Plame-Wilson was a NOC working on non-proliferation of WMD. One of her areas included Iran and the spread of disinformation there.
Bush, Cheney, Rove, Libby and others are nothing if not treasonous liars.
In times of war, traitors can be publicly shot or hung. I really don't care which,, but something must done.
(CBS) Valerie Plame Wilson chides President Bush for not firing anyone for the leaking of her covert CIA identity, which caused a national scandal and an investigation resulting in a perjury and obstruction of justice conviction against Vice President Richard Cheney's chief of staff.
She also tells Katie Couric that she has learned of the damage that the leaking of her identity caused agents of the clandestine service and it is serious. Wilson speaks to Couric in her first interview for a 60 Minutes report to be broadcast Sunday, Oct. 21, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.
Plame Wilson and her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, accuse the Bush administration of leaking her identity to the press as retaliation for her husband's public charge that the administration was manipulating intelligence about Iraq's weapons programs.
No one was ostensibly punished directly because of the leak, though Karl Rove, President Bush's close adviser who was involved, resigned some months later. One high administration official, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, then chief of staff for Vice President Richard Cheney, received a jail sentence for lying to investigators probing the leak.
This irks Plame Wilson. "I don't know about (President Bush knowing about the leak beforehand). But I, like most other Americans, saw President Bush say on TV that he would fire anyone from his administration found to be involved in leaking my name," she says. "It turns out the president is not a man of his word."
Plame Wilson's 20 years at the CIA put her in touch with many individuals with whom she linked up secretly while pursuing intelligence on her mission to keep rogue nations from obtaining nuclear weapons. Did she ever hear if any of these individuals suffered because of the leak of her identity? "Yes I have. That's all I can say," she tells Couric, who then asks if it was bad news. "I have heard -- I have had some news," she replies.
Asked to assess the damage to these individuals, Plame replies, "It would be serious."
Plame says the morning her identity was made public in the column of conservative newspaper columnist Robert Novak, the world's intelligence services went to work.
"I can tell you all the intelligence services in the world that morning were running my name through their databases to see, did anyone by this name come in the country? When? Do we know anything about it? Where did she stay? Who did she see?" she tells Couric. "(The leak is) very serious. It puts in danger, if not shuts down, the operations that I had worked on."
Only the CIA knows the full extent of the damage. "There was a damage report done by the CIA. I never saw it. I certainly didn't reach out to my old assets and ask them how they're doing, although I would have liked to," says Plame Wilson.
Plame Wilson has written a book, "Fair Game," published by Simon & Schuster, which like CBSNews.com, is owned by CBS Corp.
Produced By Graham Messick
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.
Showing posts with label I. Lewis Libby. Show all posts
Showing posts with label I. Lewis Libby. Show all posts
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Is Richard Cohen Just Dumb or What?
Is WP's Cohen Dumbest Columnist?
By Robert Parry June 19, 2007
Granted it would be quite a competition, but is Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen the dumbest columnist ever?
In his June 19 op-ed, Cohen joined the latest Inside-the-Beltway craze, the neoconservative media riot over the 30-month jail sentence facing former White House aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby.
From reading the column, it does appear that Cohen has the skills at least to master and recite the litany of talking points that the neocons have compiled to make their case about the injustice of Libby going into the slammer for committing perjury and obstruction of justice.
Cohen accuses special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald of violating longstanding Justice Department guidelines on when to bring a case; he denounces the trial – over Libby’s lying about his role in unmasking covert CIA officer Valerie Plame – as “a mountain out of a molehill”; he asserts that there was no “underlying crime”; he even pokes fun at Americans who thought the invasion of Iraq might have been a bad idea.
“They thought – if ‘thought’ can be used in this context – that if the thread was pulled on who had leaked the identity of Valerie Plame to Robert D. Novak, the effort to snooker an entire nation into war would unravel and this would show . . . who knows? Something,” Cohen wrote.
Yet, beyond a talent for reprising the conventional wisdom from Washington dinner parties, it is hard to tell what justifies Cohen’s long career as a political columnist. On nearly every major development over the past couple of decades, Cohen has missed the point or gotten it dead wrong.
For example, during the Florida recount battle in 2000, Cohen cared less about whom the voters wanted in the White House than the Washington insiders' certainty that George W. Bush would be a uniter, not a divider.
“The nation will be in dire need of a conciliator, a likable guy who will make things better and not worse,” Cohen wrote. “That man is not Al Gore. That man is George W. Bush.”
Cohen also joined the Washington herd in the disastrous stampede for invading Iraq. After Secretary of State Colin Powell’s deceptive Iraq War speech to the United Nations on Feb. 5, 2003, Cohen mocked anyone who still dared doubt that Saddam Hussein possessed hidden WMD stockpiles.
“The evidence he [Powell] presented to the United Nations – some of it circumstantial, some of it absolutely bone-chilling in its detail – had to prove to anyone that Iraq not only hasn’t accounted for its weapons of mass destruction but without a doubt still retains them,” Cohen wrote. “Only a fool – or possibly a Frenchman – could conclude otherwise.”
Misplaced Enthusiasm
It took Cohen another three years before he recognized that his enthusiasm for the war had been misplaced.
On April 4, 2006, as the U.S. death toll reached into the thousands and the Iraqi death toll soared into the tens of thousands, Cohen wrote, “those of us who once advocated this war are humbled. It’s not just that we grossly underestimated the enemy. We vastly overestimated the Bush administration.”
In normal work settings, incompetence – especially when it is chronic and has devastating consequences – justifies dismissal or at least demotion, maybe a desk in Storage Room B where Cohen could sit with his red stapler, but without access to a word processor.
Yet, in the strange world of Washington punditry, success is measured not in being right but in keeping one’s opinion within the parameters of the capital’s respectable opinion, even if those judgments are atrociously wrong.
As for the Plame case, Cohen seems to be living in the propaganda dreamscape of the still-influential neocons, not in the real world where the disclosure of Plame’s identity caused actual damage, destroying her undercover career as a CIA officer and putting in jeopardy the lives of foreigners who worked with her investigating weapons proliferation.
Plus, the motive behind the leaking of Plame’s identity was not “gossip,” as Cohen asserts, but a White House-orchestrated campaign to punish her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, for telling the truth about his 2002 fact-finding mission to Africa. Wilson’s findings helped the U.S. intelligence community debunk false claims about Iraq attempting to buy yellowcake uranium from Africa.
Despite warnings from the CIA, however, President George W. Bush cited Iraq’s supposed uranium shopping during his 2003 State of the Union Address, making it a key part of the case to invade Iraq.
When Wilson went public with his story in July 2003, the Bush administration sought to discredit him by suggesting that his Africa trip was just a junket arranged by his CIA wife. One White House official told a reporter from the Washington Post that the administration had informed at least six reporters about Plame.
The official said the disclosure was “purely and simply out of revenge.” That was a revelation that special prosecutor Fitzgerald corroborated in his investigation.
Libby’s Role
Also, contrary to Cohen’s column, Libby, as Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, was a central figure in this anti-Wilson smear campaign. Libby briefed two reporters – Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper – about Plame’s identity and brought press secretary Ari Fleischer into the leak operation.
Though it turned out that other senior administration officials, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and his friend, White House political adviser Karl Rove, were the successful ones in getting a journalist, Robert Novak, to publish Plame’s identity, it wasn’t for the lack of
Libby trying to get Plame’s identity into the press.
Nor is it accurate to say that there was no underlying crime. It is illegal to willfully disclose the identity of a covert CIA officer – and the administration officials involved were well aware that her identity was classified. Leaking classified material also can be – and often is – treated as a crime.
But this was a conspiracy that involved both the President and Vice President, presenting extraordinary obstacles for prosecution. The President and the Vice President, through delegation of authority from the President, have broad power to declassify information.
Indeed, some constitutional experts would argue that the President can declassify any information he wishes, and it’s known that Bush did so in the Plame matter at least to the degree that he cleared some parts of a top-secret National Intelligence Estimate for Libby and others to use in briefing reporters.
It remains unclear whether Bush and/or Cheney specifically approved leaking Plame’s identity – since their interviews with prosecutor Fitzgerald remain secret – but their involvement would have made prosecution under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 or the Espionage Act extremely difficult if not impossible.
