When Richard Nixon fired Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox as part of the October 23, 1973 “Saturday Night Massacre”, he did it to prevent information being released that could directly implicate him in wrongdoing. Cox had issued Nixon a subpoena requesting the now infamous Nixon tapes and Nixon acted to protect himself and in doing so obstructed justice in the ongoing Watergate investigations. This is not entirely different from what we have with Bush and his commutation of Libby’s sentence. Patrick Fitzgerald filed obstruction of justice charges against Libby because he believed that Libby had information relevant to the investigation and lied or refused to divulge that information. A jury agreed, found him guilty and Libby received 30 months in prison. One of the things prosecutors hope happens in situations like this is when the person obstructing justice is faced with a lengthy prison term, in exchange for avoiding prison they start providing the information they were withholding. Bush’s commutation takes the threat of prison away from Libby and is thus an act of obstruction of justice.
Nixon’s actions in the Saturday Night Massacre lead directly to several articles of impeachment being filed against him in congress in the ensuing days. A President cannot be allowed to take such a brazen act to impede an investigation in which he is one of the potential suspects. Congress should ALWAYS respond to acts like these with impeachment hearings otherwise Presidents will feel like they can live above the law and take action to prevent any consequences.
I wonder if the public realize another important aspect of this. The commutation is a virtual admission of guilt by Bush that the outing of Plame was part of a generalized conspiracy in the White House that involved major players, i.e. either Bush or Cheney themselves. There is no other reason the President would intervene. It was not a matter of, as Bush tried to suggest, “the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive”. As of the morning of July 2, a few hours before Bush would commute the sentence, Libby had six to eight weeks before he had to report to prison and concurrently as of July 2, the appeals process would take a few months. If Libby was innocent and the administration had nothing to hide and Libby nothing to tell prosecutors, Libby would do a month or two in prison before the appeals process got into full swing and then he would have a strong shot at being set free. Bush’s commutation of Libby’s sentence shows that none of this was true and that Libby was close to breaking and telling Fitzgerald everything he knew.
Fred Thompson and other prominent Republicans eye-deep in the cover-up
As I write this, I note another article with similar themes by the esteemed Amy Goodman who directs us to another important point.
Bush claimed in his statement about the commutation that Libby still faces a stiff fine and probation. You can kiss the fine goodbye. There is a fund to pay the fine that has been raised by many prominent Republicans including Fred Thompson. Thompson and other Republicans know what kind of a mess it would be for their party if the real facts regarding Plamegate came out so they are paying Libby’s fine for him. Now Libby has no repercussions and nothing to fear at all, the jail sentence is gone, the fine has been paid, and next I am sure will come a cushy job courtesy of the Republican good old boy network.
Bush’s commutation of Libby’s sentence is a knowing and intentional act of obstruction of justice designed to hide another obstruction of justice regarding an investigation of a serious criminal act by the White House that involved lying the country into war in Iraq. I realize that is confusing, so let’s lay it out in bullet points:
1. President Bush and Vice President Cheney decide to go to war and remove Saddam from Iraq even before 9/11.
Bush and Cheney are convinced by their cronies (people like Paul Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld) in the conservative think tank Project for the New American Century who had been pe ioning various Democrats and Republicans to remove Saddam since as early as 1996. The problem they was how to sell the war to the American People.
2. 9/11 happens. The administration takes advantage to advance their Iraq plans
It had nothing to do with Saddam or Iraq, but it fit the bill of something that could be sold to the American People as a causus belli or “Reason for war”, or it almost does. Too many Americans know that Iraq and Saddam had nothing to do with the attacks of September 11 so the administration has to come up with something more for those people. They decide to go with Weapons of Mass Destruction and fantasy Iraqi weapons programs like the pilotless drone (remember that?) that Saddam could supposedly launch from Iraq and hit the United States. I know it seems laughable now. The problem is there was no direct evidence that Saddam and Iraq still had weapons of mass destruction.
