The Karl Kountdown: UPDATED

dr. elsewhere here

Scroll down for notes and links on Jason Leopold's two pieces from Truthout over the weekend claiming Fitz handed Rove's attorney the indictment on Friday, likely fielded haggling over terms of cooperation (or not), and then gave Rove 24 hours to get his "affairs in order."

Visit firedoglake for a review of some of the interesting "sidebar" issues with regard to Team Libby's latest filing. Just as interesting, though, are the comments, which variously consider:
1. The validity of Leopold's story. This is examined within an inch of its life. The upshot seems to be that he was interviewed today and claims his sources (more than two) know he'll out them if they lied. Moreover, Will Pitt at Truthout, where the original stories were posted, weighed in and stands by the stories.
2. The 24 hour question. Also analyzed to death. The bottom line seems to be that this probably means Rove has till Tuesday. If he doesn't come up with a more cooperative plea solution, Fitz goes public with the indictment.
3. The plea terms. Much speculation here, but who the heck knows?
4. The question of pardons. Perhaps the most interesting perspective of all was this comment:

Presidential pardons are NOT likely and it has little to do with PR or electoral considerations ( though those are considerable, at least until after November ‘08).

If Rove or Libby were pardoned, they would lose important 5th Amendment protections agains [sic] self-incrimination. If a Congressional investigation or court asked them “who gave the orders”, for example, they would have to tell the truth. Lying again wouldn’t be a good idea, because they would have to commit ANOTHER crime of perjury with a new President on the way. There is not an upside to either the WH or them in this.

PLUS, the plenary powers to pardon have one exception–cases of impeachment. So if Libby or Rove’s crimes were related to an impeachment inquiry, it is not likely that a pardon of crimes related to that impeachment would stand up to judicial review.

In other words, if Chimp pardons anyone preemptively before the 2006 elections it is political assurance he will have an investigating Congress the next two years…If he waits until after the 2006 elections, impeachment proceedings may negate any pardon anyway.

In either event, a pardoned Rove, Libby or anyone other than the POTUS or VPOTUS, would be compelled to testify as to the involvement of the higher-ups. And THAT, would provide not only wonderful political fodder, but plenty of ammo for impeachment, indictment (of the VPOTUS) and civil suits by the Wilsons against both.

So there you have the latest I could find on these matters. The dilemma described in this last comment quoted here helps explain just why we're seeing a bit of desperation on the parts of these players, why they seem to be willing to go after each other. The pardons don't really give this criminal cabal the get out of jail card it might seem at first blush; it's more like a Catch-22.

Time to put the champagne on ice, and you may want to get an extra bottle or two. We still have the Russell Tice testimony this week, and who knows how foolish Bush will look tomorrow night sending out the calvary to beat back the poverty-stricken immigrants his corporate cronies help to create and maintain. His numbers are bound to fall even further after the newest domestic spying revelations that came after the last poll put him at 29%. And we can't fail to mention Cheney's newly exposed role in both Leakgate and NSA evils. And who knows what will come to light in the Tom, Duke, and Jack scandals, and gosh, might we even get a verdict on Ken Lay soon?

This may prove to be the watershed week, folks. Brush up on yer happy dance.

UPDATE: Jeralyn at Talkleft has further analysis on these titillating speculations, the most intriguing being the fact that Larry Johnson is reporting the Joe Wilson is telling him he has the same info as Jason, but he did not get it from Jason's articles.

Stay tuned. And shine your dancin' shoes!