Bush and Cheney also appear to have played a role in the cover-up of the Plame leak after a criminal investigation began in September 2003. Though Bush knew a great deal about the get-Wilson campaign (having declassified information for it), he claimed to know nothing and disingenuously urged his subordinates to say what they knew.
“I want to know the truth,” Bush said on Sept. 30, 2003. “If anybody has got any information inside our administration or outside our administration, it would be helpful if they came forward with the information so we can find out whether or not these allegations are true.”
However, since the various conspirators knew that Bush already was in the know, they would have read his comments as a signal to lie, which is what they did. Rove issued a false statement through the White House press office denying any involvement.
That prompted Libby to seek help from Cheney. As Libby’s lawyer Theodore Wells disclosed in the trial’s opening remarks, Libby’s complaint was that “they’re trying to set me up; they want me to be the sacrificial lamb.”
‘The Pres’
In response to Libby’s appeal, Cheney penned a message to the press secretary demanding equal treatment for Libby. “Not going to protect one staffer + sacrifice the guy the Pres that was asked to stick his head in the meat grinder because of incompetence of others,” Cheney wrote to press secretary Scott McClellan.
In the note, Cheney initially ascribed Libby’s sacrifice to Bush but apparently thought better of it, crossing out “the Pres” and putting the clause in a passive tense. Complying with Cheney’s wishes on Oct. 4, 2003, McClellan added Libby to the list of officials who have “assured me that they were not involved in this.”
So, the evidence is that not only was there a high-level administration conspiracy to leak Plame’s identity but there was an equally high-level conspiracy to cover up the truth. Libby got nailed because he failed to shift away from the cover stories when the investigation grew serious following Fitzgerald’s appointment in December 2003.
Rather than a wild-eyed prosecutor on a rampage, Fitzgerald actually appears to have been a very cautious prosecutor who chose not to pursue what would have been a deserving but politically disruptive case against Bush, Cheney and other government conspirators implicated in both leaking classified material and participating in a cover-up.
But all this is missed by Cohen. In his June 19 column, he does reiterate his current position that the Iraq War was a mistake. He also acknowledges that lying under oath is a bad thing to do. But – blinded by the pervasive neocon talking points – he refuses to see the larger scandal.
“I have come to hate the war and I cannot approve of lying under oath – not by Scooter, not by Bill Clinton, not by anybody,” Cohen wrote. “But the underlying crime is absent, the sentence is excessive and the investigation should not have been conducted in the first place. This is a mess. Should Libby be pardoned? Maybe. Should his sentence be commuted? Definitely.”
There was a time when the Washington Post aggressively pursued cover-ups of government wrongdoing. Not that long ago, during the Clinton administration, a favorite pearl of Washington wisdom was: “It’s not the crime, it’s the cover-up.”
But that was then and this is now. Today, the Post editorial page and its prized columnists, like Cohen, eagerly join in cover-ups and happily bash anyone who won’t go with the Washington flow.
So, the question remains, is Cohen just a clueless incompetent when he berates Fitzgerald for the “train wreck” of the Libby conviction or is this columnist really a clever guy who is very skilled at knowing how to stay on the gravy train of modern Washington journalism?
Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
What the hell is it gonna take?
The Bush Administration's Dilemma Regarding a Possible Libby Pardon -And How Outsiders Such as Fred Thompson Appear to Be Working on a Solution
By JOHN W. DEAN ----
Friday, Jun. 01, 2007
On June 5, U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton will sentence Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who has been convicted of obstruction of justice, making false statements, and perjury, as the result of the Special Counsel investigation arising from the revelation of Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA agent. I suspect that Judge Walton's actions will create a difficult and delicate problem for the White House.
Needless to say, I have no crystal ball. But it is plain that the White House must be bracing itself for Libby's being sent to prison. Moreover, it appears that high-powered friends of Libby and Cheney have figured out the White House's dilemma, so they are trying to help keep Scooter out of prison in a manner that will not have criminal consequences for anyone involved.
No one has been more active in this undertaking on Libby's behalf than former Tennessee Senator Fred D. Thompson, who has strong Presidential aspirations. Yet, to my surprise, Thompson is either being blatantly dishonest, or he is remarkably uninformed about his efforts. Unfortunately for Thompson, neither state of mind ought to commend itself to Republicans clamoring for a conservative with stature for the GOP nomination in 2008.
Likely Sentence and Duration of Incarceration
Since Libby's conviction, there has been considerable public speculation about his sentence.
Typical of the consensus is an article by U.S. News & World Report that explains, "Under current federal guidelines, Libby's four felony convictions, which stem from an FBI [and Grand Jury] investigation into the disclosure of a CIA operative's identity, would most likely net him 18 months to three years in prison." This report notes, however, that "this is not an ordinary case, and … aggressive lawyering by both sides and the intense media scrutiny add an element of unpredictability."
There is a historical parallel to certain Watergate-related convictions. For example, former Nixon Attorney General John Mitchell, White House Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman and Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs John D. Ehrlichman were each sentenced to 30 to 96 months for perjury and obstruction of justice - two of the three crimes of which Libby was convicted (They each served some 18 months before they were released.)
Providing a closer parallel to the Libby situation, Presidential Appointment Secretary and Deputy Assistant to the President Dwight Chapin was convicted for lying about his involvement in the 1972 Nixon campaign "dirty tricks" operation. Chapin was not convicted for involvement in the dirty tricks per se, but rather for making false statements to the grand jury about his activities. Chapin was sentenced to 10-to-30 months in prison, with the judge required that he serve not less than 10. Similarly, Libby was not convicted for leaking information about Valerie Plame Wilson's covert status at the CIA, but rather for lying about his efforts to leak the information.
All of these former Nixon Administration officials were permitted to remain free on bond during the time they unsuccessfully appealed their convictions. But the law has become more settled in the three decades since Watergate, and currently, defense lawyers tell me that unless a defendant has serious legal issues in play on appeal, federal judges seldom allow defendants to remain free on bond during the appeal process. Libby very likely has no strong appellate issues: His trial and conviction were rather uneventful, and Judge Walton - an experienced trial judge -- was widely seen as having been fair to both sides, and careful not to make any mistakes of law.
It is well known that Judge Walton, who arrived on the bench after a successful career in the U.S. Attorney's Office in Washington, DC, gives out tough sentences. He is the kind of "law and order" judge that conservatives praise, except when one of their own is being sentenced. As I was told by one person who knows him well, Judge Walton is tough as they come, and he has the cojones to send Scooter to get his orange jumpsuit sooner rather than later.
How long a sentence is Judge Walton likely to impose? On May 25, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald filed the Government's Sentencing Memorandum asking Judge Walton to sentence Libby in the range of "30 to 37 months." Criminal defense attorneys with whom I have spoken expect that Judge Walton will choose a sentence of roughly 30 months (two-and-a-half years), and to give Libby at most a couple of days to get his affairs in order before surrendering to the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
No doubt, the Bush White House has been making similar calculations. Thus, they are approaching a moment of truth. There are only three real insiders here: Bush, Cheney and Libby. However, it appears that the outsiders have looked at the situation, and acted to try to improve it. And as long as they are outsiders, they can do so without criminal exposure.
The Cost of Clemency: The White House's Dilemma Regarding the Libby Sentencing
If Watergate had any lesson, it was that when someone connected to the White House is heading for prison, it is dangerous for the president or those close to him to even think about - not to mention talk about - clemency.
After all, the March 1, 1974 indictment of Mitchell, Haldeman, Ehrlichman and Chuck Colson (who pled guilty, rather than risk a trial) charged each of them with a conspiracy to obstruct justice by offering to provide clemency to those involved in the Watergate break-in. In addition, as Nixon's tapes showed, the president discussed pardons on several occasions, and this abuse of power was included in the bill of impeachment against him that was pending when he resigned.
If Libby had been acting on his own behalf, a pardon would present no problem; Bush and Cheney could feel it was the humanitarian thing to do, given his long service to the government. However, no one I know believes Libby was acting simply for himself, nor does the evidence suggest it.
Let's suppose, instead, that Libby was doing Cheney's bidding, and that Cheney was deeply involved in both Libby's leak of Valerie Plame's CIA status and the lies Libby subsequently concocted to deflect attention away from the Vice President. If so, then there was a conspiracy to obstruct justice - and if Cheney should go to Bush and request that he pardon Libby, he would be furthering that conspiracy. No wonder then, that Special Counsel Fitzgerald remarked during the Libby trial that there was "a cloud" over the Vice President.