3. Bush and the Administration Sell the idea of Iraqi WMD
Bush and the administration go on a year plus long campaign to convince the American people that the Iraqis have a monstrous amount of Weapons of Mass Destruction and that those Weapons could be used to attack us.
4. Plame and Wilson learn that Bush and the Administration are lying
Valerie Plame, a covert CIA agent, learns from contacts that at least one of the items the Bush administration is pushing as WMD justification is a lie. Plame’s current role in the CIA is “an agency operative assigned to investigate Weapons of Mass Destruction”. Bush said in a State of the Union address that Saddam was “seeking significant quan ies of Uranium in Africa”. This claim had long been debunked in intelligence circles and rested on a piece of do entation that was such a poor forgery that anyone with even a modi of savvy could recognize it as such. An official at the CIA senior to Plame made the request of her husband to go to Africa to investigate the claim without Plame’s involvement and in February of 2002, 13 months before the Iraq war, and 11 months before the State of the Union address where Bush would make the accusation, Wilson went to Niger to investigate the possibility that Saddam Hussein had tried to buy uranium yellowcake. Wilson met with the current Ambassador, Owens-Kirkpatrick, at the embassy, and was informed that she had already debunked that story. Everyone who has seen the do ents surrounding the allegation quickly came to the same conclusion.
5. January 28, 2003 – President Bush delivers his State of the Union address where he makes the accusation that Saddam Hussein has sought significant quan ies of Uranium from Africa.
6. March 6, 2003 - In a report dated 2 weeks BEFORE THE START OF THE IRAQ WAR, The UN Weapons Inspectors indicate they have not found Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq after 4 months of on the ground Inspections
7. March 19, 2003 – The Iraq war Begins
8. July 6, 2003 Wilson exposes the administration lies in a NY Times Article
Joseph Wilson’s article "What I Didn't Find in Africa," appeared in the July 6, 2003 edition of the New York Times and directly accused the administration of lying to justify the Iraq war.
9. In the week following Wilson's article, the Bush Administration leaks Plame’s status as a covert CIA Agent to hurt her and her husband as retaliation for his article
Eight days after Wilson’s article, Robert Novak issues a response where he identified Mrs. Wilson, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, as "an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction" named "Valerie Plame." Novak is one of three reporters that get the information from administration officials in the previous week. Novak received his information from Richard Armitage, whereas Judith Miller and Time reporter Matthew Cooper admitted to having received that information from Libby. It is illegal, and a felony to reveal the name and/or status of a covert CIA agent. There was some initial controversy about Plame’s status (mostly put out by the conservative right in order to confuse the issue), but this was put to rest on March 16, 2007 when then CIA director General Michael Hayden testified the following to congress via a written statement:
On March 16, 2007, at these hearings about the disclosure, Chairman Henry Waxman read a statement about Plame's CIA career that had been cleared by CIA director Gen. Michael V. Hayden and the CIA:
- During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was under cover.
- Her employment status with the CIA was classified information prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958.
- At the time of the publication of Robert Novak's column on July 14, 2003, Ms. Wilson's CIA employment status was covert.
- This was classified information.
- Ms. Wilson served in senior management positions at the CIA, in which she oversaw the work of other CIA employees, and she attained the level of GS-14, step 6 under the federal pay scale.
- Ms. Wilson worked on some of the most sensitive and highly secretive matters handled by the CIA.
- Ms. Wilson served at various times overseas for the CIA.
- Without discussing the specifics of Ms. Wilson's classified work, it is accurate to say that she worked on the prevention of the development and use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States.
- In her various positions at the CIA, Ms. Wilson faced significant risks to her personal safety and her life.
