U.S. News and World Report now reporting that Cheney resignation rumors are a' flying:

Sparked by today's Washington Post story that suggests Vice President Cheney's office is involved in the Plame-CIA spy link investigation, government officials and advisers passed around rumors that the vice president might step aside and that President Bush would elevate Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

I promise never to be bad again if I can have this one wish. 

Raw Story fingers John Hannah as the Cheney aide cooperating with Fitzgerald.

Prosecutor Peter Fitzgerald has been quiet as a mouse.  Until today.  The story in Tommorow's Washington Post is so detailed that the only place where it could have come from is the U.S. Attorney:

As the investigation into the leak of a CIA agent's name hurtles to an apparent conclusion, special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has zeroed in on the role of Vice President Cheney's office, according to lawyers familiar with the case and government officials. The prosecutor has assembled evidence that shows Cheney's long-running feud with the CIA contributed to the unmasking of operative Valerie Plame.

[W]ith the case reaching a climax -- administration officials are braced for possible indictments as early as this week-- it is increasingly clear that Cheney and his aides have been deeply enmeshed in events surrounding the Plame affair from the outset.  

Lawyers in the case said Fitzgerald has focused extensively on whether behind-the-scenes efforts by the vice president's aides and other senior Bush aides were part of a criminal campaign to punish Wilson in part by unmasking his wife.

In a move people involved in the case read as a sign that the end is near, Fitzgerald's spokesman yesterday told the Associated Press that the prosecutor planned to announce his conclusions in Washington, where the grand jury has been meeting, instead of Chicago, where the prosecutor is based. 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.

The special prosecutor has personally interviewed numerous officials from the CIA, White House and State Department. In the process, he and his investigative team have talked to a number of Cheney aides, including Mary Matalin, his former strategist; Catherine Martin, his former communications adviser; and Jennifer Millerwise, his former spokesman. In the case of Millerwise, she talked with the prosecutor more than two years ago but never appeared before the grand jury, according to a person familiar with her situation.

A former CIA official told investigators that Cheney's office was seeking information about Wilson in May 2003, but it's not certain that officials with the vice president learned of the Plame connection then.

Doubt that its Fitzgerald leaking?  Look at the detail offered:

Senior administration officials said there was a document circulated at the State Department -- before Libby talked to Miller -- that mentioned Plame. It was drafted in June as an administrative letter and addressed to then-Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman, who was acting secretary at the time since Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and Deputy Secretary Richard L. Armitage were out of the country.

As a former State Department official involved in the process recalled it, Grossman wanted the letter as background for a meeting at the White House, where the discussion was focused on then growing criticism of Bush's inclusion in his January State of the Union speech of the allegation that Hussein had been seeking uranium from Niger.

The letter to Grossman discussed the reasons the Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) did not believe the intelligence, which originated from foreign sources, was accurate. It had a paragraph near the beginning, marked "(S)," meaning it was classified secret, describing a meeting at the CIA in February 2002, attended by another INR analyst, where Plame introduced her husband as the person who was to go to Niger.

Attached to the letter were the notes from the INR analyst who had attended the session, but they were written well after the event occurred and contained mistakes about who was there and what was said, according to a former intelligence official who reviewed the document in the summer of 2003.

We get more than documents, we get motiviations of players, the pargraphs, all of it.

So why is Millerwise being strangely singled out?  I've never heard of her before.  Now she gets a mention in the Post and they are talking to
"a person familiar with the situation."  And she doesn't have to appear before the grand jury.  Hmmmm. . . .

She left Cheney's office in January 2005 to go to the CIA.  Could it be that she is a White House official who has been talking to Fitzgerald, as RAW STORY indicates the NY Daily News will report tommorow?  Only time will tell.  I bet its a pretty short time, though.

So why is the leak happening now?  Simple.  Indictments are coming and Fitzgerald is holding them like a sword of Damocles over the heads of those who will be indicted--the better to get a deal.  No time to think, as indictments are expected tommorow.  Fitzgerald plays hardball.

Josh Marshall, who usually has the best intuition in the business, muses about the dark matter in the Plame universe:

. . . one thing seems more and more clear to me. This isn't a judgment made on particular reporting, more a sense or just intuition. So let me just briefly share it with you.

I think there's a whole part of the Times' story that we're not yet aware of. Let me try an analogy. If my memory is correct, when astronomers plot the location of black holes in space, they can't see them directly. It's impossible. No light escapes from them; so there's nothing to see. You can tell where they are by plotting the effects of their gravitation pull on nearby stars and celestial bodies.

