|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by reconmike
Host, do you want to paste tons of shit to correct one of your own, guy44 as to who actually leaked Plame's name to the press?
Or should I do it? (just took a cut and paste for republicans course) :P
|
hey mike...this is not over, and if you would read and not chronically compalin about long posts and your scroll wheel....you might find that much of what you know.....is counter to the actual record. It is as if I have not provided, lately, and over the past year, most of the court filings by both sides in the Libby indictment and trial, and much of the pre-sentencing motions. You show how much you ignore about what Libby's prosecution and conviction was about, when you try to shift the issue to Armitage and Rove. Fitzgerald filed more than one brief, and said more than once in court, and to the press, that Libby was the only witness who lied to investigators and to the grand jury, and <b>obstructed the investigations goal of finding out if the leaks were disclosed at the behest of a high official in the executive branch, and or part of an organized effort authorized by high officials...such as....Cheney or even Bush....</b>and, as you know....Libby was convicted of blocking the investigation's efforts to answer those two questions.....Now...is there anything you still aren't altogether clear about, mike?
Quote:
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003603.php
Libby Fallout: House Committee Plans Hearing, Defense Lawyers Rejoice
By Paul Kiel - July 5, 2007, 11:39 AM
It turns out that a president can't make the unprecedented move of commuting a former aide's prison sentence without some consequences.
On Capitol Hill, House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) has already called for hearing next Wednesday at noon titled "The Use and Misuse of Presidential Clemency Power for Executive Branch Officials." According to a committee aide, the hearing will have an eye to the future as much as the past. President Bush thinks jail time is "excessive" for an administration official convicted of lying to protect higher administration officials. In his statement announcing the hearing, Conyers worried about such a precedent: "Taken to its extreme, the use of such authority could completely circumvent the law enforcement process and prevent credible efforts to investigate wrongdoing in the executive branch." The aide told me that potential witnesses for the hearing include legal scholars, pardon experts, and administration officials.
That's not all. The president's order has created some confusion for Judge Reggie B. Walton, the Bush appointee who was responsible for that "excessive" 30 month sentence. Walton's <a href="http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2007/07/legal-complicat.html">scratching</a> his head over Bush's move to remove the incarceration portion of the sentence while retaining the two-year period of supervised release which was to follow Libby's jail time, something not technically possible. He's asked both sides to weigh in on what should be done.
But the biggest impact is likely to come on the broader legal front. As The Los Angeles Times <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-libby4jul04,1,2591950,full.story">showed</a> yesterday, Libby's prison sentence was not "excessive" by legal standards, but such a statement by the president is sure to be embraced by defense lawyers all around the country (experts have already <a href="http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/whitecollarcrime_blog/2007/07/the-libby-motio.html">dubbed</a> such an argument "The Libby Motion"). They're also sure to mention Bush's <a href="http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003579.php">assertion</a> that Libby's sentence as it stands after the commutation ($250,000 fine and two years probation) is "harsh." Meanwhile, the Times reports, "Federal prosecutors said Tuesday the action would make it harder for them to persuade judges to deliver appropriate sentences." This from an administration that's continually and inflexibly pushed for truly harsh penalties. The New York Sun <a href="http://www.nysun.com/article/57843">reports</a that the first such invocation of Bush's order might come from an alleged Hamas operative convicted of obstruction charges.
|
Quote:
http://oversight.house.gov/documents...1245-54779.pdf
Statement of Rep. Henry A. Waxman
Committee on Government Reform
Hearing on Marc Rich Pardon
March 1, 2001
Three weeks ago, at the Committee’s first hearing on the Marc Rich pardon, I criticized
President Clinton’s actions. I said the Rich pardon was bad precedent, an end run around the
judicial process, and appeared to set a double standard for the wealthy and powerful.
Almost immediately the phones in my office lit up. Oddly, many of the calls were from
anti-Clinton viewers accusing me of being an apologist for the President. But I also received
many calls from Democrats demanding that I explain why I wasn’t supporting President
Clinton’s actions.
That’s where I want to start today. I want to particularly direct my comments to
Democrats around our country who are puzzled why congressional Democrats aren’t fiercely
defending President Clinton.
If a Republican President had presided over a pardon process that resembled the chaotic
mess that seemingly characterized the final days of the Clinton Administration, I would be
outraged and would criticize it. Issuing pardons is one of the most profound powers given to the
President. At a minimum, the decision-making process must be careful and above reproach. It’s
clear that President Clinton’s efforts weren’t.
President Clinton had two equally important responsibilities in deciding whether to grant
pardons. First, the President could not grant a pardon in exchange for any personal benefit. A
quid pro quo obviously would break the law. And although the President’s pardon power is
absolute, it’s not above the law.
To this point, I have seen no evidence that the President broke any law. I’ve seen a lot of
evidence of bad judgment, but not illegality.
But given the extraordinary circumstances of the Rich pardon, it’s important that the U.S.
Attorney’s office in New York fully, quickly, and impartially investigate this issue. The U.S.
Attorney is doing that, and its investigation should resolve any question of illegality for the
American people.
President Clinton’s second fundamental obligation is just as important as the first – he
must protect the American public’s trust by exercising sound judgment.
