Well early predictions that there would be five indictments have proven correct. While Rove was not indicted, Libby has been indicted on five counts. As we posted earlier this week the White House has already began its plan to minimize damage to a White House that is already in a deep rut. Immediately after being given word of the indictments Libby resigned.

Let’s not forget though, these are serious crimes, the Chief of Staff to the Vice President, the place where the plans for the Iraq War were by and large conceived, lied to federal agents, lied to the grand jury, and lied under oath. Republicans may be quick to cry pay-back, but Fitzgerald’s credentials have been well identified in previous news articles. This is a man of great integrity, which makes it clear why he thinks these indictments are so important.

“When citizens testify before grand juries they are required to tell the truth,” Fitzgerald said in the statement. “Without the truth, our criminal justice system cannot serve our nation or its citizens.”

Now for those like Senator Hutchinson who wanted a real indictment, and not some perjury charge as she told Meet the Press, I think it’s time to take a stroll down memory lane .

First the President himself on the subject of Obstruction and Perjury:

Texas Gov. George W. Bush, cranking up his still-unofficial run for the White House, said on Tuesday he would have voted to impeach President Clinton for lying about his affair with Monica Lewinsky.

In response to a reporter’s question, Bush said he supported impeachment for a simple reason: “The man lied.”

Previously, Bush avoided direct criticism of Clinton for the Lewinsky affair, saying he was embarrassed by the scandal and that leaders should “behave responsibly” to set a good example for children.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, another GOP leader under investigation:

There is no serious question that perjury and obstruction of justice are high crimes and misdemeanors. Blackstone’s famous Commentaries–widely read by the framers of the Constitution–put perjury on equal footing with bribery as a crime against the state. Perjury was understood to be as serious as bribery, which is specifically mentioned in the Constitution as a ground for impeachment. Today, we punish perjury and obstruction of justice at least as severely as we punish bribery. Apparently, the seriousness of perjury and obstruction of justice has not diminished over time. Indeed, our own Senate precedent establishes that perjury is a high crime and misdemeanor. The Senate has removed seven federal judges from office.

That straight shooter, Senator John McCain:

“Are perjury and obstruction of justice expressly listed as high crimes and misdemeanors? No. Why? Because they are self-evidently so…It is self-evident to me. And accordingly, regretfully, I must vote to convict the President, and urge my colleagues to do the same.”

And of course, Ms. Hutcinson herself:

Willful, corrupt, and false sworn testimony before a Federal grand jury is a separate and distinct crime under applicable law and is material and perjurious if it is `capable’ of influencing the grand jury in any matter before it, including any collateral matters that it may consider. See, Title 18, Section 1623, U.S. Code, and Federal court cases interpreting that Section.

Wow, I think the Senator from Texas hit the nail on the head here, “willful, corrupt, and false” sounds like what happened here. There was a willful attempt to obfuscate from the Grand Jury the truth about leaking Plame’s name to the media to discredit Wilson’s report, a report which has proven to be true. Corrupt, these people were willing to leak the name of a CIA agent, where she worked, disclosing it as a front for CIA employees and possibly endanger them as well, and doing so to attack a political enemy who was telling the truth. And finally, false merely speaks for itself, the false testimony, the false documents, the false rationale.

Not only that, if Clinton was found guilty in the Senate trial for Perjury and Obstruction then that is what would have occurred, but those two crimes that the Republicans turned into a very big deal, are the same crimes being charged here. Only now, things come with a greater implication than moral misconduct.

David Gergen, a former adviser to presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Clinton, told CNN’s “Larry King Live” that indictments in the case could have an enormous impact on the Iraq war.

“Because if there are indictments, it will not only be people close to the president, the vice president of the United States, but they will raise questions about whether criminal acts were perpetrated to help get the country into war.”

This is serious, the only questions left to be asked was what will happen with the FBI’s continued investigation of the Niger document forgeries, and why is Rove not being indicted yet? Does Fitzgerald think Rove can give him something to get Libby with? Is there something deeper? The Grand Jury expires today, so presumably the Press Conference will fill in the blanks.

Well by now you’ve heard the news, documents are supposed to be released anytime in the lunch hour. You’ve also heard by now that the Special Prosecutor plans to seek an indictment against Libby, probably for perjury and obstruction, whether or not it will include the actual 1982 law remains to be seen. While watching CNN it appears as though Libby has retained new counsel in the case specializing in criminal law.