There's something similar going on here.

When you read the Times Sunday article plus Miller's apologia, there's too much there that is simply inexplicable in terms of what we already know. Going into this mess Miller's reputation was already severely checkered and her journalistic judgment very much in question. And yet Sulzberger and Keller (the first in the van, the second following with an odd passivity) staked the reputation of the Times itself on her.

Simple poor judgment doesn't explain that for me. Something else is up.  

I wrote to Josh regarding what that thing is composed of.  Like astronomers, I can't tell what it means, but I think I can tell you what its composed of:

Josh:
Everyone’s speculation about this case revolves around what we know from the reporters, not from the internal records of the wrongdoers themselves.  That’s why we have this strange situation.  It appears that there is some evidence of a crime, but nothing worthy of a Special Prosecutor going all the way to the Supreme Court to compel the testimony of some of biggest names writing and appearing in and on some of the biggest news outlets in the country.  We do know that the judges who looked at the cases thought it sufficiently grave to grant the Special Prosecutor the leeway to go as far as he has.  We also know that the attorneys for some of the putative targets have felt it necessary to leak information certainly damaging to their own clients and to bring those clients again and again before the grand jury in a last ditch attempt to protect their clients or others within the Administration.  This is not the behavior of attorneys who are holding really good hands.  Finally, we have seen how truly sad the spin machine’s response to these damning allegations has been.  Amateur hour, at best.  The whiny denials were pathetic shadows of the bold posturing we are used to seeing from this group.  

All of this leads to the conclusion that Patrick Fitzgerald either has a great hand, or is the best bluffer in the business.  The fact that not a whisper has leaked from his camp indicates that he is a mixture of both.  Some very important people are suddenly very, very afraid of what he might be holding.  All of our speculations should therefore be informed by the fact that Fitzgerald has more than what the targets of the investigation can leak regarding their own testimony—he has at least some of the records of the principle alleged wrongdoers, which are what remains to be seen in this case.

Why is it that people who should know better continually insist that votes for various incarnations of government in Iraq by majorities of Iraqi voters who show up in the voting booth are going to stop the insurgency?  All of the earlier handovers of power, or votes on provisional governments have done nothing.

``Fitzgerald is putting together a big case,'' Washington attorney Robert Bennett, who represents Miller, said on the ABC-TV program ``This Week'' yesterday.

And who might be at the center of the Big Case? 

Fitzgerald, 45, has also questioned administration officials about any knowledge Bush may have had of the campaign against Wilson. Yet most administration observers have noted that on Iraq, as with most matters, it's Cheney who has played the more hands-on role.

One lawyer intimately involved in the case, who like the others demanded anonymity, said one reason Fitzgerald was willing to send Miller to jail to compel testimony was because he was pursuing evidence the vice president may have been aware of the specifics of the anti-Wilson strategy.

And both U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Hogan and an appellate-court panel -- including David Tatel, a First Amendment advocate -- said they ruled in Fitzgerald's favor because of the gravity of the case.

D.C. is on the edge.  The grand jury expires in the next two weeks and only one thing is on everyone's mind.  Cabbies, people you meet at parties--all want to know:  Who will be indicted?

What's going on here?  There appears to be a secret that nobody wants to get out.  Take this CNN headline: 

Miller Testified Again Before Grand Jury: New York Times Reporter Disclosed Conversation With Second Source.

Yet when one reads the article, there is only discussion of a previously undisclosed conversation between her first source, Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney's chief of staff and herself.  So whose the other source? 

Now take that tidbit and then look at the alleged terms of the deal between Miller and Special Counsel Peter Fitzgerald from Judy Miller's press appearance after leaving jail:

Q. Your source's lawyer has said that had you asked, you wouldn't have had to spend any time in jail; he would have been more than willing to give you the explicit waiver you say you now accepted.

MILLER. No. Since I was not a party to those discussions, I'm going to let you refer those questions to my lawyer. I can only tell you that as soon as I received a personal assurance from the source that I was able to talk to him and talk to the source about my testimony, it was only then and as a result of the special prosecutor's agreement to narrow the focus of the inquiry to focus on the way - on that source, that I was able to testify. I testified as soon as I could. And I will ask you to please address the questions to which I was not a party to my lawyers.

