A New Watergate?

[John Simkin]

John wrote:

Bush of course has not given his full cooperation.

So, John, Fitzgerald is a xxxx?

John also wrote:

Fitzgerald has asked Bush to promise he will not pardon any of his officials found guilty of a crime. This he has refused to do.

John, source, please? I would think it inappropriate for a prosecutor to request that a president so limit his presidential discretion to pardon. And I do not recall reading this anywhere.

You seem very keen to use the word xxxx. It was probably true that Bush appeared to be cooperating when he made this statement. However, despite the threat of a long prison sentence, Libby is reluctant to implicate others in this scandal. Several reporters in the UK, for example, Andrew Sullivan (Sunday Times) and Julian Borger (Guardian) have claimed that Fitzgerald believes the reason is that Bush has promised to pardon him if he refuses to talk. According to Sullivan and Bolger, Fitzgerald has asked Bush to make a public statement saying he will not pardon Libby. So far he has failed to do this? Why?

This article by Julian Borger explains what is happening behind the scenes.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/st...1607193,00.html

Julian Borger in Washington

Thursday November 3, 2005

The Guardian

Lewis Libby, vice president Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, is due to appear in a Washington court today to enter pleas on charges of perjury, lying to federal investigators and obstruction of justice.

The Washington Post predicted that Mr Libby will declare his innocence in the case surrounding the 2003 leak of a CIA agent's identity, blaming a bad memory for false statements he made to investigators and a grand jury.

A guilty plea could avert a lengthy trial that has the potential to be very embarrassing for the Bush White House, but only if Mr Libby was able to strike a deal with the special investigator, Patrick Fitzgerald.

However, observers of the case suggested yesterday that Mr Fitzgerald would also demand testimony on the role in the leak played by other senior White House officials, before offering a significantly reduced jail sentence. Mr Libby faces a maximum of 30 years in prison if found guilty of all charges.

However, even if Mr Libby - a leading neo-conservative and energetic advocate of the Iraq invasion - is sentenced, he could be pardoned by President Bush when the president leaves office in January 2009.

EJ Dionne, a columnist on the Washington Post, appealed to the president to rule out that option to maximise the pressure on Mr Libby to testify.

"If Bush truly wants the public to know all the facts in the leak case, as he has claimed in the past, he will announce now that he will not pardon Libby," Mr Dionne argued.

Karl Rove, the president's top political adviser, is still under investigation in the same case, and Mr Fitzgerald has explicitly refused to guarantee he will not be charged.

[Tim Gratz]

John, you wrote that Fitzgerald asked Bush to rule out a Libby pardon.

I asked you for your source and you reprint an article that says a reporter asked Bush to ruke out a pardon.

Did Fitzgerald ask him (as you said) or not?

If he did not, why did you post that he had?

I think an explanation is in order.

[John Simkin]

John, you wrote that Fitzgerald asked Bush to rule out a Libby pardon.

I asked you for your source and you reprint an article that says a reporter asked Bush to ruke out a pardon.

Did Fitzgerald ask him (as you said) or not?

If he did not, why did you post that he had?

I think an explanation is in order.

The articles that Andrew Sullivan and Julian Bolger wrote both relied on leaks from the office of Fitzgerald. It is well known that Libby, despite threats of a long prison term, is at the moment reluctant to tell who told him to leak these Wilson stories. Fitzgerald understandably believes the reason for this is that he has been promised a pardon by Bush. He therefore is putting pressure on Bush by letting it be known that this is the White House strategy. Bush of course could bring an end to this speculation by promising he will not pardon any White House aide for any crimes committed. If Bush does this I will then believe he played no role in outing Wilson’s wife. If he doesn’t, I and all those sane individuals who are not partisan Bush supporters, will assume he is guilty of being part of this scandal.