--------------------------------------------------
10. An investigation is undertaken to ascertain how and why Plame’s cover was blown.
A special prosecutor is named (Patrick Fitzgerald), Subpoenas are handed out, and Libby is ultimately indicted of five counts and convicted of four. If you were ever wondering what it is that Libby was alleged and convicted of doing, here are Prosecutor Fitzgerald’s own words after obtaining the indictments (From transcripts of a press conference covered and printed by the Washington Post and others):
Those fine distinctions are important in determining what to do. That's why it's essential when a witness comes forward and gives their account of how they came across classified information and what they did with it that it be accurate.
That brings us to the fall of 2003. When it was clear that Valerie Wilson's cover had been blown, investigation began. And in October 2003, the FBI interviewed Mr. Libby. Mr. Libby is the vice president's chief of staff. He's also an assistant to the president and an assistant to the vice president for national security affairs.
The focus of the interview was what it that he had known about Wilson's wife, Valerie Wilson, what he knew about Ms. Wilson, what he said to people, why he said it, and how he learned it.
And to be frank, Mr. Libby gave the FBI a compelling story.
What he told the FBI is that essentially he was at the end of a long chain of phone calls. He spoke to reporter Tim Russert, and during the conversation Mr. Russert told him that, "Hey, do you know that all the reporters know that Mr. Wilson's wife works at the CIA?"
And he told the FBI that he learned that information as if it were new, and it struck him. So he took this information from Mr. Russert and later on he passed it on to other reporters, including reporter Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, reporter Judith Miller of the New York Times.
And he told the FBI that when he passed the information on on July 12th, 2003, two days before Mr. Novak's column, that he passed it on understanding that this was information he had gotten from a reporter; that he didn't even know if it was true.
And he told the FBI that when he passed the information on to the reporters he made clear that he did know if this were true. This was something that all the reporters were saying and, in fact, he just didn't know and he wanted to be clear about it.
Later, Mr. Libby went before the grand jury on two occasions in March of 2004. He took and oath and he testified. And he essentially said the same thing.
He said that, in fact, he had learned from the vice president earlier in June 2003 information about Wilson's wife, but he had forgotten it, and that when he learned the information from Mr. Russert during this phone call he learned it as if it were new.
When he passed the information on to reporters Cooper and Miller late in the week, he passed it on thinking it was just information he received from reporters; that he told reporters that, in fact, he didn't even know if it were true. He was just passing gossip from one reporter to another at the long end of a chain of phone calls.
It would be a compelling story that will lead the FBI to go away if only it were true. It is not true, according to the indictment.
In fact, Mr. Libby discussed the information about Valerie Wilson at least half a dozen times before this conversation with Mr. Russert ever took place, not to mention that when he spoke to Mr. Russert, Mr. Russert and he never discussed Valerie Wilson or Wilson's wife.
He didn't learn it from Mr. Russert. But if he had, it would not have been new at the time.
Let me talk you through what the indictment alleges.
The indictment alleges that Mr. Libby learned the information about Valerie Wilson at least three times in June of 2003 from government officials.
Let me make clear there was nothing wrong with government officials discussing Valerie Wilson or Mr. Wilson or his wife and imparting the information to Mr. Libby.
But in early June, Mr. Libby learned about Valerie Wilson and the role she was believed to play in having sent Mr. Wilson on a trip overseas from a senior CIA officer on or around June 11th, from an undersecretary of state on or around June 11th, and from the vice president on or about June 12th.
It's also clear, as set forth in the indictment, that some time prior to July 8th he also learned it from somebody else working in the Vice President's Office.
So at least four people within the government told Mr. Libby about Valerie Wilson, often referred to as "Wilson's wife," working at the CIA and believed to be responsible for helping organize a trip that Mr. Wilson took overseas.
In addition to hearing it from government officials, it's also alleged in the indictment that at least three times Mr. Libby discussed this information with other government officials.
It's alleged in the indictment that on June 14th of 2003, a full month before Mr. Novak's column, Mr. Libby discussed it in a conversation with a CIA briefer in which he was complaining to the CIA briefer his belief that the CIA was leaking information about something or making critical comments, and he brought up Joe Wilson and Valerie Wilson.
