Showing posts with label Scooter Libby. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Scooter Libby. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 03, 2007

Speaking of Farce: David Brooks

In today's New York Times, David Brooks writes:
In retrospect, Plamegate was a farce in five acts. The first four were scabrous, disgraceful and absurd. Justice only reared its head at the end.

The drama opened, as these dark comedies are wont to do, with a strutting little peacock who went by the unimaginative name of Joe Wilson.

Mr. Wilson claimed that his wife had nothing to do with his trip to investigate Iraqi purchases in Niger, though that seems not to have been the case. He claimed his trip proved Iraq had made no such attempts, though his own report said nothing of the kind.

In short order, Wilson established himself as the charming P.T. Barnum of the National Security set, an inveterate huckster who could be counted on to wrap every actual fact in six layers of embellishment. His small part in the larger fiasco of the Iraq war would not have registered a micron of attention had the villain of the epic — the vice president — not exercised his unfailing talent for vindictive self-destruction.

Act Two opened with a cast of thousands crowding the stage, filling the air with fevered vapors and gleeful rage. Perhaps you can remember those days, when the Plame story pretended to be about the outing of an undercover C.I.A. agent. Perhaps you can remember the howls of outrage from our liberal friends, about the threat to national security, the secret White House plot to discredit its enemies.

Perhaps you remember the media stakeouts of Karl Rove’s driveway, the constant perp-walk photos of Rove on his way to and from the grand jury, the delirious calls from producers (The indictment is coming today! The indictment is coming today!).

There were media types so eager to get Rove, so artificially appalled at the thought of somebody actually leaking classified information, they were willing to forgive prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald for throwing journalists in jail. It was like watching a city of Ahabs getting deliriously close to the great white whale.

That was back when everybody thought Rove was the key leaker. But then it turned out he wasn’t. Richard Armitage was, as Fitzgerald knew from the start.

By the start of Act Three, nobody cared about the outing of a C.I.A. agent. That part of the scandal disappeared. And all that was left of Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame were the creepy photos in Vanity Fair.

Act Three was the perjury act, and attention shifted to the unlikely figure of Scooter Libby. As Joe Wilson was an absurd man with a plain name, Scooter Libby was a plain man with an absurd name. And the odder thing was that Libby was the only normal person in the asylum. People who knew him thought him discreet, honest and admirable. And yet the charges were brought and the storm clouds of idiocy gathered once more.

Republicans who’d worked themselves up into a spittle-spewing rage because Bill Clinton lied under oath were appalled that anybody would bother with poor Libby over lying under oath. Democrats who were outraged that Bill Clinton was hounded for something as trivial as perjury were furious that Scooter Libby might not be ruined for a crime as heinous as perjury. It was an orgy of shamelessness. The God of Self-Respect took sabbatical.

The trial and sentencing, Act Four, was, to be honest, somewhat anticlimactic. Fitzgerald, having lost all perspective, demanded Libby get a harsh sentence as punishment for crimes he had not been convicted of. The judge, casting himself as David against Goliath, demonstrated an impressive capacity for talking about himself.

And finally, yesterday, came Act Five, and a paradox. Scooter Libby emerged as the least absurd character in the entire drama, and yet he was the one who committed a crime. President Bush entered the stage like a character from another world, a world in which things make sense.

His decision to commute Libby’s sentence but not erase his conviction was exactly right. It punishes him for his perjury, but not for the phantasmagorical political farce that grew to surround him. It takes away his career, but not his family.

Of course, the howlers howl. That is their assigned posture in this drama. They entered howling, they will leave howling and the only thing you can count on is their anger has been cynically manufactured from start to finish.

The farce is over. It has no significance. Nobody but Libby’s family will remember it in a few weeks time. Everyone else will have moved on to other fiascos, other poses, fresher manias.

With this column, Brooks and the rest of the "Pardon Libby"-committee move into Act II of "The Selling of the Commutation; Pardon Comes Later".

The thing that annoys me most about Republicans is that they lie, they do it with ease, lack of conscience, and with no remorse. I know this because after their lies are exposed and the facts are laid out in the sunlight for all to see, they just continue repeating the lies.

Dial 1-202-456-1414



UPDATE: Forget about calling the White House. Call these folks:



It was phone calls overloading and breaking down the switchboards at the U.S. Capitol that ended the immigration legislation debate last week. When Americans realize the power they have and the changes that their involvement in government can bring, the whole world will look bright again.

Call your senators and representatives, and tell them to investigate whether Bush is himself a participant in the obstruction of justice.
Now.

[Find your representative's number here, and your senators' phone numbers here. If you aren't sure who represents you (and we're going to have a serious heart-to-heart about that one day soon), go here and type in your zip code. Double-click on the 'info'-link under your representatives' photos for their phone numbers.]