However, Fitza Clause didn’t bring everything that was asked for, Rove has been told that he will not be indicted today, but there is speculation that Fitzgerald may seek to extend the Grand Jury in order to finish the case on Rove.

More to come as the day rolls on, press conference at 2pm. I almost wish I didn’t have work, I could head over there and watch.

Breaking news in this hour. Miers to withdraw her nomination to the Supreme Court. More to come.

UPDATE: 1:57pm

The Hotline, subscription only, as always has more background information on the Miers withdrawal. The important points surround the reasoning, which we’re told to believe is simply because they are trying to protect privilege, but in actuality

Another close Bush adviser [said]: “Publicly, they are going to say it is over protecting executive privilege. Privately, you have an accomplished woman who probably isn’t going to do well in the hearing, so why put her through that?”

So she wasn’t going to do well in the hearings, perhaps what this advisor is really trying to say is that her ability to speak on Constitutional issues was weak at best, having poor showings in conversations even with conservatives.

The tipping point came within the past several days. GOP Senators privately communicated to WH CoS Andy Card that unless they had access to hard evidence that Miers was conversant in constitutional issues, there was no way she would be confirmed. Her performance in private meetings was weak, at best, these senators told Bush. Throughout the day, says a senior Senate aide, there were “conversations throughout the day at the staff level.” Late yesterday, Senate Maj. Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) called Card and told him in no uncertain terms that Miers would probably not be confirmed. An aide: “He provided frank assessment of situation in the Senate. [The] lay of land on committee.” After that call, according to White House sources, Bush and Card met privately with Miers, and they decided jointly that preserving WH privilege on documents was too important a principle to risk.

So, not only were her conservative bona-fides being questioned, but also her ability to give thoughtful opinions a Senator would expect from a Supreme Court Justice on the Constitution. From the beginning my feeling with Miers was that of inexperience and being unqualified based on previous experience. It bothered me then when some Democrats used it as an opportunity to get a less conservative justice. However if the press tacks on to the story of her withdrawal because of these shortcomings, then we have Harry Reid saying

The radical right wing of the Republican Party killed the Harriet Miers nomination. Apparently, Ms. Miers did not satisfy those who want to pack the Supreme Court with rigid ideologues.

Democrats need to keep the “celebration” on this one quiet, because it shouldn’t be present. If she was unqualified we shouldn’t be putting our necks out there, I’m seeing some blogs saying what happened to confirm them all, and everything, and yes of course the hypocrisy here is great. But if this woman was unqualified, which I think some of us believe she was, then there’s no reason for us to say anything that could come back to haunt us.

The LA Times has a story running with top GOP advisors as sources about what the White House plans to do once indictments are announced. Essentially it appears as though the plan is to run and hide and hope no one notices we just changed the channel.

The basic plan is familiar to anyone who has watched earlier presidents contend with scandal: Keep the problem at arm’s length, let allies outside the White House do the talking, and try to change the subject to something ” anything ” else.

The White House doesn’t plan to attack Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor in the CIA leak investigation ” at least not directly, several GOP officials said. Instead, expect Bush to unveil a flurry of proposals on subjects from immigration and tax reform to Arab-Israeli peace talks.

“We’ve got a lot of work to do, and so we don’t have a lot of time to sit back and think about [possible indictments],” Bush spokesman Scott McClellan said Wednesday, reflecting the strategy. “We’re focusing on what the American people care most about, and that is winning the war on terrorism, succeeding in Iraq, addressing high energy prices … and helping the people in the Gulf Coast region recover and rebuild.”

Gergen correctly continues to point out the changing the channel simply won’t do. If there are indictments, and it appears as there will be, speeches and press-conferences are going to be of little help. Once actual indictments are made the link to the President becomes clearer, not to mention the door may be opened for Congress to raise inquiries into the Niger documents, with the new findings in the investigation. Potentially, and the White House knows this by evidenced by their nervousness, the President’s term could slide into complete ineffectiveness if the challenges continue. Not withstanding of course recent bad polling on the President, upcoming investigations on Katrina and the seemingly failing nomination of Miers won’t help.