It's also alleged in the indictment that Mr. Libby discussed it with the White House press secretary on July 7th, 2003, over lunch. What's important about that is that Mr. Libby, the indictment alleges, was telling Mr. Fleischer something on Monday that he claims to have learned on Thursday.
In addition to discussing it with the press secretary on July 7th, there was also a discussion on or about July 8th in which counsel for the vice president was asked a question by Mr. Libby as to what paperwork the Central Intelligence Agency would have if an employee had a spouse go on a trip.
So that at least seven discussions involving government officials prior to the day when Mr. Libby claims he learned this information as if it were new from Mr. Russert. And, in fact, when he spoke to Mr. Russert, they never discussed it.
But in addition to focusing on how it is that Mr. Libby learned this information and what he thought about it, it's important to focus on what it is that Mr. Libby said to the reporters.
In the account he gave to the FBI and to the grand jury was that he told reporters Cooper and Miller at the end of the week, on July 12th. And that what he told them was he gave them information that he got from other reporters; other reporters were saying this, and Mr. Libby did not know if it were true. And in fact, Mr. Libby testified that he told the reporters he did not even know if Mr. Wilson had a wife.
And, in fact, we now know that Mr. Libby discussed this information about Valerie Wilson at least four times prior to July 14th, 2003: on three occasions with Judith Miller of the New York Times and on one occasion with Matthew Cooper of Time magazine.
The first occasion in which Mr. Libby discussed it with Judith Miller was back in June 23rd of 2003, just days after an article appeared online in the New Republic which quoted some critical commentary from Mr. Wilson.
After that discussion with Judith Miller on June 23rd, 2003, Mr. Libby also discussed Valerie Wilson on July 8th of 2003.
During that discussion, Mr. Libby talked about Mr. Wilson in a conversation that was on background as a senior administration official. And when Mr. Libby talked about Wilson, he changed the attribution to a former Hill staffer.
During that discussion, which was to be attributed to a former Hill staffer, Mr. Libby also discussed Wilson's wife, Valerie Wilson, working at the CIA -- and then, finally, again, on July 12th.
In short -- and in those conversations, Mr. Libby never said, "This is something that other reporters are saying;" Mr. Libby never said, "This is something that I don't know if it's true;" Mr. Libby never said, "I don't even know if he had a wife."
At the end of the day what appears is that Mr. Libby's story that he was at the tail end of a chain of phone calls, passing on from one reporter what he heard from another, was not true.
It was false. He was at the beginning of the chain of phone calls, the first official to disclose this information outside the government to a reporter. And then he lied about it afterwards, under oath and repeatedly.
Now, as I said before, this grand jury investigation has been conducted in secret. I believe it should have been conducted in secret, not only because it's required by those rules, but because the rules are wise. Those rules protect all of us.
We are now going from a grand jury investigation to an indictment, a public charge and a public trial. The rules will be different.
But I think what we see here today, when a vice president's chief of staff is charged with perjury and obstruction of justice, it does show the world that this is a country that takes its law seriously; that all citizens are bound by the law.
But what we need to also show the world is that we can also apply the same safeguards to all our citizens, including high officials. Much as they must be bound by the law, they must follow the same rules.
.
.
.
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.
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?
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.
_____________________________________
Who can say it better than Fitzgerald did? He went about attempting to uncover the motives behind Libby’s (not to mention Armitage and others) outing of Valerie Plame and whether there was a conspiracy to do that, but Libby consistently thwarted his investigation with lies. Why would he lie? If there were nothing to lie about, why would he lie? As I have said in other articles, those kinds of questions are very familiar to investigators of all sorts as the genesis of how they solve many crimes. People do not lie unless they have something to hide. Now, Bush has purchased Libby’s everlasting silence on a matter that could very well have implicated Bush himself or other members of his administration in a crime. For that, and for many other things before it, both Bush and Cheney should be investigated, impeached and removed from office.
Reply With Quote