Monday, July 02, 2007

Dial 1-202-456-1414



In a statement issued Monday, Senator Joe Biden decried the commuted sentence for former vice presidential chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. "It is time for the American people to be heard," said Biden. "I call for all Americans to flood the White House with phone calls tomorrow expressing their outrage over this blatant disregard for the rule of law."

It was phone calls overloading the switchboards at the U.S. Capitol that ended the immigration legislation debate last week. When Americans realize the power they have and the changes that their involvement in government can bring, the whole world will look bright again.

Some reaction to President Bush's decision Monday to commute the sentence of former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, sparing him from a 2 1/2-year prison term in the CIA leak case:
___

"In this case, an experienced federal judge considered extensive argument from the parties and then imposed a sentence consistent with the applicable laws. It is fundamental to the rule of law that all citizens stand before the bar of justice as equals. That principle guided the judge during both the trial and the sentencing." — Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald.

___

"When it comes to the law, there should not be two sets of rules — one for President Bush and Vice President Cheney and another for the rest of America. Even Paris Hilton had to go to jail. No one in this administration should be above the law." — Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.

___

"While for a long time I have urged a pardon for Scooter, I respect the president's decision. This will allow a good American, who has done a lot for his country, to resume his life." — Former Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn.

___

"Accountability has been in short supply in the Bush administration, and this commutation fits that pattern." — Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.

___

"President Bush did the right thing today in commuting the prison term for Scooter Libby. The prison sentence was overly harsh and the punishment did not fit the crime." — House Republican Whip Roy Blunt of Missouri.

___

"This is exactly the kind of politics we must change so we can begin restoring the American people's faith in a government that puts the country's progress ahead of the bitter partisanship of recent years." — Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.

___

"After evaluating the facts, the president came to a reasonable decision and I believe the decision was correct." — former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

___

"Only a president clinically incapable of understanding that mistakes have consequences could take the action he did today. President Bush has just sent exactly the wrong signal to the country and the world." — former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C.

___

"The Constitution gives President Bush the power to commute sentences, but history will judge him harshly for using that power to benefit his own vice president's chief of staff who was convicted of such a serious violation of law." — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

___

"This commutation sends the clear signal that in this administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice." — Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.

___

"The president said he would hold accountable anyone involved in the Valerie Plame leak case. By his action today, the president shows his word is not to be believed." — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

___

"It is time for the American people to be heard — I call for all Americans to flood the White House with phone calls tomorrow expressing their outrage over this blatant disregard for the rule of law." — Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del.

___

"President Bush's 11th-hour commutation of Scooter Libby's sentence makes a mockery of the justice system and betrays the idea that all Americans are expected to be held accountable for their actions, even close friends of Vice President Cheney." — Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.

___

"By commuting Scooter Libby's sentence, the president continues to abdicate responsibility for the actions of his administration. The only ones paying the price for this administration's actions are the American people." — Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn.

___

"This decision sends the wrong message about the rule of law in the United States, just as the president is meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. How can we hold the line against injustices in other countries when our own executive branch deliberately sets out to smear its critics, lies about it and then wriggles away without having to pay the price in prison?" — Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Calif.

___

"The arrogance of this administration's disdain for the law and its belief it operates with impunity are breathtaking. Will the president also commute the sentences of others who obstructed justice and lied to grand juries, or only those who act to protect President Bush and Vice President Cheney?" — New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson.

Was 2 1/2 Years For Libby An Excessive Sentence?

Bush's statement on Monday in sparing former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby from a 2 1/2-year prison term:
The United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit today rejected Lewis Libby's request to remain free on bail while pursuing his appeals for the serious convictions of perjury and obstruction of justice. As a result, Mr. Libby will be required to turn himself over to the Bureau of Prisons to begin serving his prison sentence.

I have said throughout this process that it would not be appropriate to comment or intervene in this case until Mr. Libby's appeals have been exhausted. But with the denial of bail being upheld and incarceration imminent, I believe it is now important to react to that decision.

From the very beginning of the investigation into the leaking of Valerie Plame's name, I made it clear to the White House staff and anyone serving in my administration that I expected full cooperation with the Justice Department. Dozens of White House staff and administration officials dutifully cooperated.

After the investigation was under way, the Justice Department appointed United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois Patrick Fitzgerald as a special counsel in charge of the case. Mr. Fitzgerald is a highly qualified, professional prosecutor who carried out his responsibilities as charged.

This case has generated significant commentary and debate. Critics of the investigation have argued that a special counsel should not have been appointed, nor should the investigation have been pursued after the Justice Department learned who leaked Ms. Plame's name to columnist Robert Novak. Furthermore, the critics point out that neither Mr. Libby nor anyone else has been charged with violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act or the Espionage Act, which were the original subjects of the investigation. Finally, critics say the punishment does not fit the crime: Mr. Libby was a first-time offender with years of exceptional public service and was handed a harsh sentence based in part on allegations never presented to the jury.

