Update: Dan Froomkin of the Washington Post wrote today:

Broadcast journalists are reporting that there will be no public announcement today. But one popular rumor is that Fitzgerald will indeed present indictments to his grand jury today, the jury will vote on them -- and then he will put everything under seal, pending a public announcement tomorrow.

Even if he seals everything, Fitzgerald would have to take any indictments returned by the grand jury to a judge today. And he would be accompanied by his grand jury foreperson. So keep an eye out for that. Also keep an eye out for senior administration officials showing up at the courthouse very, very late at night.

Update: John at Crooks and Liars called Fitzgerald's office (I'll admit to giving him the number) and learned:

I just got off the phone with Fitzgerald's office and the person I talked to was very cordial even after a long, hard day. I was told it would be highly doubtful if anything happened tonight. I asked for permission to print that and was told I could.

by TChris

The right wing has one more reason to worry that Harriet Miers might not support their extreme views if her Supreme Court nomination is confirmed.

Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers said in a speech more than a decade ago that “self-determination” should guide decisions about abortion and school prayer and that in cases where scientific facts are disputed and religious beliefs vary, “government should not act.”

Miers’ professed belief that individuals should make their own decisions about contentious social issues, and her apparent belief that science should not give way to a governmentally-advanced religious agenda, prompted Mathew Staver, president and general counsel for the Liberty Counsel, to make the bizarre charge that Miers would be a judicial activist. While most might think that a judicial activist would actively impose his or her own will on others rather than letting them decide for themselves, any judge who lets individuals make their own choices about whether to pray or to have an abortion is apparently an “activist” in Staver’s world.

Thanks to TChris for providing updated Indictment news while I was in court this morning.

Here's an update: UPI reporter Richard Sale (who has been right on the money in this case and had this news-breaking article back in February, 2004) writes on Col. Patrick Lang's weblog that Indictments will be announced today and Fitzgerald will hold a press conference tomorrow.

In this entry, also today, Sale reports that Stephen Hadley, formerly the Deputy National Security Adviser, is a strong possibility for an Indictment. (Question: Was he Novak's source?)

And, Fitzgerald is looking at a Section 1983 civil rights charge for violating Joseph Wilson's civil rights. (Question: What about the rights of his wife Valerie?)

by TChris

Even as President Bush tries to pump up support for a war that has claimed 2,000 American lives, John Kerry announced a specific proposal to begin bringing troops home. Noting that “it is essential to acknowledge that the insurgency will not be defeated unless our troop levels are drawn down,” Kerry called upon the president to bring home 20,000 troops over the Christmas holidays, after the December parliamentary elections. Kerry has said that it would be reasonable to return all the troops within 12 to 15 months.

by TChris

From WaPo:

A source close to the investigation said this morning that an announcement of any grand jury actions was not likely today. Members of the grand jury left the courthouse around noon and did not appear likely to return today.

CNN has a similar report.

Update: From Raw Story:

Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has asked the grand jury investigating the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson to indict Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby and Bush’s Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, lawyers close to the investigation tell RAW STORY.

Raw Story's sources say Rove was offered a deal yesterday that he rejected. The sources also say that Fitzgerald asked the grand jury to indict Libby on the additional charge of outing a covert operative. Whether the grand jury did so before it adjourned today is unknown, although the article says it "had not yet decided" at the time the article was published.

by TChris

Kay Bailey Hutchison’s spokesman, Chris Paulitz, is blaming “liberal groups” for misconstruing her remarks on “Meet the Press.” As TalkLeft reported here, Hutchison demonstrated remarkable hypocrisy by saying she hoped any indictment obtained by Patrick Fitzgerald would be “an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality.” How, exactly, did “liberal groups” misconstrue Hutchison’s newfound belief that perjury is merely a technicality?

“Senator Hutchison was not commenting on any specific investigation. She was expressing her general concern that perjury traps have become too common when investigators are unable to indict on any underlying crime,” Paulitz said.