Come Tuesday, that cloud could get much darker for Cheney.
It's likely that only Cheney and Libby know precisely what transpired between them, assuming they are half as shrewd as they appear. In addition, Libby has probably not been foolish enough to directly request a pardon, nor Cheney imprudent enough to directly promise one. Given what happened during Watergate, surely they are smart enough not to have had that conversation.
However, these men have worked together so long and closely that a knowing look, or pat on the back, from Cheney at the right moment could and would have said all that was necessary. And my strong impression, from the outside, is that, indeed, that message has been sent.
Libby's Public Defense Fund and Pardon Efforts
Following the bungled Watergate burglary and the arrest of Gordon Liddy's troops in the Democratic National Committee, there was discussion in the White House and at a meeting of the Nixon reelection committee of setting up a public defense fund. Nixon's friend Bebe Rebozo offered to do so, with the plan of soliciting contributions from heavy hitters who merely were contributing because those arrested had all been Nixon loyalists, and were entitled to a fair trial.
But it never happened.
Scooter Libby, however, did create such a defense fund. Whether Dick Cheney quietly picked up the phone to get this going, is not known. If he did, he kept himself well removed. Indeed, Lynne Cheney could well have done it. We will never know. But whoever was behind the defense fund, it has worked.
The drive to pardon Libby has come from people outside the White House who are smart enough to have figured out the dilemma facing the White House. A list of these people can be found at Libby's defense fund site, where these purported friends have gathered. It is a Who's Who of the Right-Wing Establishment -- many of whom have not only raised money to help pay Libby's legal fees, but have also written letters to Judge Walton about Libby's good character and public service, and continue to call for his pardon.
If high-powered folks like Fred Thompson lobby Bush for a pardon, Cheney need not be involved, and risk further participation in a conspiracy to obstruct justice. But the claim, made by Thompson and others, that Libby is the subject of a great injustice in being prosecuted is pure hogwash. This, in turn, suggests that this entire effort is nothing but a charade.
The Bogus Claim that Libby Has Been Unjustly Prosecuted
Frankly, I am not only stunned that Fred Thompson has taken up the "Free Scooter" campaign, but by the crude and thoughtless tactics he has employed. He has either lied or could not be troubled to inform himself of the facts before he attacked Special Counsel Fitzgerald.
Thompson, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney in Tennessee, gave an audience his assessment of the prosecution against Libby for perjury and obstruction of justice in a speech on May 12, 2007. He claims that the investigation was a sham from the outset: that there should have been no Special Counsel selected, and there never was any violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Indeed, he claimed "that there was no violation of the law, by anyone, and everybody - the CIA, the Justice Department and the Special Counsel knew it. Ms. Plame was not a 'covered person' under the statute and it was obvious from the outset."
This is a remarkable charge - suggesting that the CIA referred the matter to the Justice Department knowing that Plame was not covered by the law; that the Justice Department commenced the investigation even though it had the same knowledge; and that the Special Counsel continued the investigation even though he, too, knew she was not covered. Yet why would Attorney General John Ashcroft's Justice Department have undertaken a baseless investigation? Why would a busy and highly-respected U.S. Attorney from Chicago take the assignment of Special Counsel if the law did not apply? And why would that same highly-respected U.S. Attorney make representations to a federal judge that the law did cover Valerie Plame, if it did not? It seems Fred Thompson has made a remarkably irresponsible charge.
"Furthermore," Thompson claimed, "Justice and the Special Counsel knew who leaked Plame's name and it wasn't Scooter Libby." Yet, Thompson added, "the Beltway machinery was well oiled and geared up so the Special Counsel … spent the next two years moving heaven and earth to come up with something, anything," and finally "came up with some inconsistent recollections by Scooter Libby." Inconsistent recollections? Apparently Thompson does not have a clue about the evidence that was presented at the trial, which proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Libby concocted a complex lie to explain away key behavior.
Nonetheless, based on his two-plus years as an Assistant U.S. Attorney, Thompson informed the audience, "In no other prosecutor's office in the country would a case like this one have been brought." Apparently, other prosecutors tolerate perjury and obstruction of justice. In addition, later in his speech, Thompson explained, "I have called for a pardon for Scooter Libby. When you rectify an injustice using the provisions of the law, just as when you reverse an erroneous court decision, you are not disregarding the rule of law, you are enforcing and protecting it."
That twisted report of the Special Counsel's investigation, and disturbing view on what to do about it is a bit frightening - especially coming from a man who wants to be president. But it is arguments like this that are the basis of the drive for leniency from Judge Walton, for a pardon, and, more broadly, for a change in public opinion regarding this case.
Fitzgerald Responds To The Conservatives' Claims
Although a few paragraphs of the Government's Sentencing Memorandum were filed under seal, Special Counsel Fitzgerald addressed within the publicly-available portions of the Memorandum assertions like those Thompson has made.
In the Memorandum, Fitzgerald advises Judge Walton that until the investigation was as complete as possible, he had not decided who could, or should not, be charged. He also makes clear that Valerie Plame was, indeed, a covert agent, and that the law did, indeed apply to her: "[I]t was clear from very early in the investigation that Ms. Wilson qualified under the relevant statute (Title 50, United States Code, Section 421) as a covert agent whose identity had been disclosed by public officials, including Mr. Libby, to the press."
Unlike Thompson, who is free to act irresponsibly, Fitzgerald is not. He backed up his assertion by providing Valerie Plame's employment record. As MSNBC explained, "An unclassified summary of outed CIA officer Valerie Plame's employment history at the spy agency, disclosed for the first time today in a court filing by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, indicates that Plame was "covert" when her name became public in July 2003."
Although Fred Thompson claims no other prosecutor would have taken action against Libby's perjury, Fitzgerald's filing makes it difficult to imagine how any legitimate prosecutor could have failed to take such action. Fitzgerald quotes and cites United States v. Mandujano - one of a number of cases reaching the very same conclusion - to the effect that "[p]erjured testimony is an obvious and flagrant affront to the basic concepts of judicial proceedings. Effective restraints against this type of egregious offense are therefore imperative. The power of subpoena, broad as it is, and the power of contempt for refusing to answer, drastic as that is -- and even the solemnity of the oath -- cannot insure truthful answers. Hence, Congress has made the giving of false answers a criminal act punishable by severe penalties; in no other way can criminal conduct be flushed into the open where the law can deal with it."
It should be of concern to Vice President Cheney that the Fitzgerald filing on Libby's sentence once again indicates that Special Prosecutor has concluded, based on the evidence, that Cheney was involved in Libby's misdeeds. Fitzgerald all but states that he still has not gotten to the bottom of this investigation because Libby refuses to tell the truth, and that, if he did reach that bottom, he would likely find Dick Cheney, who may well have violated a number of laws.
With Friends Like Thompson, Libby's Pardon Is In Doubt
Judge Walton has agreed to make public the hundred-some letters he has received from present and former government officials regarding the Libby pardon. After Judge Walton sentences Libby, the world will know if the rumor as to his truly having cojones is correct -- for if Walton does tell Libby to surrender forthwith to the Federal Bureau of Prison, the campaign to "Free Scooter" will begin in earnest.
I suspect Patrick Fitzgerald will be watching with great interest any pardon action. After all, he was working in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York when that office ignored the refusal of the Bush Department of Justice, under Attorney General Ashcroft, to investigate former President Bill Clinton's pardon of financier Marc Rich.
What will happen if Fitzgerald observes Bush pardoning Libby without any better rationale than the paper-thin ones Fred Thompson and friends have been pushing? One would be wise to remember that Fitzgerald will still have five years before the statute of limitations runs out to find out why such a pardon was issued, as occurred with Clinton's Marc Rich bottom.
Fitzgerald's appointment as Special Counsel ends when he ends it, and given his apparent view that Cheney is at the heart of the Plame scandal, I don't expect him to end it prematurely.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.
By JOHN W. DEAN ----
Friday, Jun. 01, 2007
On June 5, U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton will sentence Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who has been convicted of obstruction of justice, making false statements, and perjury, as the result of the Special Counsel investigation arising from the revelation of Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA agent. I suspect that Judge Walton's actions will create a difficult and delicate problem for the White House.