The fact you are getting so hysterical in your defence of Bush shows the sort of problems that the administration has got. Like Watergate, this is only the tip of the iceberg. The real scandal is the way that Bush (and Blair) manipulated the evidence to justify going to war. As a result they have blood on their hands. The story is gradually coming out. For example, I suggest you read the former British ambassador to Washington’s account of the events leading up to the war, DC Confidential, that is being serialized in this week’s Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/Iraq

I am also getting pretty fed up with your hectoring tone. This type of behaviour might be acceptable in a US court, however, I should remind you that you are a debarred lawyer, and this is not appropriate on this Forum.

It is also unbecoming of a man who constantly refuses to answer questions about claims he has made concerning the JFK assassination. We have even created your own thread where you can answer these questions. Why are you not answering them?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5321

[Tim Gratz]

This is what John wrote first:

Fitzgerald has asked Bush to promise he will not pardon any of his officials found guilty of a crime.

After I indicated, correctly, that no special prosecutor would ever ask a president to waive his right to pardon anyone (such a pledge would probably be uneforceable anyway) John writes:

Fitzgerald understandably believes the reason for this is that he has been promised a pardon by Bush. He therefore is putting pressure on Bush by letting it be known that this is the White House strategy.

John of course offers no support for his assertion that Fitzgerald is leaking things to the press. Note the irony: John claims that a special prosecutor who is investigating a possible illegal "leak" to a reporter is himself improperly leaking things to reporters. The absurdity of the proposition is apparent. But even if it were happening, the reporter would clearly not divulge it. Ergo, John has no way of supporting what he wrote.

John, if I am wrong, state a source that Sullivan or Bolger claimed that Fitzgerald was leaking things to them. You know full well that a reporter will go to jail before revealing his or her source. The reporter who was jailed only revealed her sources after the people involved agreed to allow it.

All he writes is his own facially absurd speculation. But he does not so label it.

Remember John first wrote that Fitzgerald asked Bush to promise not to pardon Libby. That is clearly NOT a fact. John made that statement without any support. In other words, he made it up, to suit his political agenda.

The Latin saying "caveat emptor" means the buyer should be aware. On this Forum, the reader should be aware, for matters are presented as fact when the poster knows they are NOT!

Edited November 8, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[John Simkin]

All he writes is his own facially absurd speculation. But he does not so label it.

Remember John first wrote that Fitzgerald asked Bush to promise not to pardon Libby. That is clearly NOT a fact. John made that statement without any support. In other words, he made it up, to suit his political agenda.

The Latin saying "caveat emptor" means the buyer should be aware. On this Forum, the reader should be aware, for matters are presented as fact when the poster knows they are NOT!

Here are a couple of articles that explain these events:

CBS News (30th October, 2005)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/28/...ain990068.shtml

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid said Sunday that President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney should apologize for the actions of their aides in the CIA leak case.

Reid also said Mr. Bush should pledge not to pardon any aides convicted as a result of the investigation into the disclosure of CIA officer Valerie Plame's identity.

"There has not been an apology to the American people for this obvious problem in the White House," Reid said. He said Mr. Bush and Cheney "should come clean with the American public."

Reid added, "This has gotten way out of hand, and the American people deserve better than this."

Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, resigned Friday after he was indicted on five charges relating to statements he made to the FBI and a grand jury investigating the Plame leak.

Reid also said that Karl Rove, the president' closest political adviser, should step down. Rove has not been charged with a crime.

The closest the indictment comes to Rove is its discussion of an unnamed senior White House official who talked to columnist Robert Novak about Plame and discussed the matter with Libby. That could describe Rove.

The prosecutor in the CIA leak case has said his investigation is "not quite done," but declined comment on Rove during a news conference on Friday.

"If you ask me any name, I'm not going to comment on anyone named, because we either charged someone or we don't talk about them," Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald said.

When the investigation began, the White House denied that Rove had been involved. Mr. Bush promised to fire anyone on his staff responsible for such a leak. He later stepped back, saying just that he would remove aides who committed crimes.

"I think Karl Rove should step down," Reid said. "Here is a man who the president said if he was involved, if anyone in the administration was involved, out they would go."

Mr. Bush and Cheney gave glowing endorsements and expressed no criticism of Libby after the senior White House adviser was indicted, resigned and lost his security clearance.

