially learned about the C.I.A. officer, Valerie Wilson, from journalists, the lawyers said.

The notes, taken by Mr. Libby during the conversation, for the first time place Mr. Cheney in the middle of an effort by the White House to learn about Ms. Wilson’s husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, who was questioning the administration’s handling of intelligence about Iraq’s nuclear program to justify the war.

Lawyers said the notes show that Mr. Cheney knew that Ms. Wilson worked at the C.I.A. more than a month before her identity was made public and her undercover status was disclosed in a syndicated column by Robert D. Novak on July 14, 2003.

Mr. Libby’s notes indicate that Mr. Cheney had gotten his information about Ms. Wilson from George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence, in response to questions from the vice president about Mr. Wilson. But they contain no suggestion that either Mr. Cheney or Mr. Libby knew at the time of Ms. Wilson’s undercover status or that her identity was classified. Disclosing a covert agent’s identity can be a crime, but only if the person who discloses it knows the agent’s undercover status.

It would not be illegal for either Mr. Cheney or Mr. Libby, both of whom are presumably cleared to know the government’s deepest secrets, to discuss a C.I.A. officer or her link to a critic of the administration. But any effort by Mr. Libby to steer investigators away from his conversation with Mr. Cheney could be considered by Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special counsel in the case, to be an illegal effort to impede the inquiry.

White House officials did not respond to requests for comment, and Mr. Libby’s lawyer, Joseph Tate, would not comment on Mr. Libby’s legal status.

Mr. Fitzgerald is expected to decide whether to bring charges in the case by Friday when the term of the grand jury expires. Mr. Libby and Karl Rove, President Bush’s senior adviser, both face the possibility of indictment, lawyers involved in the case have said. It is not publicly known whether other officials may be charged.

Read More