Needless to say, I have no crystal ball. But it is plain that the White House must be bracing itself for Libby's being sent to prison. Moreover, it appears that high-powered friends of Libby and Cheney have figured out the White House's dilemma, so they are trying to help keep Scooter out of prison in a manner that will not have criminal consequences for anyone involved.
No one has been more active in this undertaking on Libby's behalf than former Tennessee Senator Fred D. Thompson, who has strong Presidential aspirations. Yet, to my surprise, Thompson is either being blatantly dishonest, or he is remarkably uninformed about his efforts. Unfortunately for Thompson, neither state of mind ought to commend itself to Republicans clamoring for a conservative with stature for the GOP nomination in 2008.
Likely Sentence and Duration of Incarceration
Since Libby's conviction, there has been considerable public speculation about his sentence.
Typical of the consensus is an article by U.S. News & World Report that explains, "Under current federal guidelines, Libby's four felony convictions, which stem from an FBI [and Grand Jury] investigation into the disclosure of a CIA operative's identity, would most likely net him 18 months to three years in prison." This report notes, however, that "this is not an ordinary case, and … aggressive lawyering by both sides and the intense media scrutiny add an element of unpredictability."
There is a historical parallel to certain Watergate-related convictions. For example, former Nixon Attorney General John Mitchell, White House Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman and Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs John D. Ehrlichman were each sentenced to 30 to 96 months for perjury and obstruction of justice - two of the three crimes of which Libby was convicted (They each served some 18 months before they were released.)
Providing a closer parallel to the Libby situation, Presidential Appointment Secretary and Deputy Assistant to the President Dwight Chapin was convicted for lying about his involvement in the 1972 Nixon campaign "dirty tricks" operation. Chapin was not convicted for involvement in the dirty tricks per se, but rather for making false statements to the grand jury about his activities. Chapin was sentenced to 10-to-30 months in prison, with the judge required that he serve not less than 10. Similarly, Libby was not convicted for leaking information about Valerie Plame Wilson's covert status at the CIA, but rather for lying about his efforts to leak the information.
All of these former Nixon Administration officials were permitted to remain free on bond during the time they unsuccessfully appealed their convictions. But the law has become more settled in the three decades since Watergate, and currently, defense lawyers tell me that unless a defendant has serious legal issues in play on appeal, federal judges seldom allow defendants to remain free on bond during the appeal process. Libby very likely has no strong appellate issues: His trial and conviction were rather uneventful, and Judge Walton - an experienced trial judge -- was widely seen as having been fair to both sides, and careful not to make any mistakes of law.
It is well known that Judge Walton, who arrived on the bench after a successful career in the U.S. Attorney's Office in Washington, DC, gives out tough sentences. He is the kind of "law and order" judge that conservatives praise, except when one of their own is being sentenced. As I was told by one person who knows him well, Judge Walton is tough as they come, and he has the cojones to send Scooter to get his orange jumpsuit sooner rather than later.
How long a sentence is Judge Walton likely to impose? On May 25, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald filed the Government's Sentencing Memorandum asking Judge Walton to sentence Libby in the range of "30 to 37 months." Criminal defense attorneys with whom I have spoken expect that Judge Walton will choose a sentence of roughly 30 months (two-and-a-half years), and to give Libby at most a couple of days to get his affairs in order before surrendering to the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
No doubt, the Bush White House has been making similar calculations. Thus, they are approaching a moment of truth. There are only three real insiders here: Bush, Cheney and Libby. However, it appears that the outsiders have looked at the situation, and acted to try to improve it. And as long as they are outsiders, they can do so without criminal exposure.
The Cost of Clemency: The White House's Dilemma Regarding the Libby Sentencing
If Watergate had any lesson, it was that when someone connected to the White House is heading for prison, it is dangerous for the president or those close to him to even think about - not to mention talk about - clemency.
After all, the March 1, 1974 indictment of Mitchell, Haldeman, Ehrlichman and Chuck Colson (who pled guilty, rather than risk a trial) charged each of them with a conspiracy to obstruct justice by offering to provide clemency to those involved in the Watergate break-in. In addition, as Nixon's tapes showed, the president discussed pardons on several occasions, and this abuse of power was included in the bill of impeachment against him that was pending when he resigned.
If Libby had been acting on his own behalf, a pardon would present no problem; Bush and Cheney could feel it was the humanitarian thing to do, given his long service to the government. However, no one I know believes Libby was acting simply for himself, nor does the evidence suggest it.
Let's suppose, instead, that Libby was doing Cheney's bidding, and that Cheney was deeply involved in both Libby's leak of Valerie Plame's CIA status and the lies Libby subsequently concocted to deflect attention away from the Vice President. If so, then there was a conspiracy to obstruct justice - and if Cheney should go to Bush and request that he pardon Libby, he would be furthering that conspiracy. No wonder then, that Special Counsel Fitzgerald remarked during the Libby trial that there was "a cloud" over the Vice President.
Come Tuesday, that cloud could get much darker for Cheney.
It's likely that only Cheney and Libby know precisely what transpired between them, assuming they are half as shrewd as they appear. In addition, Libby has probably not been foolish enough to directly request a pardon, nor Cheney imprudent enough to directly promise one. Given what happened during Watergate, surely they are smart enough not to have had that conversation.
However, these men have worked together so long and closely that a knowing look, or pat on the back, from Cheney at the right moment could and would have said all that was necessary. And my strong impression, from the outside, is that, indeed, that message has been sent.
Libby's Public Defense Fund and Pardon Efforts
Following the bungled Watergate burglary and the arrest of Gordon Liddy's troops in the Democratic National Committee, there was discussion in the White House and at a meeting of the Nixon reelection committee of setting up a public defense fund. Nixon's friend Bebe Rebozo offered to do so, with the plan of soliciting contributions from heavy hitters who merely were contributing because those arrested had all been Nixon loyalists, and were entitled to a fair trial.
But it never happened.
Scooter Libby, however, did create such a defense fund. Whether Dick Cheney quietly picked up the phone to get this going, is not known. If he did, he kept himself well removed. Indeed, Lynne Cheney could well have done it. We will never know. But whoever was behind the defense fund, it has worked.
The drive to pardon Libby has come from people outside the White House who are smart enough to have figured out the dilemma facing the White House. A list of these people can be found at Libby's defense fund site, where these purported friends have gathered. It is a Who's Who of the Right-Wing Establishment -- many of whom have not only raised money to help pay Libby's legal fees, but have also written letters to Judge Walton about Libby's good character and public service, and continue to call for his pardon.
If high-powered folks like Fred Thompson lobby Bush for a pardon, Cheney need not be involved, and risk further participation in a conspiracy to obstruct justice. But the claim, made by Thompson and others, that Libby is the subject of a great injustice in being prosecuted is pure hogwash. This, in turn, suggests that this entire effort is nothing but a charade.
The Bogus Claim that Libby Has Been Unjustly Prosecuted
Frankly, I am not only stunned that Fred Thompson has taken up the "Free Scooter" campaign, but by the crude and thoughtless tactics he has employed. He has either lied or could not be troubled to inform himself of the facts before he attacked Special Counsel Fitzgerald.
Thompson, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney in Tennessee, gave an audience his assessment of the prosecution against Libby for perjury and obstruction of justice in a speech on May 12, 2007. He claims that the investigation was a sham from the outset: that there should have been no Special Counsel selected, and there never was any violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Indeed, he claimed "that there was no violation of the law, by anyone, and everybody - the CIA, the Justice Department and the Special Counsel knew it. Ms. Plame was not a 'covered person' under the statute and it was obvious from the outset."
This is a remarkable charge - suggesting that the CIA referred the matter to the Justice Department knowing that Plame was not covered by the law; that the Justice Department commenced the investigation even though it had the same knowledge; and that the Special Counsel continued the investigation even though he, too, knew she was not covered. Yet why would Attorney General John Ashcroft's Justice Department have undertaken a baseless investigation? Why would a busy and highly-respected U.S. Attorney from Chicago take the assignment of Special Counsel if the law did not apply? And why would that same highly-respected U.S. Attorney make representations to a federal judge that the law did cover Valerie Plame, if it did not? It seems Fred Thompson has made a remarkably irresponsible charge.