Cheney called Libby "one of the most capable and talented individuals I have ever known." Mr. Bush said Libby "has worked tirelessly on behalf of the American people and sacrificed much in the service to this country."

Reid said he was disappointed that Mr. Bush and Cheney expressed support for Libby in their public statements.

"The vice president issues this very terse statement praising Libby for all the great things he's done. Then we have the president come on camera a few minutes later calling him Scooter and what a great patriot he is," Reid told ABC's "This Week."

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said it was premature to discuss a presidential pardon because no one has been convicted in the investigation.

"People who actually were trying to use this, of course, to the president's political disadvantage, I think, are going to be disappointed by the fact that this appears to be limited to a single individual," Cornyn said.

Reid said the Libby indictment and other scandals in the Republican-led government, including the indictment of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas and an investigation of Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee, as well as 2,000 dead in Iraq and high energy prices have had a negative impact on the outlook of Americans.

"I think they're as disappointed as I am ... almost dejected," Reid said.

The president's overall job approval was at 39 percent in an Associated Press-Ipsos survey conducted in early October. The poll also found that only 28 percent of respondents said the country was headed in the right direction.

Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said the White House should conduct its own investigation of the CIA leak. Graham, however, said allegations of illegal activity appeared to be focused only on Libby.

"I think the likelihood of Karl Rove being indicted in the future is virtually zero," Graham said on CBS' "Face the Nation."

"I think this will be seen in history and in politics as Mr. Libby giving false information, if proven, and it will not be about an effort by the vice president to disclose a CIA operative."

Schumer said the investigation showed Cheney's office was in a campaign to discredit Wilson's wife because of his criticism of the administration's use prewar intelligence about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and that Rove, despite public statements to the contrary, had discussed Wilson's wife with reporters.

If necessary, Schumer said, the president should take Cheney "to the woodshed."

"The president, again, ought to have some nonpolitical person look into this and see what should be done," Schumer said. "The standard shouldn't just be escaping indictment."

Here is another article that suggests what journalists should do to counter this Bush tactic:

http://www.anonymousliberal.com/2005/11/ne...don-pledge.html

When the New York Times first broke the story that Scooter Libby's own notes indicated that he learned about Plame well before he ever talked to any reporters, many people--myself included--asked: how could Libby be so dumb as to testify in a way that contradicted his own notes? Today, Mickey Kaus writes:

We now think we know the answer to that

question, which is that Libby wasn't dumb

enough to contradict his own notes. Instead he

was dumb enough to avoid contradicting his

notes by concocting a wildly implausible story

about how he forgot what was in his notes! That

story is non-believable on its face, whether Tim

Russert testifies or not. ... Who would take such

an idiotic risk before a much-feared special

prosecutor? One answer: Someone who knows

he'll be protected in the end. Someone who

knows, for example, that he'll be pardoned.

Maybe even someone who had represented

a client who'd been pardoned in similarly

controversial circumstances. It's easier to be a

highwire daredevil when you know you have a

safety net.

Kaus definitely has a point. Libby's behavior throughout this investigation has bordered on the inexplicable. And he now appears set on going to trial against the best prosecutor in the country with what appears to be an incredibly weak defense. It certainly seems plausible that Libby is relying on the president's pardon power as a backstop. Bush, after all, is in his second term and would have very little to lose politically by granting such a pardon on his way out the door.

But this isn't just a political issue. If anyone in the White House even so much as hinted to Libby prior to his departure that, if convicted, he might receive a pardon, that's arguably obstruction of justice. Fitzgerald clearly believes that Libby has gone to great lengths to obstruct his investigation. Because Libby is not cooperating, that obstruction is ongoing. If the White House has suggested to Libby that he might eventually be pardoned, that might well be construed as an attempt to encourage Libby not to cooperate with Fitzgerald's investigation. Fitzgerald clearly hopes that the threat of serious jail time will eventually cause Libby to come clean and testify truthfully about the events at issue. But with the very real possibility of a presidential pardon looming over everything, Fitzgerald's leverage is undermined considerably. Moreover, Libby's testimony may well implicate others (such as Karl Rove and Dick Cheney) who are very close to the President and therefore have enormous influence on future pardon decisions. Not to mention the fact that Libby's truthful testimony may have serious implications (politically if not legally) for the President himself. This has to be a major concern for Fitzgerald. Indeed, it may explain why Fitzgerald went to the trouble of visiting the President's personal attorney, James Sharp, the day Libby was indicted. This is pure speculation, of course, but this is exactly the sort of topic Fitzgerald would want to discuss with Bush, if at all, via his personal attorney.