Others point out that a jury of citizens weighed all the evidence and listened to all the testimony and found Mr. Libby guilty of perjury and obstructing justice. They argue, correctly, that our entire system of justice relies on people telling the truth. And if a person does not tell the truth, particularly if he serves in government and holds the public trust, he must be held accountable. They say that had Mr. Libby only told the truth, he would have never been indicted in the first place.

Both critics and defenders of this investigation have made important points. I have made my own evaluation. In preparing for the decision I am announcing today, I have carefully weighed these arguments and the circumstances surrounding this case.

Mr. Libby was sentenced to 30 months of prison, two years of probation and a $250,000 fine. In making the sentencing decision, the district court rejected the advice of the probation office, which recommended a lesser sentence and the consideration of factors that could have led to a sentence of home confinement or probation.

I respect the jury's verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby's sentence that required him to spend 30 months in prison.

My decision to commute his prison sentence leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby. The reputation he gained through his years of public service and professional work in the legal community is forever damaged. His wife and young children have also suffered immensely. He will remain on probation. The significant fines imposed by the judge will remain in effect. The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant and private citizen will be long-lasting.

The Constitution gives the president the power of clemency to be used when he deems it to be warranted. It is my judgment that a commutation of the prison term in Mr. Libby's case is an appropriate exercise of this power.

Was a 2 1/2 year prison sentence excessive?

As John Dean, former White House counsel to President Richard Nixon notes:
"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.

Comparing the price of fines (adjusted for inflation) between 1974 and 2007 ($45,000/$250,000), Libby seems to be getting off cheaply, but I think it's fair to conclude that no matter what it had been, the secret fund set up for Libby (see Barbara Comstock) would have had enough to cover it.

All those convicted during Watergate who were attorneys lost their licenses to practice, and should Libby fail to prevail on appeal, he will lose his license, too.

Unless, on his way out of town in 2009, Bush grants Libby a full pardon, in addition to this interim stop-gap measure to keep Libby out of prison. (I wouldn't be surprised if there is a pardon for Libby on January 19, 2009, given Bush's visit with his father at Kennebunkport this past weekend and Dad's own history of preventing investigations with pardons.)

There is, however, nothing to prevent a prosecutor in the future, in the next administration, from opening up a new investigation. Should a new investigation uncover evidence of a conspiracy, Libby, et al, could face a whole new set of charges. (What would Bush-Cheney and Republicans do to make sure that doesn't happen?)

Libby prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald couldn't get to charging Libby (or anyone else) with conspiracy because Libby's lies obstructed the investigation:
FITZGERALD: This grand jury's term has expired by statute; it could not be extended. But it's in ordinary course to keep a grand jury open to consider other matters, and that's what we will be doing.

Let me then ask your next question: Well, why is this a leak investigation that doesn't result in a charge? I've been trying to think about how to explain this, so let me try. I know baseball analogies are the fad these days. Let me try something.

If you saw a baseball game and you saw a pitcher wind up and throw a fastball and hit a batter right smack in the head, and it really, really hurt them, you'd want to know why the pitcher did that. And you'd wonder whether or not the person just reared back and decided, "I've got bad blood with this batter. He hit two home runs off me. I'm just going to hit him in the head as hard as I can."

You also might wonder whether or not the pitcher just let go of the ball or his foot slipped, and he had no idea to throw the ball anywhere near the batter's head. And there's lots of shades of gray in between.

You might learn that you wanted to hit the batter in the back and it hit him in the head because he moved. You might want to throw it under his chin, but it ended up hitting him on the head.

FITZGERALD: And what you'd want to do is have as much information as you could. You'd want to know: What happened in the dugout? Was this guy complaining about the person he threw at? Did he talk to anyone else? What was he thinking? How does he react? All those things you'd want to know.

And then you'd make a decision as to whether this person should be banned from baseball, whether they should be suspended, whether you should do nothing at all and just say, "Hey, the person threw a bad pitch. Get over it."

In this case, it's a lot more serious than baseball. And the damage wasn't to one person. It wasn't just Valerie Wilson. It was done to all of us.

And as you sit back, you want to learn: Why was this information going out? Why were people taking this information about Valerie Wilson and giving it to reporters? Why did Mr. Libby say what he did? Why did he tell Judith Miller three times? Why did he tell the press secretary on Monday? Why did he tell Mr. Cooper? And was this something where he intended to cause whatever damage was caused?

FITZGERALD: Or did they intend to do something else and where are the shades of gray?

And what we have when someone charges obstruction of justice, the umpire gets sand thrown in his eyes. He's trying to figure what happened and somebody blocked their view.

As you sit here now, if you're asking me what his motives were, I can't tell you; we haven't charged it.

So what you were saying is the harm in an obstruction investigation is it prevents us from making the fine judgments we want to make.

I also want to take away from the notion that somehow we should take an obstruction charge less seriously than a leak charge.