"Furthermore," Thompson claimed, "Justice and the Special Counsel knew who leaked Plame's name and it wasn't Scooter Libby." Yet, Thompson added, "the Beltway machinery was well oiled and geared up so the Special Counsel … spent the next two years moving heaven and earth to come up with something, anything," and finally "came up with some inconsistent recollections by Scooter Libby." Inconsistent recollections? Apparently Thompson does not have a clue about the evidence that was presented at the trial, which proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Libby concocted a complex lie to explain away key behavior.
Nonetheless, based on his two-plus years as an Assistant U.S. Attorney, Thompson informed the audience, "In no other prosecutor's office in the country would a case like this one have been brought." Apparently, other prosecutors tolerate perjury and obstruction of justice. In addition, later in his speech, Thompson explained, "I have called for a pardon for Scooter Libby. When you rectify an injustice using the provisions of the law, just as when you reverse an erroneous court decision, you are not disregarding the rule of law, you are enforcing and protecting it."
That twisted report of the Special Counsel's investigation, and disturbing view on what to do about it is a bit frightening - especially coming from a man who wants to be president. But it is arguments like this that are the basis of the drive for leniency from Judge Walton, for a pardon, and, more broadly, for a change in public opinion regarding this case.
Fitzgerald Responds To The Conservatives' Claims
Although a few paragraphs of the Government's Sentencing Memorandum were filed under seal, Special Counsel Fitzgerald addressed within the publicly-available portions of the Memorandum assertions like those Thompson has made.
In the Memorandum, Fitzgerald advises Judge Walton that until the investigation was as complete as possible, he had not decided who could, or should not, be charged. He also makes clear that Valerie Plame was, indeed, a covert agent, and that the law did, indeed apply to her: "[I]t was clear from very early in the investigation that Ms. Wilson qualified under the relevant statute (Title 50, United States Code, Section 421) as a covert agent whose identity had been disclosed by public officials, including Mr. Libby, to the press."
Unlike Thompson, who is free to act irresponsibly, Fitzgerald is not. He backed up his assertion by providing Valerie Plame's employment record. As MSNBC explained, "An unclassified summary of outed CIA officer Valerie Plame's employment history at the spy agency, disclosed for the first time today in a court filing by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, indicates that Plame was "covert" when her name became public in July 2003."
Although Fred Thompson claims no other prosecutor would have taken action against Libby's perjury, Fitzgerald's filing makes it difficult to imagine how any legitimate prosecutor could have failed to take such action. Fitzgerald quotes and cites United States v. Mandujano - one of a number of cases reaching the very same conclusion - to the effect that "[p]erjured testimony is an obvious and flagrant affront to the basic concepts of judicial proceedings. Effective restraints against this type of egregious offense are therefore imperative. The power of subpoena, broad as it is, and the power of contempt for refusing to answer, drastic as that is -- and even the solemnity of the oath -- cannot insure truthful answers. Hence, Congress has made the giving of false answers a criminal act punishable by severe penalties; in no other way can criminal conduct be flushed into the open where the law can deal with it."
It should be of concern to Vice President Cheney that the Fitzgerald filing on Libby's sentence once again indicates that Special Prosecutor has concluded, based on the evidence, that Cheney was involved in Libby's misdeeds. Fitzgerald all but states that he still has not gotten to the bottom of this investigation because Libby refuses to tell the truth, and that, if he did reach that bottom, he would likely find Dick Cheney, who may well have violated a number of laws.
With Friends Like Thompson, Libby's Pardon Is In Doubt
Judge Walton has agreed to make public the hundred-some letters he has received from present and former government officials regarding the Libby pardon. After Judge Walton sentences Libby, the world will know if the rumor as to his truly having cojones is correct -- for if Walton does tell Libby to surrender forthwith to the Federal Bureau of Prison, the campaign to "Free Scooter" will begin in earnest.
I suspect Patrick Fitzgerald will be watching with great interest any pardon action. After all, he was working in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York when that office ignored the refusal of the Bush Department of Justice, under Attorney General Ashcroft, to investigate former President Bill Clinton's pardon of financier Marc Rich.
What will happen if Fitzgerald observes Bush pardoning Libby without any better rationale than the paper-thin ones Fred Thompson and friends have been pushing? One would be wise to remember that Fitzgerald will still have five years before the statute of limitations runs out to find out why such a pardon was issued, as occurred with Clinton's Marc Rich bottom.
Fitzgerald's appointment as Special Counsel ends when he ends it, and given his apparent view that Cheney is at the heart of the Plame scandal, I don't expect him to end it prematurely.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
5 Scooter Myths
By Carol D. LeonnigSunday, June 10, 2007; B03
Judge Reggie B. Walton, who sentenced I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby to 30 months in prison last week for lying to federal investigators about his role in the leak of a CIA officer's identity, received 373 pages of letters about the high-profile convict whose fate he had to decide. Many argued for leniency on behalf of Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, whom former defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld called a "dedicated public servant" and "strong family man." But some less famous writers were outraged about the example Libby set; one letter from "An Angry Citizen" demanded the longest prison term possible.
Around here, I'm the one who gets both kinds of letters. While covering this case for The Washington Post from the beginning of Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald's investigation in December 2003, I've received a steady stream of mail, most of it fuming -- some because the writers think a tireless patriot is being persecuted by a runaway prosecutor, others because they think a ruthless traitor is getting off easy after jeopardizing national security.
In fact, neither caricature is fair -- let alone accurate. But even now, four years after Valerie Plame's name hit the papers, the public still has some startling misconceptions about this fascinating, thorny case.
1. Valerie Plame wasn't a covert operative.
Wrong. She was.
Granted, this wasn't so clear at the start of Fitzgerald's grand jury investigation, so Libby's allies argued that the beans he spilled weren't that important to begin with. In fact, many of the officials who knew about her classified CIA status kept mum, which let Libby's pals jump to assert that she wasn't an undercover operative at the time of the leak.
But a CIA "unclassified summary" of Plame's career, released in court filings before Libby's June 5 sentencing, puts this one to rest: The CIA considered her covert at the time her identity was leaked to the media. The CIA report said that Plame had worked overseas in the previous five years and that the agency had been taking "affirmative measures" to conceal her CIA employment. That echoes the language used in the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which makes it a crime to reveal the identities of covert CIA officers.
When Libby was convicted, some conservative pundits complained that Fitzgerald had presented no compelling evidence at trial that Plame was covert. But that wasn't for lack of evidence; it was because Libby's lawyers convinced the court to bar any mention of her status during the trial, arguing that evidence suggesting that her job was classified would have been "unfairly prejudicial" to their client.
The CIA isn't famous for its clarity, but it's being pretty blunt on this issue: Langley says she was covert. Which other spook bureaucracy do you need to ask?
2. Karl Rove would have been indicted in the Plame case if it hadn't been for all the destroyed evidence.
You'll find this conspiracy theory all over left-wing blogs. The main cause of the hyperventilating is a series of missing White House e-mails, supposedly containing marching orders from President Bush's top political adviser in which Rove told his troops to out Plame and punish her husband, former ambassador Joseph I. Wilson IV, for having poured cold water over reports that Saddam Hussein had sought uranium in Africa.
Those e-mails may contain interesting stuff, but for now, it's rank speculation to suggest that they hold information about the Plame case or would have pushed Fitzgerald to charge Rove with perjury. Fitzgerald told the court just that. He was exercising standard prosecutorial discretion when he decided not to charge Rove, according to sources close to the investigation. He didn't think he had a strong enough case to prove that Rove had intentionally lied to investigators (though some FBI agents disagreed).
3. Libby didn't leak Plame's identity.
Oh brother am I tired of this one. Libby wasn't charged with leaking information about Plame; he was charged with lying to investigators. But the overwhelming weight of the evidence at the trial -- including reporters' notes of their interviews with Libby -- showed that Libby had indeed leaked classified information about Plame's identity, even though that wasn't what put him in the dock. The jury agreed that Libby lied when he said that he'd been telling reporters only what other reporters had told him about Plame's role at the CIA.
What is unclear is whether Libby knew she was a covert CIA agent at the time he discussed her with reporters -- a key point in determining whether this was an illegal leak. But Walton said that Libby "had a unique and special obligation" to keep such secrets, well, secret.
4. Bad press doesn't get under Cheney's skin.
The most powerful vice president in U.S. history is usually described as a tough customer who shrugs off media criticism. But if he had been that immune to (as one of his predecessors put it) "the nattering nabobs of negativism," he never would have told his top aide to talk about Joe Wilson, and none of this would have happened.