Because this is such a real concern, it's important that reporters ask the President whether he or anyone on his staff has ever discussed the topic of a pardon with Libby. I don't expect the White Houses would admit to such a discussion even if it happened, but it's nevertheless important to have a denial on the record. Along the same lines, Democratic politicians need to pressure the White House to issue a pledge not to pardon Libby should he be convicted. The president's pardon power is plenary, but it was never meant to be used to obstruct investigations of the very people exercising the power. Only after such a pledge is given will Fitzgerald have the leverage he needs (and would otherwise have in any normal investigation) to get at the truth. If Bush will not pledge to refrain from pardoning Libby, the Democrats should hammer him for it and make it clear to the American people that Bush is, at least indirectly, impeding Fitzgerald's investigation.

These questions are so obvious and so important that I'm troubled that no one outside the blogosphere appears to be raising them. The Washington press corps and the Democratic leadership need to confront the White House with these questions immediately.

UPDATE: A commenter notes that Congressman John Conyers has a petition and form letter on his website demanding that President Bush promise not to pardon anyone convicted in the leak investigation. I hope the Democratic leadership joins him in making this request (though I'd suggest they tone down some of the rhetoric; in particular the "traitorgate" part). I think this is an entirely reasonable and politically prudent request, and I think it will resonate with the public. Harry Reid and others can argue, persuasively I believe, that every day Bush refuses to make such a pledge, he is indirectly impeding Fitzgerald's goal of uncovering the truth. Until the possibility of a pardon is taken off the table, Libby may lack the incentive to cooperate fully.

http://www.johnconyers.com/index.asp?Type=...A27BB125AC9A%7D

This article by Jack Balkin is also worth reading as it shows the Bush family have used this tactic before:

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2005/10/bushs-a...rdon-power.html

Rumors are buzzing about who will be indicted in the Plamegate scandal, and what further revelations will develop. Some people have even speculated that the Vice-President may be indicted or named as an unindicted co-conspirator.

But just remember that the President always has the means to stop judicial proceedings of his closest political associates from going any further. He can simply pardon persons indicted for a crime, or even those who have not yet been indicted.

On December 24th, 1992, a month before he left office, President Bush's father, George H.W. Bush, pardoned former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger and five other individuals for their conduct related to the Iran-Contra affair. In so doing, Bush not only put an end to the criminal prosecutions arising out of the Iran-Contra affair, he also ensured that he would never be required to testify as a witness in a criminal trial after he left office. The former President was no fool. He knew that for many years critics refused to believe his repeated protestations that he was "out of the loop" on the machinations surrounding Iran-Contra during the Reagan Administration. Once under oath, he would be required to divulge exactly what he knew and when he knew it.

If sufficiently high level officials are indicted, his son, President George W. Bush, may also be vulnerable to be called as a witness and placed under oath. The most obvious way to avoid that unhappy scenario is to make sure that no criminal trial ever occurs. The pardon power takes care of that.

The President's power to pardon is effectively unreviewable. The only real constraint is political: the President must take the political heat for his actions, as Gerald Ford did in pardoning President Richard Nixon. Bush's father was able to pardon Weinberger et al. a month before his term expired, so he had very little to lose politically, and he wagered (correctly as it turned out) that most people would soon forget the potential self-dealing in his decision. Bill Clinton also took considerable heat for his last minute pardons of political supporters near the end of his presidency, but he too figured (also correctly) that this too, would pass.