This is a very serious matter and compromising national security information is a very serious matter. But the need to get to the bottom of what happened and whether national security was compromised by inadvertence, by recklessness, by maliciousness is extremely important. We need to know the truth. And anyone who would go into a grand jury and lie, obstruct and impede the investigation has committed a serious crime.

During closing arguments at Libby's trial, Fitzgerald told jurors that "there is a cloud over the vice president. ... a cloud over the White House over what happened," according to a copy of the transcript of Fitzgerald's statements. "We didn't put that cloud there," Fitzgerald said. "That cloud's there because the defendant obstructed justice. That cloud is something you just can't pretend isn't there."

Prior to Libby's sentencing, Fitzgerald filed a sentencing memorandum (filed on May 25) in which Fitzgerald asserted that "[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."

Moreover, as Media Matters points out: ...in a May 29 filing, Fitzgerald included an "unclassified summary" of Plame's CIA employment, which established that she had headed a counterproliferation operation focused on Iraq and had traveled overseas in an undercover capacity in the five years prior to the disclosure of her identity. From the document:
On 1 January 2002, Valerie Wilson was working for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) as an operations officer in the Directorate of Operations (DO). She was assigned to the Counterproliferation Division (CPD) at CIA Headquarters, where she served as the Chief of a CPD component with responsibility for weapons proliferation issues related to Iraq.

While assigned to CPD, Ms. Wilson engaged in temporary duty (TDY) travel overseas on official business. She traveled at least seven times to more than ten countries. When traveling overseas, Ms. Wilson always traveled under a cover identity -- sometimes in true name and sometimes in alias -- but always using cover -- whether official or non-official cover (NOC) -- with no ostensible relationship to the CIA.

At the time of the initial unauthorized disclosure in the media of Ms. Wilson's employment relationship with the CIA on 14 July 2003, Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for whom the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States.

It was hoped that once facing time in the slammer, Libby would have a "come to Jesus"-moment and spill his guts for a reduced sentence. Bush saved the day for them all by sparing Libby from prison.

Of course it stinks, but did we expect anything else from this president or anyone in this administration?

The question that remains is, Can Bush and Cheney afford to risk another investigation by a future administration?

Impeachment may be the only way that Democrats take the White House in 2008.

Prisoner #28301-016



After a U.S. appeals court refused to delay the jail sentence of former White House official Lewis "Scooter" Libby (found guilty of perjury and obstruction in the CIA leak case), Bush commutes Libby's prison term, saying the 2 1/2 years in prison was "excessive."

The BBC reports on today's events:
A US appeals court has refused to delay the jail sentence of former White House official Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who was sentenced over the CIA leak case.

He had appealed to delay his prison sentence while fighting his conviction.

But the panel of three judges turned him down, ruling he had not shown his appeal "raises a substantial question".

Libby was sentenced to 30 months' jail for obstructing justice and perjury in the inquiry into the leak of CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity, in 2003.

Nobody has ever been charged with the offence of leaking the identity of Ms Plame, whose husband criticised the Iraq war.

Renewed pressure

Libby was the former chief of staff to Vice-President Dick Cheney.

He has not yet been assigned a prison or been given a date to begin his sentence. But last week the US Bureau of Prisons gave him federal inmate No. 28301-016.

His lawyers have not yet responded to the latest court ruling, but his supporters have called on President Bush to pardon him.

"I hope it puts pressure on the president. He's a man of pronounced loyalties and he should have loyalty to Scooter Libby," former Ambassador Richard Carlson said, who is also a member of Libby's defence fund.

"It would be a travesty for him to go off to prison. The president will take some heat for it. So what? He takes heat for everything."

Bloomberg.com reports on Bush's commutation:
President George W. Bush commuted Lewis "Scooter" Libby's prison term in the CIA leak case, saying the 2 1/2 year prison term was "excessive."

Libby, 56, was convicted of lying to investigators probing the 2003 leak of CIA official Valerie Plame's identity. Backers of Libby, former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, had argued for a pardon. Bush acted after a U.S. appellate court today refused to let Libby stay out of prison during his appeal.

"My decision to commute his prison sentence leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby," Bush said in a statement. "The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant, and private citizen will be long- lasting." [Read entire statement here.]

The president's action means that Libby's conviction still stands and he is still required to pay the $250,000 fine ordered by a federal judge.

That's Republicans' lunch money. And eleven minutes of what Dick Cheney earns from his golden parachute from Halliburton of deferred salary. It's also what Barbara Comstock raised for Libby's secret defense fund within thirty seconds of Libby's indictment.
The question of whether to intervene in Libby's case had been termed a "no-win situation" for the president by David Gergen, who advised Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.

With Bush already suffering poor approval ratings, a Cable News Network/Opinion Research survey conducted after Libby's March 6 conviction found that 69 percent of respondents opposed a pardon while 18 percent favored it. Congressional Democrats, including Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, demanded that Bush promise not to pardon Libby.