After all, did you hear Cathie Martin describe at trial what it was like to be the vice president's communications director during the spring and summer of 2003? Twice, Cheney dictated talking points for her about how to bat down Wilson's allegations that the administration had twisted the intelligence about Iraq's nuclear ambitions. Cheney also ordered her to start monitoring all television reports on the Niger controversy and arranged a luncheon for conservative columnists to help get out his take on everything.
And that's not all. According to Libby's testimony, Cheney arranged to have Bush declassify passages from the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons programs -- the first time Libby had ever heard of such a thing happening -- and pass them to Judith Miller, a New York Times reporter whom the administration saw as sympathetic.
5. The White House would fire any administration official who leaked classified information about Plame.
When the investigation began, the president said he hated leaks and would hold leakers of classified information accountable. But he has not sacked anyone over the case.
Libby resigned the day he was indicted in October 2005. Two other officials who gave reporters information about Plame, former deputy secretary of state Richard L. Armitage and former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer, left government before Fitzgerald's inquiry concluded. And Rove, who first told Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper about Plame's CIA identity, remains in the White House.
leonnigc@washpost.com
Carol D. Leonnig covers federal courts for
The Washington Post.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.
Thursday, June 7, 2007
Purely Political Pardons Will Be Punsihed
It's time for the American people to make a few things clear to their politicians (elected or wannabes).
We can start with this:
A purely political pardon is any pardon given without a guilty plea and full cooperation from the defendant or a guilty verdict and complete appeals process. Any pardon not meeting these criteria will be considered by the people to be obstruction of justice and a conspiracy to willfully withold information from the American electorate.
Any pardon given by a president to a member of his/her administration shall be suspect.
Any president giving such pardons can expect that his party will be punished to the 7th election cycle, at least.
Libby supporters press for presidential pardon
Bush gives no hint of his intentions
By Matt Apuzzo, Associated Press June 7, 2007
WASHINGTON -- Allies of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby urged President Bush yesterday to pardon the former White House aide, but Bush rebuffed questions about whether he would intervene to prevent Libby's incarceration .
Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, was sentenced Tuesday to 2 1/2 years in prison for lying and obstructing the CIA leak investigation.
He became the highest-ranking White House official sentenced to prison since the Iran-Contra affair.
A Republican stalwart, Libby drew more than 150 letters of support from military commanders and diplomats who praised his government service from the Cold War through the early days of the Iraq war.
"The White House is well aware of what a lot of supporters of Scooter have to say about this," said Mel Sembler, who served as Bush's ambassador to Italy and now leads Libby's defense fund. "There really is only one answer. This man has to step up and pardon him."
Bush, traveling in Europe, gave no hint about his plans.
"Yesterday was a very sad day for Scooter and his family," Bush told reporters. "But there's an ongoing process and it wouldn't be appropriate for me to discuss it while the process is going forward."
"My heart goes out to his family," the president added.
Libby's lawyers are rushing to try to forestall the prison sentence. They planned to file papers today arguing that Libby should remain free while his appeals play out.
But that appears to be an uphill battle. Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald intends to oppose the motion and US District Judge Reggie B. Walton said he sees no reason to grant a delay.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.
We can start with this:
A purely political pardon is any pardon given without a guilty plea and full cooperation from the defendant or a guilty verdict and complete appeals process. Any pardon not meeting these criteria will be considered by the people to be obstruction of justice and a conspiracy to willfully withold information from the American electorate.
Any pardon given by a president to a member of his/her administration shall be suspect.
Any president giving such pardons can expect that his party will be punished to the 7th election cycle, at least.
Libby supporters press for presidential pardon
Bush gives no hint of his intentions
By Matt Apuzzo, Associated Press June 7, 2007
WASHINGTON -- Allies of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby urged President Bush yesterday to pardon the former White House aide, but Bush rebuffed questions about whether he would intervene to prevent Libby's incarceration .
Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, was sentenced Tuesday to 2 1/2 years in prison for lying and obstructing the CIA leak investigation.
He became the highest-ranking White House official sentenced to prison since the Iran-Contra affair.
A Republican stalwart, Libby drew more than 150 letters of support from military commanders and diplomats who praised his government service from the Cold War through the early days of the Iraq war.
"The White House is well aware of what a lot of supporters of Scooter have to say about this," said Mel Sembler, who served as Bush's ambassador to Italy and now leads Libby's defense fund. "There really is only one answer. This man has to step up and pardon him."
Bush, traveling in Europe, gave no hint about his plans.
"Yesterday was a very sad day for Scooter and his family," Bush told reporters. "But there's an ongoing process and it wouldn't be appropriate for me to discuss it while the process is going forward."
"My heart goes out to his family," the president added.
Libby's lawyers are rushing to try to forestall the prison sentence. They planned to file papers today arguing that Libby should remain free while his appeals play out.
But that appears to be an uphill battle. Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald intends to oppose the motion and US District Judge Reggie B. Walton said he sees no reason to grant a delay.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.
Friday, June 1, 2007
Fred Thompson, In Brief......
Actor/Politician Fred Thompson May Run for President in 2008
Salem-News.com
Ties to "Scooter" Libby, a failed S&L Crisis and a public misinformation campaign trail the man who might throw his hat in the ring for President.
(WASHINGTON, D.C.) - The national spotlights are on Fred Thompson, and rumors are flying that the Law and Order actor could be the new shining star of the GOP. He announced on Fox News Sunday that he may throw his hat in the ring as a Republican candidate for the 2008 Presidential race.
The party's presidential candidates so far, are anything but a dazzling bunch in comparison, engaged as many seem to be in a slow motion race to demonstrate just who most closely meets the criteria of the nation's most right-leaning religious organizations. Others, like pro choice Rudy Giulani and Maverick switch hitter John McCain, seem to be marching to the beat of a different drummer, while Mitt Romney continues to keep his cool during personal assaults primarily directed at his Mormon faith.
It's kind of a mess, politically, and nobody seems particularly enthralled with any of the candidates, even if many bring good qualifications to the table. The whole group just seems too stuffy, largely reminiscent of many who stood in their place before bailing out of the race altogether.
Thompson brings a rich screen history that began after his role as an attorney in bringing down then Tennessee Governor Ray Blanton In 1977, Thompson took on a Tennessee Parole Board case that ultimately toppled Tennessee Governor from power on charges over selling pardons.
An interview over his actual participation in the event spurred a producer to ask him if he would play himself. He agreed, and his list of movies since then includes releases such as Barbarians at the Gate, In the Line of Fire, and The Hunt for Red October. He is known today for his role on the widely popular TV show, Law and Order.
Some staunch conservatives are going to find this candidate ideal, as he seems to carry many of the attributes and values of standing President George W. Bush and his administration's policies are something he had fought for.
In fact, Thompson went so far as to be featured in a March 2003 commercial by the conservative group Citizens United that advocated the invasion of Iraq, stating: "When people ask what has Saddam done to us, I ask, what had the 9/11 hijackers done to us -- before 9/11"
History is not always a friend, and it now shows that the Iraqi people and even their notorious leader Saddam Hussein, had nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11, carried out almost completely by people from Saudi Arabia.
In 1982, Thompson was one of the lobbyists who was after U.S. Congress to pass the Savings and Loan deregulation legislation that allowed for additional government support of ailing S&Ls, and was a major contributing factor in the subsequent Savings and Loan crisis in the late 1980s.
Thompson's political experience grew when he was appointed to an "informal position" by President George W. Bush to help guide the nomination of John Roberts through the United States Senate confirmation process after the retirement of Supreme Court Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in 2005.
In 2006 he served on the advisory board of the legal defense fund for I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Jr, who was indicted and later convicted of lying to federal investigators during their investigation of the Valerie Plame affair.
But maybe another Hollywood actor is what the Republican party needs for a U.S. President this time, again. The visibility factor is huge and star appeal seems to work particularly well in California, but nationally as well.
The last Hollywood President, Ronald Reagan, left a highly criticized legacy with his policies that became known as "Reganonomics". While his decisions helped many, they also dissolved the infrastructure of a large aspect of the American healthcare system.
"Reganonomics" moved money away from mental health programs to boost American business that was sagging in the wake of the Vietnam War. To this day, a growing homeless situation all across the nation is attributed to Reagan's policies as a national leader.