What is this narrowing of the focus?  The narrowing was to contacts between Miller and Libby:

For his part, Fitzgerald promised to limit his questioning of Miller to the Libby contacts regarding Plame.

So we seem to be dancing around a second source--one who Miller did not want to talk about.  But the indications are that she is now talking?  Why?  Probably because the Special Counsel has something new on her--the fact that she previously did not disclose that she had notes from the earlier meeting with Libby.  What we know backs this up as Lou Dobbs indicated that NY "Times editor Bill Keller tells me that she does face legal jeopardy."  

Let's look a bit closer at the notes issue:

But after she testified, Miller discovered that she had additional notes from the June 2003 conversation with Libby.

That was well before Wilson on July 6, 2003 published an opinion piece in The New York Times accusing the White House of twisting intelligence on Iraq, but after reports of his mission had begun to surface.

A column by Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times on May 6, 2003 may have been the trigger for the interest by Cheney's office, the sources said.

Kristof's column contained the first public mention of Wilson's mission in Niger, though Wilson was not identified by name. It also mentioned for the first time the alleged role of Cheney's office in seeking an investigation of the uranium deal, prompting the CIA to dispatch Wilson.

Remember, she claimed she had no notes and then all of a sudden had them.  So whose she protecting?  Rove?  Can't be, he's already been connected to the issue by Time's Matthew Cooper.  So it must be someone higher than Rove.  Whose higher than Rove? Hmmmm. . . .

On ABC's rightly-detested, Bush-worshipping The Note, the following appears:

As for the other story that dominates every steak-laden table at the Palm and all fajitas-fueled conversations at Lauriol Plaza, per usual, the questions about special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald outnumber the answers.

Could Fitzgerald's apparently solo trip to the court house yesterday mean that he is seeking or receiving an extension of the grand jury? What questions will Karl Rove be asked? [OTHER QUESTIONS REDACTED BY ABC NEWS MANAGEMENT.]

What does OTHER QUESTIONS REDACTED BY ABC NEWS MANAGEMENT mean?

And who the hell is willing to wait 45 minutes to sit at Lauriol Plaza?  The food just ain't that great folks.  (Does that make me a Beltway Insider?)

It looks like there are blind trusts and then there are those HCA stock holdings controlled by your brother outside the trusts?  Whoops!

Looks like Scooter Libby forgot to tell the FBI and Fitzgerald about an important conversation with Ms. Judy Miller of the NYT.  oops, looks like he'd better call Martha Stewart:

      TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

                             PART I--CRIMES

                 CHAPTER 47--FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS

Sec. 1001. Statements or entries generally

    (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any
matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or
judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and
willfully--
        (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or
    device a material fact;
        (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent
    statement or representation; or
        (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same
    to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement
    or entry;

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or
both.

Looks like its hammer time!

It will be the White Sox and Cardinals in the World Series - which will prove yet again that pitching, defense, and speed still matter in the steroids era.

Karl feeling the heat:

Federal prosecutors have accepted an offer from presidential adviser Karl Rove to give 11th hour testimony in the case of a CIA officer's leaked identity but have warned they cannot guarantee he won't be indicted, according to people directly familiar with the investigation.

The persons, who spoke only on condition of anonymity because of grand jury secrecy, said Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has not made any decision yet on whether to file criminal charges against the longtime confidant of President Bush or others.

Bob Luskin promises, this time for sure, to stop leaking:

"I can say categorically that Karl has not received a target letter from the special counsel. The special counsel has confirmed that he has not made any charging decisions in respect to Karl," Luskin said.

He said that Rove "continues to be cooperative voluntarily" with the special counsel investigation and "beyond that, any communication I have or may have in the future are going to be treated as completely confidential."

As I said earlier, the Family Research Council sends me E-mails.  I can't say I didn't sign up for them.  Take a close look at what they have to say about Bill Bennett's racist outburst the other day:

When Bennett offered what he called a "noxious" hypothetical example on his Morning in America talk show saying that abortion might be used to lower crime rates in the black community--but that it would be morally reprehensible to do so--liberals pounced.

That's right, they are claiming that Bennett was talking about "lowering crime rates in the black community."  Not exactly:

"you wanted to reduce crime ... if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down."

That's right--Bennett was talking about reducing crime in general, not in the "black community."

And that's where the racism is, folks.  No amount of distortion by the Family Research Council can change it.