Pro-Libby Firestorm

At the same time, a pro-Libby firestorm was being fanned by self-described conservative bloggers and talk-radio hosts, and many conservative leaders asked the president to step in.

Until now Bush had stayed out of the case, with his aides saying he would let the appeal go forward.

Libby's supporters argued that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald was over-zealous in prosecuting Libby for lying to investigators when no one was charged over the actual leak of Plame's status as a Central Intelligence Agency official.

Libby was convicted of obstructing justice, perjury and making false statements. He resigned as Cheney's chief of staff upon being indicted in 2005.

Libby was found guilty of lying to Federal Bureau of Investigation agents and a grand jury probing whether the Bush administration deliberately leaked Plame's identity to retaliate against her husband, Joseph Wilson. In a New York Times column on July 6, 2003, Wilson accused the government of twisting intelligence to justify the invasion of Iraq earlier that year.

Novak Column

Plame's status as a CIA official was disclosed eight days later in an article by syndicated columnist Robert Novak. Novak testified during the trial that Plame's identity was provided to him by then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and confirmed by White House political adviser Karl Rove.

Fitzgerald argued that Libby lied about his knowledge of the leak to protect his job. It's a federal crime to knowingly reveal the identity of a covert CIA agent, and the White House had announced that anyone who leaked Plame's identity would be fired. No one was charged with a crime or fired for the leak.

Libby's lawyers said national security matters kept him too preoccupied to remember details about the leak.

Saturday, March 17, 2007

Plamely Speaking



On Friday, March 16, 2007, the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform examined the exposure of covert CIA agent's (Valerie Plame) identity:
The Oversight Committee held a hearing on whether White House officials followed appropriate procedures for safeguarding the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson. At the hearing, the Committee received testimony from Ms. Wilson and other experts regarding the disclosure and internal White House security procedures for protecting her identity from disclosure and responding to the leak after it occurred.


Valerie Plame Wilson's appearance before the Committee:





Part 1 - Committee Chair Henry Waxman's opening statement

Highlights: "Today we'll be asking three questions:

1.) How did such a serious violation of our national security occur?

2.) Did the White House take the appropriate investigative and disciplinary steps after the breach occurred?

3.) What changes in White House procedures are necessary to prevent future violations of our national security from occurring?

For more than three years a special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald has been investing the leak for its criminal implications. By definition, Mr. Fitzgerald's investigation had an extremely narrow criminal focus. it did not answer the broader policy questions raised by the release of Ms. Wilson's identity, nor did it seek to ascribe responsibility outside of the narrow confines of the criminal law. As the chief investigative committee of the House of Representatives, our role is fundamentally different than Mr. Fitzgerald's. It's not our job to determine criminal culpability, but it is our job to understand what went wrong and to insist on accountability and to make recommendations to avoid future abuses, and we begin that process today."







Part 2 - Ranking Member Tom Davis' opening statement

Highlights: "It's all the CIA's fault."







Part 3 - Valerie Plame Wilson's opening statement






Part 4 - Congressman John Yarmuth [D-KY] questions Valerie Plame Wilson

Highlights: For future CIA employees and future sources, the leak had a very negative effect, "If our government can't even protect my identity, future foreign agents who might consider working with the CIA in providing needed intelligence would think twice, 'They can't even protect one of their own; how can they protect me?'"







Part 5 - Congressman Paul Hodes [D-NH] questions Valerie Plame Wilson

Highlights:







Part 6 - Congressman Tom Davis' [R-VA] questions Valerie Plame Wilson

Highlights: The latest Republican talking point: "It's all Bill Clinton's the CIA's fault!"







Part 7 - Congressman Elijah Cummings [D-MD] questions Valerie Plame Wilson

Highlights: Wilson clarifies whether she worked covert, undercover, "I was a covert officer in the CIA. Just like a general is general, whether he is in the field (in Iraq or Afghanistan), when he comes back to the Pentagon, he's still a general. In the same way, covert operations officers who are serving in the field, when they rotate back for a temporary assignment in D.C., they, too, are still covert."







Part 8 - Congressman Lynn Westmoreland [R-GA] questions Valerie Plame Wilson

Highlights: "The Bush administration blew my cover."







Part 9 - Congressman Dennis Kucinich [D-OH] questions Valerie Plame Wilson

Highlights: "I'm not aware of any leaks of a covert agent's identity by their own government."







Part 10 - Congresswoman Diane Watson [D-CA] questions Valerie Plame Wilson

Highlights: "The CIA has confirmed your status was covert and classified."







Part 11 - Representative Stephen Lynch [D-MA] questions Valerie Plame Wilson

Highlights: "Once or twice might be a careless disclosure, five or six times might be reckless, but 20 times is a deliberate attempt to destroy your status as a covert agent."







