by TChris

How to spin an indictment:

With a decision expected this week on possible indictments in the C.I.A. leak case, allies of the White House suggested Sunday that they intended to pursue a strategy of attacking any criminal charges as a disagreement over legal technicalities or the product of an overzealous prosecutor.

Funniest spin: Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison claiming that she hopes "that if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn't indict on the crime and so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation was not a waste of time and taxpayer dollars." Republicans who were so exercised about Bill Clinton's testimony regarding oral pleasure now believe that perjury is just a "technicality"?

I have court this morning. Choose your topic, I'm counting on readers to fill in till noon.

Just to recap, while we're waiting:

• Obstruction of Justice
• Perjury (before grand jury)
• Subornation of Perjury
• False Statement to A Federal Official

The Washington Post reports Monday that Robert Novak cooperated with Fitzgerald's probe in the Valerie Plame leaks case.

A critical early success for Fitzgerald was winning the cooperation of Robert D. Novak, the Chicago Sun-Times columnist who named Plame in a July 2003 story and attributed key information to "two senior administration officials." Legal sources said Novak avoided a fight and quietly helped the special counsel's inquiry, although neither the columnist nor his attorney have said so publicly.

While it's been pretty obvious Novak cooperated, this is the first MSM confirmation of it

Reuters is reporting that Fitzgerald will tell lawyers Monday if their clients are targets and he intends to seek perjury or obstruction charges against them.

Top administration officials are expected to learn from Fitzgerald as early as Monday whether they will face charges as the prosecutor winds up his nearly two-year investigation, the lawyers said. Fitzgerald could convene the grand jury as early as Tuesday to lay out a final summary of the case and ask for approval of possible indictments, legal sources said. The grand jury hearing the CIA leak case normally meets on Wednesdays and is scheduled to expire on Friday unless Fitzgerald extends it.

It sounds like Rove is in negotiations:

Asked whether he was taking part in a final round of discussions with the prosecutor's office, Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, said: "I'm just not going to comment on any possible interactions with Fitzgerald."

Via Newsweek:

Last week Hannah's lawyer Thomas Green told NEWSWEEK his client "knew nothing" about the leak and is not a target of Fitzgerald's probe. "This is craziness," he said.

Raw Story says differently.

It sure seems someone high-up is cooperating. My money's on Rove. Why else does a lawyer like Luskin (most likely with advice from his law partner who is also a Republican advisor, Ben Ginsberg) send his client into the grand jury for a 4th time where he gives four and one half hours of testimony? Luskin has said all along his client is "cooperating fully" with Fitzgerald's investigation.

More on John Hannah here.

An open thread today. Because everyone needs to take a day to regroup before getting ready for battle. It's going to be a long week. Those of us who are no longer 20 and maintain day jobs, need to pace ourselves.

If you're around, and have something to say, be my guest.

The New York Times Sunday profiles Lewis "Scooter" Libby. While it's intended to be a humanizing piece, and it does accomplish that goal, it's also notable for possible clues as to what Libby is planning.

• Clue One:

Mr. Libby, 55, might face indictment in the next week on charges of misleading investigators in the case or trying to cover up the extent of his involvement, lawyers involved in the case have said.

• Clue Two:

But friends and associates said Mr. Libby is not at heart a political animal. They suggest that whatever legal problems he faces from his role in pushing back at criticism by a former ambassador, Joseph C. Wilson IV, of the administration's use of pre-war intelligence about Iraq's weapons programs, he was acting not as a political hatchet man but in defense of ideas and policies he believed in.

Byron Calame, Public Editor for the New York Times, retraces the Times' misteps in the Judith Miller - Scooter Libby mess. He ends with this paragraph about her future prospects at the Times, that includes a quote from Times Publisher Arther Sulzberger:

What does the future hold for Ms. Miller? She told me Thursday that she hopes to return to the paper after taking some time off. Mr. Sulzberger offered this measured response: "She and I have acknowledged that there are new limits on what she can do next." It seems to me that whatever the limits put on her, the problems facing her inside and outside the newsroom will make it difficult for her to return to the paper as a reporter.

Arianna predicted this yesterday when writing about Keller's memo:

I’m assuming that neither this memo -- nor Calame’s critique -- will put this story to bed. Not by a long shot. I’m assuming, as I’ve been saying for months, that this ends up going all the way to Sulzberger.

Another excellent read on the Times and Miller: NYU journalism professor Jay Rosen.

Here's a free link to Maureen Dowd's Sunday column that ever so politely blasts Judith Miller. It begins with Dowd acknowledging she likes Judy. It then turns devastating and ends with this:

Judy told The Times that she plans to write a book and intends to return to the newsroom, hoping to cover "the same thing I've always covered - threats to our country." If that were to happen, the institution most in danger would be the newspaper in your hands.

Via Atrios: Steve Gilliard translates the Dowd column.

by TChris

The Big Brothers in Washington are perturbed that it's so difficult to spy on your email. By means of an unfunded mandate, they're working to make it easier.

The federal government, vastly extending the reach of an 11-year-old law, is requiring hundreds of universities, online communications companies and cities to overhaul their Internet computer networks to make it easier for law enforcement authorities to monitor e-mail and other online communications.

...

The 1994 law, the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, requires telephone carriers to engineer their switching systems at their own cost so that federal agents can obtain easy surveillance access.

An FCC order, instigated by the Justice Department, extends the law's reach "not only to universities, but also to libraries, airports providing wireless service and commercial Internet access providers."

It doesn't sound like Vice President Dick Cheney is very concerned about being indicted. He'll be fundraising in Denver Monday evening for a Republican candidate.

Vice President Dick Cheney will be in Denver Monday to attend a reception for congressional candidate Rick O'Donnell -- who's running for the seat being vacated by fellow Republican Bob Beauprez.

Cheney will speak at a gathering at Invesco Field at Mile High Stadium. O-Donnell is executive director of the Colorado Commission on Higher Education. He's seeking the Republican nomination in the Seventh Congressional District.

Colorado Pols and the Rocky Mountain News reports the event is in the evening. The Washington Daybook listed the appearance on Friday.