<xmp> <body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d11782355\x26blogName\x3dConnecticutBLOG\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dSILVER\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttps://connecticutblog.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_US\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://connecticutblog.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d-5344443236411396584', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script> </xmp>

Tuesday, October 25, 2005

Target letters sent. Press conference set for Thursday


From the Washington Note

An uber-insider source has just reported the following to TWN:

1. 1-5 indictments are being issued. The source feels that it will be towards the higher end.

2. The targets of indictment have already received their letters.

3. The indictments will be sealed indictments and "filed" tomorrow.

4. A press conference is being scheduled for Thursday.

The shoe is dropping.

More soon.

I'd consider the Washington Note to be a reliable blog.

UPDATE 1: Hearing from insiders at cable networks that something is going to go down tomorrow and not Thursday. All the cable stations are cancelling guests booked for that day and Thursday.

Oh, I'm feeling sick. I think I'll have to take tomorrow and Thursday off...

UPDATE 2: David Corn explains why the indictments are sealed and bring up a very good point.
Speaking of the Daily News revelation, I noted in previous items that this story was significant. By reporting that Bush was informed by Rove of Rove's participation in the leak, the story suggests that Bush was a party to the White House's effort to promote the false spin that Rove was not "involved." Why would Bush aides spill the beans about Bush and Rove's early conversation about the leak if that would implicate the president? According to strong evidence I have obtained, the Bush aides who spoke to the Daily News were actually trying to help Bush by peddling the story that he had been upset by the leak and had upbraided Rove. (See? He did take appropriate action against a leaker; he made him feel really, really bad.) These leaks to the Daily News were a clumsy effort to distance Bush from the bad news that might be coming. These aides apparently did not realize that publicizing the Bush-Rove discussion would not protect Bush but instead ensnare him in the cover-up. They simply had not thought about that. It's yet another sign of incompetence within the Bush crew. (Hurricane Katrina and the Harriet Miers nomination--especially the sloppy handling of the questionnaire she had to present to the Senate--are other recent examples.) It is hard to believe that Bush aides and advisers could be so dumb. But perhaps that's what happens when desperation sets in.