Another side of Thompson, perhaps his most famous, came when he was an attorney during the Watergate Hearings, when he served as co-chief counsel to the Senate Watergate Committee in its investigation of the Watergate scandal in 1973 and 1974.
He is remembered for his role in urging Howard Baker, the influential ranking minority member of the Senate committee investigating Watergate, to deliver a question that is said to have contributed directly to the downfall of President Richard Nixon— "What did the President know, and when did he know it?" Thompson's voice has become immortalized in the recordings of the Watergate proceedings, in which he asks the key question, "Mr. Butterfield, are you aware of the installation of any listening devices in the Oval Office of the President?
So, Thompson is an actor, a lawyer, a man who implied that Iraq attacked our country September 11th, and he helped fall President Richard Nixon, the Republican who ended the Vietnam War.
It seems he is that and a lot more. Thompson recently criticized controversial filmmaker Michael Moore's visit to Cuba, where he shot a scene for his latest movie. The interesting part is that Michael Moore offered in response to publicly debate Thompson.
Thompson declined the opportunity to set the record straight in a face to face manner with the notorious Michael Moore. It appears the Hollywood approach is Thompson's way of answering the call. He made a video and posted it on the Internet as a response to Moore's challenge.
In declining to debate Moore, the actor used the video to mention Cuban filmmaker Nicolás Guillén, who was jailed by the Cuban government and allegedly subjected to electroconvulsive therapy.
Critics shot back at Thompson for backing a government that is behind incidents such as Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, where numerous incidents of torture are documented at the hands of U.S. military forces and contractors.
The Weekly Standard reported today that Thompson will set up a "testing-the-waters" committee that will begin accepting contributions on June 4th. Also on May 30th, The Politico reported that Thompson plans to enter the presidential race over the Independence Day weekend. But a Thompson associate quoted in The Hillary Spot said "there will not be a presidential announcement from Fred Thompson on July 4th."
The Advocate News and Politics says it 's hardly a stretch to imagine Fred Thompson as president. After all, he's played the role in movies, his imposing 6-foot-5 stature and Southern-tinged commanding voice creating the illusion.
Fred Thompson describes himself as a Conservative. He has said Federalism is his guiding principle.
"Our government, under our Constitution, was established upon the principles of Federalism -- that the federal government would have limited enumerated powers and the rest would be left to the states. It not only prevented tyranny, it just made good sense. States become laboratories for democracy and experiment with different kinds of laws. One state might try one welfare reform approach, for example. Another state might try another approach. One would work and the other would not. The federal welfare reform law resulted from just this process."
He says Federalism also allows for the diversity that exists among the country's people. "Citizens of our various states have different views as to how traditional state responsibilities should be handled. This way, states compete with each other to attract people and businesses -- and that is a good thing."
Special thanks to Wikipedia for information in this report.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.
Salem-News.com
Ties to "Scooter" Libby, a failed S&L Crisis and a public misinformation campaign trail the man who might throw his hat in the ring for President.
(WASHINGTON, D.C.) - The national spotlights are on Fred Thompson, and rumors are flying that the Law and Order actor could be the new shining star of the GOP. He announced on Fox News Sunday that he may throw his hat in the ring as a Republican candidate for the 2008 Presidential race.
The party's presidential candidates so far, are anything but a dazzling bunch in comparison, engaged as many seem to be in a slow motion race to demonstrate just who most closely meets the criteria of the nation's most right-leaning religious organizations. Others, like pro choice Rudy Giulani and Maverick switch hitter John McCain, seem to be marching to the beat of a different drummer, while Mitt Romney continues to keep his cool during personal assaults primarily directed at his Mormon faith.
It's kind of a mess, politically, and nobody seems particularly enthralled with any of the candidates, even if many bring good qualifications to the table. The whole group just seems too stuffy, largely reminiscent of many who stood in their place before bailing out of the race altogether.
Thompson brings a rich screen history that began after his role as an attorney in bringing down then Tennessee Governor Ray Blanton In 1977, Thompson took on a Tennessee Parole Board case that ultimately toppled Tennessee Governor from power on charges over selling pardons.
An interview over his actual participation in the event spurred a producer to ask him if he would play himself. He agreed, and his list of movies since then includes releases such as Barbarians at the Gate, In the Line of Fire, and The Hunt for Red October. He is known today for his role on the widely popular TV show, Law and Order.
Some staunch conservatives are going to find this candidate ideal, as he seems to carry many of the attributes and values of standing President George W. Bush and his administration's policies are something he had fought for.
In fact, Thompson went so far as to be featured in a March 2003 commercial by the conservative group Citizens United that advocated the invasion of Iraq, stating: "When people ask what has Saddam done to us, I ask, what had the 9/11 hijackers done to us -- before 9/11"
History is not always a friend, and it now shows that the Iraqi people and even their notorious leader Saddam Hussein, had nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11, carried out almost completely by people from Saudi Arabia.
In 1982, Thompson was one of the lobbyists who was after U.S. Congress to pass the Savings and Loan deregulation legislation that allowed for additional government support of ailing S&Ls, and was a major contributing factor in the subsequent Savings and Loan crisis in the late 1980s.
Thompson's political experience grew when he was appointed to an "informal position" by President George W. Bush to help guide the nomination of John Roberts through the United States Senate confirmation process after the retirement of Supreme Court Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in 2005.
In 2006 he served on the advisory board of the legal defense fund for I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Jr, who was indicted and later convicted of lying to federal investigators during their investigation of the Valerie Plame affair.
But maybe another Hollywood actor is what the Republican party needs for a U.S. President this time, again. The visibility factor is huge and star appeal seems to work particularly well in California, but nationally as well.
The last Hollywood President, Ronald Reagan, left a highly criticized legacy with his policies that became known as "Reganonomics". While his decisions helped many, they also dissolved the infrastructure of a large aspect of the American healthcare system.
"Reganonomics" moved money away from mental health programs to boost American business that was sagging in the wake of the Vietnam War. To this day, a growing homeless situation all across the nation is attributed to Reagan's policies as a national leader.
Another side of Thompson, perhaps his most famous, came when he was an attorney during the Watergate Hearings, when he served as co-chief counsel to the Senate Watergate Committee in its investigation of the Watergate scandal in 1973 and 1974.
He is remembered for his role in urging Howard Baker, the influential ranking minority member of the Senate committee investigating Watergate, to deliver a question that is said to have contributed directly to the downfall of President Richard Nixon— "What did the President know, and when did he know it?" Thompson's voice has become immortalized in the recordings of the Watergate proceedings, in which he asks the key question, "Mr. Butterfield, are you aware of the installation of any listening devices in the Oval Office of the President?
So, Thompson is an actor, a lawyer, a man who implied that Iraq attacked our country September 11th, and he helped fall President Richard Nixon, the Republican who ended the Vietnam War.
It seems he is that and a lot more. Thompson recently criticized controversial filmmaker Michael Moore's visit to Cuba, where he shot a scene for his latest movie. The interesting part is that Michael Moore offered in response to publicly debate Thompson.
Thompson declined the opportunity to set the record straight in a face to face manner with the notorious Michael Moore. It appears the Hollywood approach is Thompson's way of answering the call. He made a video and posted it on the Internet as a response to Moore's challenge.
In declining to debate Moore, the actor used the video to mention Cuban filmmaker Nicolás Guillén, who was jailed by the Cuban government and allegedly subjected to electroconvulsive therapy.
Critics shot back at Thompson for backing a government that is behind incidents such as Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, where numerous incidents of torture are documented at the hands of U.S. military forces and contractors.
The Weekly Standard reported today that Thompson will set up a "testing-the-waters" committee that will begin accepting contributions on June 4th. Also on May 30th, The Politico reported that Thompson plans to enter the presidential race over the Independence Day weekend. But a Thompson associate quoted in The Hillary Spot said "there will not be a presidential announcement from Fred Thompson on July 4th."
The Advocate News and Politics says it 's hardly a stretch to imagine Fred Thompson as president. After all, he's played the role in movies, his imposing 6-foot-5 stature and Southern-tinged commanding voice creating the illusion.
Fred Thompson describes himself as a Conservative. He has said Federalism is his guiding principle.
"Our government, under our Constitution, was established upon the principles of Federalism -- that the federal government would have limited enumerated powers and the rest would be left to the states. It not only prevented tyranny, it just made good sense. States become laboratories for democracy and experiment with different kinds of laws. One state might try one welfare reform approach, for example. Another state might try another approach. One would work and the other would not. The federal welfare reform law resulted from just this process."