Overall the indictments could’ve been beaten by First Term W, but this time around I don’t see them beating these back. Unlike the first term, people are now disapproving of the President, multiple agenda failures are taking shape, the effect of Katrina, and now the further doubt in Iraq can only spell trouble for the President. It’s not the same administration, the old one could beat back anything, Bush continues to weaken politically. If these scandals continue, there will be a void of legislative activity and agenda, the opportunities are clear; now is a perfect time for Democratic opposition as well as opportunity to announce alternatives and gain in 2006.

Another update in the leak scandal. It may well be that indictments will not come now until Tomorrow. According to the LA Times, a juror said “see you Friday”. As the article points out Fitzgerald may have already secured some indictments but may try to meet with the Grand Jury until the term expires in order to be able to prove additional charges.

If this is the case, and Fitzmas comes later this year, it would seem that the only reason is that Fitzgerald is trying to get the indictment for the law regarding the release of a name of a covert agent. This would be consistent with activity on Monday, wherein Fitzgerald sent FBI agents to re-interview some of her neighbors in trying to gain more evidence of Plame’s covert status. Which leads us to believe that the only issue left for the Grand Jury is was she covert, if Fitzgerald proves that then Libby will be indicted on that charge as well, if I were a betting man I’d say the indictments for Obstruction and Perjury have already been locked up.

We’ll see what happens as this week comes to a close.

You’ll have to suffer some more academic economics from me today. The currency has gained more than 10% this year, hitting a two-year high against the yen last week and a three-month peak against the euro. This is despite an American current-account deficit even wider than last year’s and apparently reduced enthusiasm among Asian central banks for dollar-denominated assets.

However, this trend is unlikely to continue. The dollar’s exchange rate is perhaps moving upwards as there is a perception that there are sellers of dollars, ie central banks, who are waiting for the right price. Other non-commercial banks have longer positions in dollar futures then previously, which is a bad. As the dollar possible continues to strengthens, our investors are placing their money into foreign markets, which, again, in time could stop the rise.

Also, risk averse investors from abroad (read, Japan) are currently capturing higher yields in America and are likely to flee the market at any dollar shakeups. Finally, the Euro has lost value since earlier this year, but as the Fed will likely stop raising interest rates the first half of next year, the European Central bank will most likely start- which will make their currency gain back value.

A good post over at Democrary Arsenal worth reading.

There’s a lot of chatter going on about this leak, especially here in DC, professors, my job, everyone is talking about it obviously. Here’s the latest as we see it:

There’s a lot going on, over at DrudgeReport Matt is reporting two stories. First that the Grand Jury has adjourned today. They apparently have not made an announcement.

As to the question of indictments being announced the other Drudge story being ran is that Fitzgerald might be asking for more time. Unlike Drudge’s link title however, the article also correctly asserts it may only be a conversation about handling the indictments.

As for the announcement DailyKos’s Hunter is citing both a Raw Story article, as well as an update from Richard Sale. Both story’s tell a lot.

From Richard Sale earlier in the day we learn that:

The probe is far from being at an end. According to this reporter’s sources, Fitzgerald approached the judge in charge of the case and asked that a new grand jury be empaneled. The old grand jury, which has been sitting for two years, will expire on October 28.

Thanks to a letter of February, 2004 which Fitzgerald asked for and obtained expaneed authority, the Special Prosecutor is now in possession of an Italian parliament nvestigationi into the forged Niger documents alleging Iraq’s interest in purchasing Niger uranium, sources said.

It should be noted that the post regarding impending indictments was filed after this report. According to sources, it appears as though announcements may be announced today, however that may only mean being announced to those being indicted. According to CNN, no indictments will be announced to the public, and they also admit the possibility of indictments being made underseal to be announced tomorrow.

However, it also does appear that the Press Conference mentioned by Mr. Sale will be taking place tomorrow, at which time it is believed the indictments will be made public.

What are the indictments? According to the previous Raw Story article:

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.

Fitzgerald has also asked the jury to indict Libby on a second charge: knowingly outing a covert operative, the lawyers said. They said the prosecutor believes that Libby violated a 1982 law that made it illegal to unmask an undercover CIA agent. [...]

Two other officials, who are not employees in the White House, are also expected to face indictments, the lawyers said.

There’s a lot going on here, but to summarize this is what we gather here at TwoDems.Com.

Overall, tomorrow should be a very merry Fitzmas, hope you’re all enjoying your Fitzmas Eve!