Part 12 - Representative Chris Van Hollen [D-MD] questions Valerie Plame Wilson

Highlights: "Are there any leakers still in the Bush administration?"







Part 13 - Representative John Sarbannes [D-MD] questions Valerie Plame Wilson

Highlights: "It paints a picture of an administration of bullies."







Part 14 - Representatives Lynn Westmoreland [R-GA] and Tom Davis [R-VA] question Valerie Plame Wilson

Highlights: "Is your husband (Ambassador Joe Wilson) a Democrat or a Republican, and would you say whether you are a Democrat or a Republican?"







Part 15 - Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton [D-District of Columbia] questions Valerie Plame Wilson

Highlight: Executive Order #121958, and "Why did Karl Rove, with a 'need-to-know'-clearance, need to know your identity?"







Part 16 - Representative Tom Davis [R-VA] clarifies earlier testimony ("He did it!") with Valerie Plame

Highlights: "Outing a CIA agent is a very very serious business."







Part 17 - Chairman Henry Waxman wraps up the Valerie Plame Wilson portion of the hearing with comments by Representatives Watson, Davis and Hodes

Highlights: "Mrs. Wilson, facts are not 'Republican' or 'Democrat'."


Thursday, March 08, 2007

Conservatives Crawl Out To Host 'Pity Parties' For Scooter Libby

If it works, and conventional wisdom says it will (Libby will get a presidential pardon), what's the secret to Libby's (and Bush's, Cheney's and GOPer's) success?


The secret is that they clean up well.

The greatest con jobs start with a good haircut and a well-tailored suit. If the political con artist can get somebody else who cleans up just as well to vouch for him (even if both are strangers to the victim), they are well over the biggest hurdle to making a sale. And if one or both of the politicians con artists has an ichthus (fish symbol) on the back of his car (or slips a shibboleth into the sales pitch), they've got a supporter for life, no matter what they do.

This is why Bush still has an approval rating in the high 20s-low 30s, and why Republicans still get votes and elected: Their supporters only look at the surface, listen to the carefully crafted rhetoric and presume meanings not intended. Supporters hear an endorsement by someone in the media and believe that if someone famous, popular in their "culture," a Pat Buchanan (or David Gergen or Ed Rogers or Fred Barnes or Mary Matalin or any other face that has been "media-tested") says "he's really a good guy," "a devoted public servant," a brush with the law must be some mistake. Or "political" (by "them damned liberals") because "he would never do anything wrong or illegal," "knowingly." Even if he's caught dead to rights.

Albert Brooks never said truer words:







It's human nature, to some extent, to think that criminals have to look, well, like criminals.

Whenever some heinous crime has been committed and the police make an arrest (like this latest case in Michigan where Stephen Grant has been arrested for strangling his wife and dismembering her body), the media shoves a microphone into the faces of the perpetrators' neighbors, friends and family. Their comments are remarkably similar, with them invariably being shocked by the arrest because the guy was "so nice," "quiet," "friendly and polite," "helpful" - Grant's sister said he was, "the most docile person I saw my whole life."

We heard the jury's spokesman, Denis Collins, practically apologize for convicting Libby. There was a "tremendous amount of sympathy" for Libby, and some believed he was being made a "fall guy" by his White House superiors:
Some jurors wondered why Libby was being singled out, Collins said. Other Bush administration officials had disclosed CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity to reporters as part of an effort to discredit her husband, Joseph Wilson, and his criticism of the case for war in Iraq. Yet those other officials never faced criminal charges.

"It was said a number of times: What are we doing with this guy? Where's [White House political aide Karl] Rove, where are these other guys?" Libby, Collins said, "was the fall guy."

Another one of the jurors was on Hardball today, and she said flat out that she wouldn't want to see Libby go to prison, because "he seems like such a nice man." She was the juror that cried when the verdict was read, because she felt bad for Libby, and his wife. [Kate O'Beirne appeared on the program, too, making a galling case for a presidential pardon.]

I'm reminded of something Paula Poundstone said when Dick Cheney shot his friend, Harry Whittington, in the face while they were quail hunting:







What is it about these people, Republicans, that the victims are moved to apologize to them?

At Townhall.com, Pat Buchanan writes:
The conviction of Scooter Libby on four counts of perjury and obstruction of justice is first of all a human tragedy.

A man who served his country at the highest level, who sat in every morning at the senior staff meeting in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, has been dishonored and disgraced, and will be disbarred. Unless his conviction is overturned, or he is pardoned, Libby will go to prison. His life will end with an obituary that declares in its headline and lead paragraph that he was a convicted Dick Cheney aide.

"A human tragedy"?

Is he kidding with this hyperbole?