He says Federalism also allows for the diversity that exists among the country's people. "Citizens of our various states have different views as to how traditional state responsibilities should be handled. This way, states compete with each other to attract people and businesses -- and that is a good thing."
Special thanks to Wikipedia for information in this report.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Libby is too guilty to testify......
So says Lawrence O'Donnell, and we agree.
The only thing that can prevent a pardon for Libby, and clear sailing for many more criminal W.H operatives, is impeachment and removal from office by the senate, of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney
Libby is guilty. And he's going to be found guilty. The jury might not convict him on all counts, but he has no chance of surviving the perjury count that was proved beyond a reasonable doubt with Tim Russert's testimony.
The multi-million dollar defense, which provided no defense at all, did not call Libby to the witness stand for one very simple reason: Libby is very very guilty. Publicly, defense lawyers cling to the text book theory that the defendant has no burden of proof and that no negative inference should ever be taken when a defendant doesn't defend himself on the witness stand.
Practically, every defense lawyer knows that the jury desperately wants to hear from the defendant and that the only reason not to put him on the stand is that he is soooo guilty that every answer he gives after his name will eradicate any shred of reasonable doubt. Think about it. Your whole life is at stake in the outcome of a criminal trial. You're innocent. And you don't testify in your own defense? Around the courthouse when defense lawyers are chatting about their cases, the only question they ask each other is can you put your guy on the stand? Those conversations always assume the defendant is guilty. The question is just about the degree of difficulty in presenting a defense.
Libby's defense gave up before the opening statements in the trial. They always knew Libby was too guilty to put on the witness stand. And they were never going to call the Vice President. Telling the judge that they were going to call Libby and Cheney was just a mirage they were trying to create to misdirect Patrick Fitzgerald's focus. I'd be shocked if Fitzgerald was fooled for even a second.
If Libby called Cheney, it actually would have hurt his defense and been a hostile act to the White House. Cheney would have been humiliated by Fitzgerald's cross-examination and Libby would have forever lost his chief pardon advocate in the White House.
From the start, Libby's hopeless courtroom defense has been about the pardon. Libby has conducted a defense that is very friendly to the White House. He has made it clear to the White House that he had the power to call the Vice President, but, good soldier that he is, he declined to put Cheney through that ordeal.
Last year, I told Keith Olbermann on MSNBC that Libby's highly publicized defense-fund fundraiser was really the first step in the pardon campaign. Libby is a very rich man. He didn't need the defense fund. He needed the public rally with Mary Matalin types walking the virtual red carpet on the way in singing his praises as a great public servant. Fred Thompson, the senator-actor, did a version of this at the trial--showing up, giving "moral" support, then offering his TV prosecutor view of how unfair the Libby prosecution is. Look for the popular TV prosecutor to play an important role in the pardon campaign.
Libby knows more than his lawyers do about the next stage of his legal proceedings. Libby helped obtain the sleaziest pardon that Bill Clinton issued on his way out of the White House. Clinton pardoned Libby's client, the fugitive billionaire Marc Rich, over the unanimous objections of the White House staff. When Cheney hand-delivers Libby's pardon application to President Bush, who is going to object?
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.
Friday, January 26, 2007
Libby Trial Heats Up
It is clear to me that the VP and his staff were out to get Wilson. What is not so clear is why there was such and over-the-top reaction to one critic, when there had been quite a few.
The IAEA had already stated publicaly that the Niger documents were crude forgeries. So, everyone knew that the Niger claims were false. What wasn't known, and still isn't known, by most of the public, is who forged the documents and why.
By Carol D. Leonnig and Amy GoldsteinWashington Post Staff WritersThursday, January 25, 2007; A03
A former high-ranking CIA official testified yesterday that, when Vice President Cheney's agitated chief of staff called him out of the blue in June 2003 to ask what he knew about a CIA-sponsored trip to Niger, he jumped to get answers.
Summoned out of a meeting with the CIA director to take I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's urgent call later that same afternoon, then-Associate Deputy Director Robert Grenier said he relayed all he had learned about former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, the man behind news reports of the trip that had Libby so concerned.
Yes, Wilson had gone on a CIA-sponsored mission to check out intelligence that Iraq was trying to buy uranium for nuclear arms and had concluded that the tip was unfounded, Grenier testified he told Libby. And, he told Libby, it appeared that Wilson's wife, a CIA officer, had suggested Wilson for the trip.
The timing of Grenier's response and Libby's anxiety over Wilson are central to the prosecution's allegation that Libby lied to investigators when he said that he believed he first learned CIA officer Valerie Plame's identity from NBC's Tim Russert a month later. Grenier is one of three government officials to testify, so far, that they held conversations with Libby about
Wilson's wife weeks before Libby contends he learned her name.
Libby has pleaded not guilty to five felony counts during the investigation of how Plame's identity was disclosed to the news media. His defense maintains that he got confused about details of conversations with reporters amid the crush of his work on urgent national security issues.
The second day of trial testimony continued to throw back the curtain on a Bush administration beset with rivalries, self-interested alliances and attempts at blame-shifting. Those efforts were particularly intense during the summer of 2003, with U.S. troops in Iraq still unable to find the weapons of mass destruction that President Bush had cited to justify a preemptive war.
Fleshing out the finger-pointing inside the administration is important for both the defense and the prosecution. Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald has argued that Plame was the victim of an internal administration scramble as the vice president sought to discredit Wilson. Fitzgerald has alleged that Libby lied to conceal his and Cheney's efforts, as well as Libby's discussions about Plame with reporters.
Grenier said that Libby was fixated on one set of facts that Grenier relayed. He asked, would the CIA release to the news media the information that Wilson's trip was supposed to answer questions raised not just by Cheney's office, but by the State Department and the Defense Department as well?
Yesterday, defense attorneys sought to raise doubts about several of Libby's former administration colleagues, who are now witnesses for the prosecution, by attempting to show that they had flawed memories of events -- and that they had allegiances or other motives that would bias them against Libby. The defense also asserted that, after a criminal investigation into the leak began in the fall of 2003, the White House tried to protect presidential adviser Karl Rove and seemed willing to sacrifice Libby.
Defense attorney Theodore V. Wells Jr. pressed former undersecretary of state Marc Grossman, the prosecution's first witness, to acknowledge his close friendship with his boss at the time, then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage, an internal critic of the war and of Libby.
Wells suggested that Grossman had a "fishy" meeting with Armitage just before Grossman was interviewed by the FBI and has given conflicting accounts of events over time.
Ari Fleischer, a former White House press secretary who is expected to testify for the prosecution, also has a motive to help the prosecution, Wells has said. Fleischer had demanded immunity before he would talk about his conversations with Libby, then had admitted to government prosecutors that he had spoken to several reporters about Wilson's wife in the days before he left his job.
In questioning Grenier, defense attorney William H. Jeffress Jr. emphasized the rift between the CIA and the White House.
Grenier said he remembered reading a report in The Washington Post on June 12, 2003, the day after he tried to answer Libby's questions, that quoted anonymous administration sources as saying that the CIA never told Cheney that his questions were the impetus for Wilson's trip or about Wilson's findings.
"Wasn't this embarrassing to the CIA?" Jeffress asked Grenier. "Didn't you tell the FBI that you thought the White House was trying to shift blame to the CIA?"
Grenier testified that he did surmise that White House officials were pointing a finger at the CIA for not alerting them about Wilson's findings.
"The administration was trying to suggest that had they only known about the eminent Ambassador Wilson's [information] . . . it would have somehow stopped the White House from continuing on its errant path to war," Grenier said. "I think they were trying to avoid blame for not providing [the truth] about whether or not Iraq had attempted to buy uranium."
Weeks later, Grenier said he saw Plame's name revealed in Robert D. Novak's syndicated column and figured that it was the work of the White House. In fact, Armitage and Rove have acknowledged that they were Novak's sources. Jeffress also sought to undermine Grenier's testimony by pointing out that Grenier initially told FBI agents and a grand jury that he did not remember whether he had told Libby that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. Only later, Jeffress said, did Grenier notify investigators that he had mentioned that she was an employee. "Do you find your memory gets better the further away from an event you are?" Jeffress asked pointedly.
The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