George W. Bush, by contrast, is in the first year of his second term. Although unlike Gerald Ford he will not stand for reelection, like Ford he must govern for several more years, and he is already in a politically weak position. That would counsel not invoking the pardon power for as long as he possibly can.

If important persons in the Bush Administration are indicted, and there is a significant danger that revelations damaging to the President will surface, don't be surprised if the President uses his ace in the hole - the pardon power. Some might argue that the President simply wouldn't dare; others will insist that he would be impeached if he tries it. But what the President is likely to do depends on the alternatives if he doesn't act, and remember, the Congress is controlled by members of his own party, not by the opposition as was the case during the Clinton Presidency. This president has a knack for self-preservation; and if the pardon power is the best alternative he has, you can be sure that he will use it.

[Tim Gratz]

Please use this link:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/#doc15

and within it go to Document 14, which is a report from the CIA titled: "Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs" October 2002. (Because it is in PDF form I was not able to create a direct link to it.)

That is the intelligence provided to the President by the CIA. Clearly Bush had every reason to believe that Iraq had WMD.

[Tim Gratz]

Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002:

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

Jay Rockefeller, October 10, 2002:

"There was unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We also should remember that we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

Nancy Pelosi , October 10, 2002:

"Yes, he has chemical weapons. Yes, he has biological weapons. He is trying to get nuclear weapons."

Al Gore, September 23, 2002:

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

etc., etc.

Edited November 13, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

When I see it happen then I will believe it.

Bush keeps covering up all of his wrongful doings. So, when? His fathers has all of his records covered up and that was a long time ago.

Sad, they both get away with so much.

So, for me, it is don't count your chickens before they hatch. Like to see this one hatched, should have been a long time ago. NEver even to get to the point of 9/11 ever. Should never have happened and yet it did. Smiles on Bush's face are always at the wrong times, everyone in America should have picked up on that also a long time ago.

I think there is now a serious possibility of impeachment.

signs

1) the neveda sphinx Harry read finally spoke out the day the Fitzgerald indictment came out.

2) The dems seem to be working in tandem with cia against the noecons.

3)f or the cia this represents a chance to 'get back at bush'--admittedly this sounds strange but we have to remember there is a serious division between high mid-level cia (even if they are kalled ex-cia liek Helms was called from Tehran in 74 ) and the neocon pro likud position.

4) for the DLC CORPORATE Dem leadership the Plame angel represents two important ingredients

a) a way of tapping into anger at the war, and legitimizing themselves with the base of their party, as they continue to move away from it on all real economic issues.

a conservative "Plame Frame" for this serious, poetentially much more volatile issue of "Bush lied about the war--(AND WE DEMOCRATS WENT ALONG WITH IT PERHAPS KNOWING JUST HOW TENUOUS MOST OF THE EVIDENCE REALLY WAS)

5) Since about ten days ago-ive noticed a remarkable change in the U>S> press. Their racking up big stories agains Bush--such as long term investigations about fake iraq-al quada pre 2003 links. theyre also giving major air time to moderate republicans of the type so important in the Nixon ouster.

6) CIA researcher Douglas Valentine has suggested a possible collaboration between 'liberal journalsits' and right wing intelligence (Such as Deap Throat) in an effort to get Nixon. We could be seeing similar collaboration with current dems and CIA.

7) Finally a question: Does anyone see any similaritis between the Kennedy's end-run (unsuccessfull) around the CIA with Special Group of '63 and Bush-Cheyney's end run around the CIA in 2003? Could be way off here just putting it out there.

[John Simkin]

According to a report in this week’s National Journal, the special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, who is leading the investigation into the outing of the CIA agent, Valerie Plame, has discovered that George Bush directed Dick Cheney to take personal charge of a campaign to discredit former ambassador Joe Wilson. Bush apparently told Fitzgerald this during an interview in the Oval Office on 24th July 2004. Bush also admitted to Fitzgerald that he directed Cheney to disclose classified information to discredit Wilson. However, Bush claims he did not know anything about Cheney ordering Lewis “Scooter” Libby to covertly leak this classified information about Valerie Plame.

Is this headline news in the United States? If not, why not?