What Is Mr. Fitzgerald Up To, If Anything? Ask John Dean, My Hero

I mean, of course, besides preparing his legal case against the Libby known as Scooter? We'll get to John Dean later.

I came down more on the side of those who argued the Libby indictment was pretty much going to be it, and that Mr. Rove, ever so Protean, ever so oily, ever so slippery, had managed to slipe-slide-slither through one of those tiny teensy cracks in a wall that looked barely the depth of the about-to-peel paint.

Saturday, in the National Journal, Murray Waas suggests otherwise. My impression is that Waas’ reporting has less to do with new information garnered from sources close to Fitzgerald, and more with getting outside opinions from legal sources about what is likely to be going on, based on their experiences.

Still, Waas makes a compelling case that Fitzgerald, pretty much as he told us during his Friday press conference, but pretty much as is being ignored in the conventional wisdom that keeps telling us that Rove has beat the rap, isn't finished, and that Libby's indictment, and a pursuit of his conviction will be used by Fitzgerald, as is the custom among prosecutors, to garner more information about principals like Rove.

Of some amusement, if you enjoy sour and bitter under and after tastes with your smiles, are remarks by Grover Norquist. Grover is upset that Karl's name has been dragged through the mud, and wonders, if the "there" there proves absent, where poor Karl will go to get back his reputation. He might want to take a look in his rolodex and call up one of his own victims to discuss how they did it.

Or perhaps Karl might seek some guidance from the Clintons about how to keep your sanity and go on with your life when all accusations against you prove to be empty, but none of the people who covered those accusations so relentlessly seems to notice. That doesn’t occur to Grover, though it does occur to him that the Clintons might be of some use in this instance:

Norquist, who is close to Rove, says that because so many special prosecutors investigated Clinton administration officials -- many of whom were ultimately cleared of wrongdoing -- the public has become "desensitized" to such probes. "We have all learned that where there is smoke, there is not always a fire."

You can read the whole article here.

More notably than Waas, John Dean thinks Fitzgerald's desire to know more is not yet slaked, and lays out why in a column that seems to have gone fairly unnoticed.

My claim of greater notability for Dean's comments is two-fold.

First, am I the only liberal who views the John Dean of today as a genuine hero? Is this not a man who learned from the bitterest of experiences all the important lessons he should have, and then some? Is he not one of the most reliable voices in support of truth, justice and the American way? When you read John Dean, or see him interviewed, are you not put in mind of Reed Hundt's TPM Cafe post, with its brilliant one-liner about Fitzgerald's news conference, to wit, "Now you understand what is really meant by the Majesty of the Law."? And, is not John Dean even better looking today, in that silver fox way of his, than he was years ago when he was having second thoughts about being one of Nixon's young turks?

Second, if my having a crush on John Dean doesn't do it for you, let's remember Dean’s skepticism about the final reach of Fitzgerald's investigation and his warning not to expect multiple indictments, about which he was right. So, the fact that Dean is now convinced the Vice-President himself is not out of danger should make all of us sit up and listen.

Just in case I haven't convinced you that this is an amazing column you just have to read if you haven’t, here's how Dean introduces it:

In my last column, I tried to deflate expectations a bit about the likely consequences of the work of Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald; to bring them down to the realistic level at which he was likely to proceed. I warned, for instance, that there might not be any indictments, and Fitzgerald might close up shop as the last days of the grand jury's term elapsed. And I was certain he would only indict if he had a patently clear case.

Now, however, one indictment has been issued -- naming Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby as the defendant, and charging false statements, perjury and obstruction of justice. If the indictment is to be believed, the case against Libby is, indeed, a clear one.

Having read the indictment against Libby, I am inclined to believe more will be issued. In fact, I will be stunned if no one else is indicted. (emphasis mine)

Go read. It would be lovely also, if any of you would deign to tell us your thoughts on the matter in comments.