Pat Buchanan and all of the Republicans who fanned out across the media today to spin the Libby convictions as "no big deal," and deserving of a pardon, need to be reminded that the only reason that Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, Dan Bartlett, Ari Fleischer, Mary Matalin, Karen Hughes, Bob Novak, Richard Armitage, Dick Cheney, George W. Bush aren't facing criminal charges of treason and conspiracy to commit treason is because Scooter Libby obstructed Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation. THAT'S why Libby was prosecuted, and a jury determined that Libby was guilty of both the perjury and the obstruction of justice.

If Libby is pardoned, if he doesn't get some serious prison time, we'll need to stop pretending that the U.S. is a nation of laws, or that we even bother to attempt equal justice under the law. We have it completely backwards in this country - if anybody shouldn't be eligible for a presidential pardon, it should be those at the highest echelons of government. They're the role models.

If Libby is pardoned, we might as well hang the democracy up and anoint Bush-Cheney, Royal for life, because if there aren't serious penalties leveled against Libby, there will be nothing preventing a President from breaking the law and subverting the Constitution.

Speaking of the Constitution, I'm not a great proponent of amending it, but I could get behind an amendment that would prohibit a President from pardoning anyone in his or her administration for actions performed in the service of the President. Or anyone outside of the administration who committed a crime that benefitted the President or his/her political party.

Wednesday, March 07, 2007

Hold Onto The Top of Your Head . . . .

. . . . As Kate O'Beirne lays out the Conservatives' case for a presidential pardon for Scooter Libby on Hardball.

It's not only enough to make your head spin, it might actually explode.

To Chris Matthews' credit, he was more proactive in challenging O'Beirne's fantasies of this case and the laws governing it, than I've ever seen him do with her. Matthews has plenty of "making it up to the American people" to do, but today was a worthwhile effort. However, I'm still waiting for the day when, in the spirit of full disclosure, Matthews informs his audience of O'Beirne's husband's role in the disaster that is the war in Iraq. Kate O'Beirne has a direct and significant interest in making sure that this story remains buried.





Part 1






Part 2






Part 3






Part 1






Part 2






Part 3






Part 4






Part 5






Part 6

,

Thursday, February 08, 2007

Mary Matalin: "It's Not Russert Who Hates Chris Matthews . . . . It's ME Who Hates Matthews"

If Patrick Fitzgerald is on the up-and-up, he'd put this witch on the stand under oath.

And Dick Cheney, too.

Cheney's mouthpiece Mary Matalin is still spreading the lie that Valerie Plame wasn't a covered CIA agent. [See transcript of Patrick Fitzgerald's press conference of 10/28/05, "...she was a CIA officer from January 1st, 2002, forward. I will confirm that her association with the CIA was classified at that time through July 2003...]





Part 1





Part 2





Part 3

After Matalin hung up, Imus spoke with Kelly O'Donnell of MSNBC News about Scooter Libby's trial:





Part 1





Part 2


Matalin was *vexed* about what she heard. She called back into the show:







UPDATE:

Howard Fineman, you'll pardon the expression, weighs in:





Part 1





Part 2


Matalin's style (dogged determination in demanding to have the last word stand as the position of record, no matter how false) is the formula for the Bush-Cheney offensive in getting their agenda realized.

Why wasn't Cheney questioned under oath? Why isn't he being called as a witness for the prosecution?

This case has all of the appearance of a dog-and-pony show run by a prosecutor who cast with his net too narrowly. For whatever reason.

Everyone involved will walk or be pardoned without the American people ever knowing the full extent of the conspiracy to commit this nation to a drastic shift in foreign and military policy, and chronic state of war.

Thursday, January 25, 2007

Cheney, Out to Lunch, On More Than Iraq





Wolf Blitzer interviews Dick Cheney

McClatchy reports:

Vice President Dick Cheney is "delusional" about what's happening in Iraq, the Democrats' top Senate vote-counter said Thursday.
That harsh assessment by Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., two days after President Bush sought bipartisan comity in his State of the Union address, underscores how difficult achieving that may be.

Moreover, it illuminates how many in Congress especially blame Cheney for the president's insistence on building up troop levels in Iraq rather than pulling out of the sectarian violence there after nearly four years and redeploying troops to Afghanistan and other terrorist trouble spots.

During the Senate Democratic leadership team's weekly briefing with reporters, Durbin cited a television interview from a day earlier in which Cheney told CNN "there's been a lot of success" in Iraq and rejected the idea that the situation was beyond control.

"To have Vice President Cheney suggest that we have had a series of enormous successes in Iraq is delusional," Durbin said. "I don't understand how he can continue to say those things while the president calls them 'slow failure'."

That's the term President Bush used in a separate television interview earlier this month, saying that's where the situation would be headed unless another 21,500 troops were injected.



, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, December 20, 2006

Dick Cheney Will Appear As Witness For The Defense In The Scooter Libby Trial . . . .


. . . . And I've got this beautiful bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

IHT reports:
Vice President Dick Cheney will be summoned as a defense witness in the trial of his former chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby Jr., on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, a defense lawyer said Tuesday in federal court. A spokeswoman for Cheney signaled that he would not resist the request for his testimony.