Today’s NYT has a great article on WalMart’s covert deliberations about its health plan. The article is based on an internal memo discussing the company’s policy. The memo prepared for by McKinsey and Company calls for getting rid of “cross subsidization.” Insurance is, actually, mostly about cross-subsidies. McKinsey recognized however that they are costly. So their plan is simple. They want to prevent less healthy workers from good benefits by using things such as Health Savings Accounts coupled with a high-deductible catastrophic health plan. This essentially boils down to making plans that only work well for young, unmarried and healthy individuals. Health care is going to be an interesting issue over the coming years.

Talkleft has more evidence of the hypocrisy of the Bush camp including George W. Bush noting that in 1999, Governor Bush said that lying during a press conference was an impeachable offense. By that standard, President Bush would have been impeached before the Iraq invasion was launched.

Ben Bernanke is a safe choice for Fed Chair. The names on his degrees are from all the right places. He is a respected monetary economist, former Fed governor, and currently chairman of President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisors. He is the best monetary economist who was thought to be on the short list of candidates and was an unusually high-profile Fed governor. But he has little policy-making experience and has only just moved to the White House. Volcker and Greenspan, the last two fed chairs were not stellar academics. However, they had both been steeped in Washington policy-making and practical economic analysis for years before their appointment.

Thankfully, Bernanke was not the first choice of ardent supporters of supply-side economists, who favor tax cuts and tight monetary policy as the best way to strengthen the economy. The next few years are likely to be filled with crises. Given the size of our imbalances including: the current account deficit, the overvalued housing market, and the overextended consumer. Volcker has said there is a 75% chance of a crisis in the next few years. As American monetary policy strategy is less transparent and more personalized than in many other modern economies, we can only hope that Bernanke will live up to the challenge. Greenspan has guided the Fed with no explicit inflation target, being famously skeptical of academic models. We can only hope that Bernake will keep inflation low- a tricky proposition. Inflation expectations are rising, and no one is sure how far interest rates will need to rise along with that. He may well need to be relatively aggressive, to bolster and cement his role as an inflation-fighter.

Also, and this is true of anyone who would have been appointed, he will have less sway over regional bank presidents. As The Economist points out, in the 65 Federal Open Market Committee meetings since 1998 there have been only 15 dissenting votes. Although all participants get a chance to speak their minds, the meetings are hardly an academic debate. That simply will not be true of the new Chair.

Bernanke had what many of those on the outside wanted: “a world-class reputation among economists; credibility on Wall Street; a confidence and an air of political independence that seemed free from hints of cronyism.”

Also, to get an idea of the fun difficulties ahead:

Succeeding Mr. Greenspan, sometimes called the most successful central banker ever, would not be easy under any circumstances. But the timing of his departure could add an extra degree of difficulty to Mr. Bernanke’s ascendancy.

Mr. Greenspan is scheduled to preside over three more meetings of the Fed committee that sets the benchmark short-term interest rate before he retires at the end of January. Based on the price of a futures contract tied to Fed policy, investors are expecting three more rate increases, pushing the target rate to 4.5 percent from the current 3.75 percent, before the Fed pauses or stops altogether.

But that could leave Mr. Bernanke facing a quandary as he takes over at the March 28 meeting. At exactly the moment he is trying to establish himself as an inflation fighter and his independence from the Bush administration, Mr. Bernanke - if he endorses the pause in raising interest rates that many in the markets expect - could appear to be moving in the opposite direction.

All and all, this is a very good choice as he is someone very smart, ideologically pragmatic, with intellectual and academic rigor but also policy savvy and experienced. Bernanke can succeed but markets will be extremely watchful of every single word that he will utter. While being a Republican, he is not a partisan hack or too closely associated with the White House and Republicans and I honestly think he will do a good job.

Readers, I’m scared. For once I agree with a statement made by President Bush. The White House is refusing to release documents and/or transcripts pertaining to advice given to the President in the Oval Office, by Harriet Miers. Unlike say official memos written by a Deputy Solicitor General, the documents and conversations that take place between a President and his advisers should remain confidential unless a crime is being investigated.

It doesn’t take a large stretch of the imagination to understand that the conversations that occur most likely would involve unpopular positions. These might not even be the personal positions of the person voicing them, but there job is to offer multiple scenarios to the President.

However, the question remains, if we are willing to forego documents that contain advice from the Lawyer of the President to the President, then what do we have left to examine her qualifications besides questioning. The White House should come up with other documents that are not as confidential, the absence of journal articles or anything written to show her views on constitutional issues, only further dooms this nominee.