It's good to see conservatives criticizing prosecutors, but it's difficult to understand Paulitz' point. The “trap” is apparently this: a prosecutor asks a question, and the witness, under oath, lies. Not much of a trap, and one that is easily avoided by telling the truth or by exercising the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. In any event, it’s obvious that (notwithstanding Paulitz’ spin) Hutchison was commenting on a specific investigation.

by TChris

J. Dorrance Smith wrote a whacky opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal accusing the broadcast networks and the cable news networks (including Fox!) of being in “partnership” with Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda because they occasionally report stories that have aired on Al Jazeera. “This partnership,” Smith fumed, “is a powerful tool for the terrorists in the war in Iraq.”

Rather than helping Smith find the medicine he needs to regain a hold on reality, the Bush administration wants to make him the assistant secretary of defense for public affairs -- the “chief Pentagon spokesman.” After Sen. Carl Levin called attention to Smith’s “over the top” characterization of the news media, his nomination may be in well-deserved jeopardy.

by TChris

Federal law makes a life sentence the default punishment when a federal jury can’t unanimously agree to impose the death penalty. The Justice Department wants to change that law, and it’s managed to sneak a change into the House version of the bill that would renew the Patriot Act.

So long as at least one juror voted for death, prosecutors could empanel a new sentencing jury and argue again that execution was warranted.

Former federal prosecutor Mary Jo White doesn’t think the government “should have two bites at that apple.”

I'm beginning to think it possible that Karl Rove either is not going to be charged in the Valerie Plame Leak investigation, or if he is charged, it will be with a false statement rather than perjury offense. If it's the second scenario, Rove could make a plea deal with Fitzgerald under which he agrees to plead guilty if Fitzgerald agrees to request a sentencing reduction to probation, because of his cooperation against others.

Here's the reasoning:

1. Fitzgerald may decide to give Rove a complete pass if he has cooperated to significant extent, turning on Libby and others in Cheney's office, the White House Iraq Group and perhaps the State or Defense Departments. Under this scenario, Fitzgerald simply would not submit a proposed charge for Rove to the grand jury so there would be no vote on him at all.

The two topics tonight around the blogosphere seem to be Dick Cheney and Karl Rove. As to Cheney:

There have been questions raised about whether Dick Cheney was under oath when he was interviewed by Fitzgerald. The New York Times reported on June 5, 2004 (as TChris noted here) that he was not:

It is not clear when or where Mr. Cheney was interviewed, but he was not questioned under oath and he has not been asked to appear before the grand jury, people officially informed about the case said.

That is unlikely to make a difference. As I noted in the comments over at Firedoglake yesterday:

Raw Story posts that tomorrow's Roll Call will report that Patrick Fitzgerald paid a visit to Robert Luskin, Karl Rove's lawyer, at his Patton Boggs D.C. office today.

Why? Since when do Special Prosecutors make house calls?

Update: I should have figured this our earlier. My speculation: Fitz was probably interviewing the cooperative Rove one more time - and didn't want to have Rove seen at his office or where the grand jury meets.

The Los Angeles Times reports that Fitzgerald's team went out to interview neighbors of Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame Wilson today to ascertain whether they knew she worked for the CIA.

CNN had more tonight (available on Lexis.com):

A neighbor of Valerie Plame has been interviewed by FBI agents for the second time. The agents asked Marc Lefkowitz on Monday night whether he knew about Plame's work at the CIA before her identity was leaked in a July 2003 column. Lefkowitz told agents he did not, according to his wife, Elise Lefkowitz. ...Lefkowitz said this is the second time FBI agents have asked whether the couple was aware of Plame's CIA work. She said the first interview took place several months ago.

FBI agents are looking into who leaked Plame's name to the press. Federal law makes it a crime to deliberately reveal the identity of a CIA operative, and special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is heading a probe into the matter. (Posted 6:01 p.m.)