The decision to call Cheney was announced by Theodore V. Wells, a lawyer for Libby, whose trial is scheduled to begin next month.

"We're calling the vice president," Wells said at a hearing before Judge Reggie B. Walton in Federal District Court.

Cheney has been a looming presence in the CIA leak case from the start, and his appearance as a defense witness would keep the vice president and the White House in the foreground of Libby's trial. Libby is the only person charged with a crime as a result of an investigation into whether anyone in the Bush administration intentionally leaked the identity of a Central Intelligence Agency officer.

After the announcement at Tuesday's hearing, Lea Anne McBride, Cheney's spokeswoman, said: "We've cooperated fully in this matter and will continue to do so in fairness to the parties involved. And as we've stated previously, we're not going to comment further on the legal proceedings."

The prospect of Cheney's testimony suggested that Libby's trial could be transformed from a narrowly gauged perjury case into a riveting courtroom drama with the taciturn vice president as the star witness. He would testify under oath and be exposed to cross-examination by prosecutors.

Cheney would be the first sitting vice president, at least in modern times, to appear as a witness in a criminal trial, said Prof. Joel Goldstein of the St. Louis University Law School, an authority on the vice presidency.

Although Cheney has been a vigorous proponent of sweeping executive authority, which includes the notion that the president and perhaps other high officials could resist calls to testify in criminal trials involving their official conduct, his appearance may not set precedents, legal experts said. That is mostly because the Libby case presents a different situation from one in which such officials are subpoenaed to testify, they said.

Cheney appears to have voluntarily agreed to testify on behalf of Libby, whom he has steadfastly supported. It is unclear whether Cheney would appear personally in the courtroom or seek to testify in a less exposed manner like having his testimony taken at the White House and introduced into the trial by videotape.

The trial stems from the disclosure of the identity of Valerie Wilson as a CIA officer in a July 14, 2003, column by Robert D. Novak. The fallout from that disclosure led to an investigation by Patrick J. Fitzgerald, a special prosecutor, into whether the leak violated any laws and whether Ms. Wilson's name was disclosed as part of a campaign to punish her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former ambassador, for his criticism of the White House.

Wilson wrote an opinion article in The New York Times on July 6, 2003 — shortly before the Novak column — in which he claimed that the White House had twisted intelligence to justify the invasion of Iraq. He wrote that he had personally investigated whether Iraq bought uranium in Africa and had not found any basis for that belief.

Fitzgerald did not bring any charges in connection with laws that prohibit the willful disclosure of Ms. Wilson's identity as a covert operative. But he did indict Libby, also known as Scooter, on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, saying he had untruthfully testified to a grand jury and federal agents when he said he had learned about Ms. Wilson's role at the CIA from reporters rather than from several officials, including Cheney.

Libby's lawyers have said, in court papers, that they will seek to demonstrate that he had no motive to lie and that if he made any inaccurate statements about his conversations with reporters, they were a result of his being distracted by far more important issues of national security.

In his testimony, Cheney will probably be asked to affirm Libby's statements that he was occupied with many important issues and that there was no deliberate White House plan to disclose Ms. Wilson's identity.

Prosecutors have said in legal filings that Cheney played a central role in the White House reaction to Wilson's Op-Ed article. Fitzgerald has hinted in filings that Cheney may be a prosecution witness, although he said at the hearing that the government had no plans to call the vice president.

According to Libby's grand jury testimony, cited in prosecution legal papers, Cheney believed that the article falsely attacked his credibility because it asserted that the vice president's office instigated Wilson's 2002 trip to Niger.

Prosecutors have already disclosed a copy of the article on which Cheney made handwritten notations asking whether it was Wilson's wife who sent him on the trip.

In previous legal briefs, prosecutors have said they want to use Cheney's notes as evidence, saying they show the agitated environment in Cheney's office and the importance that Libby attached to the effort to rebut the article.

After Cheney expressed concern, Libby told several reporters that Cheney's office had not sent Wilson on the trip and that he might have traveled on what was little more than a junket arranged by Ms. Wilson.

With the trial scheduled to start on Jan. 16, Libby's lawyers and federal prosecutors skirmished throughout the hearing over several likely issues about Libby's motives and state of mind.

William H. Jeffress Jr., one of the defense lawyers, said he planned to call Libby as a witness, along with several reporters who interviewed him in mid-2003, to show that Libby had encouraged the reporters to testify or give depositions in the case.

It's never going to happen. Never ever. It would leave Cheney open to having to answer questions, under oath, about the wider conspiracy within the White House to take the country to war based on lies.

Neither one of them, Cheney nor Libby, will ever take the stand. The defense isn't concerned with making promises to the jury that it fails to deliver because the defense doesn't care about Libby getting convicted; the "fix" (a Presidential pardon) is in.