This isn’t a legal standard. It’s a subjective measure, and President Clinton failed to meet
it. The combination of revelations, ranging from the Marc Rich and New Square pardons to the
role Hugh Rodham played in the pardon process, are disturbing and raise serious questions about
the President’s judgment.
And if anyone should have been sensitive to this, it was the President. He has been
subject to a constant barrage of attacks and scrutiny, some unquestionably justified but most
reckless and unfair. He knows whatever he does will be questioned–even if he didn’t actually do
it.
During the battle over impeachment, I repeatedly noted a distinction between private
conduct and official activities. The President’s relationship with a White House intern was a
personal failing and a betrayal to his family. Everything that sprang from that scandal–including
his false testimony under oath–came from that personal failure.
In this case, however, Mr. Clinton’s failure to exercise sound judgment affected one of
the most important duties of the Presidency. Bad judgment is obviously not impeachable. But
the failures in the pardon process should embarrass every Democrat and every American. It is a
shameful lapse that must be acknowledged, because to ignore it would betray basic principles of
justice that Democrats believe in.
I know that many Democrats fear that criticizing President’s Clinton’s actions will
somehow negate all the accomplishments of his Administration. I disagree. President Clinton’s
disciplined and masterful handling of our nation’s economy, and his leadership on a score of
health and environmental issues, will not be forgotten.
Democrats–and I hope even some Republicans–should be proud of the progress we made
and the immense talents President Clinton brought to the White House. Those truths remain
despite the President’s other failings.
But when he makes a serious mistake, as I think he did in this case, Democrats must be
willing to say so.
I hope that helps explain to my Democratic callers why I’ve been so critical of the
President’s conduct.
But I also want to address the anti-Clinton callers who attack me for being an apologist
for the President and the First Lady. At the same time that I believe that President Clinton made
grave errors, I also believe that there’s clearly a double standard that’s applied to him. Pointing
out that there’s a double standard isn’t an attempt to excuse what’s happened–it’s just the facts.
One major reason we’re holding this hearing is to investigate whether President Clinton
pardoned Marc Rich in exchange for contributions. Republicans are saying that an investigation
is essential because of the suspicious circumstances that Marc Rich’s former wife gave hundreds
of thousands of dollars to the DNC and the Clinton library.
Well, compare this to the pardon that President Bush gave in 1989 to Armand Hammer,
the former head of Occidental Petroleum, who pled guilty to making illegal campaign
contributions. According to news reports, Mr. Hammer gave over $100,000 to the Republican
Party and $100,000 to the Bush-Quayle Inaugural Committee shortly before he received this
pardon.
The appearance of a quid pro quo is just as strong in the Hammer case as in the Rich
case–if not stronger, since Mr. Hammer himself gave the contributions. But there was never an
investigation of former President Bush.
The Committee has now opened a new front by investigating the involvement of the First
Lady’s brother in two of the last-minute pardons. Here again there is a parallel in the former
Bush Administration. According to news reports, former President Bush’s son, Jeb Bush,
successfully lobbied his father’s White House in 1990 for the release of an anti-Castro terrorist
named Orlando Bosch.
But we aren’t investigating former President Bush or his son, just former President
Clinton and his brother-in-law.
If we’re genuinely concerned about the undue influence of relatives on policy-makers,
there are also lots of examples we could investigate in Congress. Rep. Tom DeLay is the
majority whip. After his brother, Randy, became a lobbyist for Cemex, which is a Mexican
cement company, Mr. DeLay asked the Commerce Department for special treatment for the
company. Senator Ted Stevens’s brother, Ben, lobbies for organizations that have been reported
to have received millions of dollars in earmarked appropriations from Senator Stevens. And
Scott Hatch, Senator Hatch’s son, represents entities like the American Tort Reform Association,
even though they have extensive interests before Senator Hatch’s own committee.
I’m not impugning the actions of any of those individuals, and I don’t question the
integrity of any of their actions. But I don’t believe this Committee should engage in selective
indignation.
The Committee’s pursuit of the Clinton library is another example of the double standard.
In 1997, during the Committee’s campaign finance investigation I asked to subpoena records
from the Bush and Reagan libraries about potential fundraising abuses involving those
administrations. But I was turned down. It seems we can pursue President Clinton’s library, but
not President Bush’s or President Reagan’s.
I also wanted to investigate the Jesse Helms Foundation. Senator Helm’s foundation had
reportedly received large contributions from foreign governments at the same time that the
Senator was chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. But again there was no inquiry.
As I say this, I have no doubt that my phone is again ringing off of the hook in my office
with people criticizing me for having the temerity to point out these inconsistencies. But we
need to keep perspective. American taxpayers have already spent over $140 million
investigating President Clinton. I realize that ridiculing the Clintons makes great entertainment
for some, but this obsession with the Clintons isn’t healthy. President Clinton is not going to be
impeached again–and he’s no longer the President.
At times, the feeding frenzy involving President Clinton is unfair. He is denounced as an
individual bent on thwarting or stonewalling the Committee’s investigation. But in fact, in this
case he has taken the extraordinary step of waiving executive privilege–the President’s
constitutional prerogative–to allow his top advisors to testify.
And at other times, the frenzy displaces our sense of priorities. It is amazing that the
news that President Clinton’s brother, Roger, asked for pardons became the lead story in the
country, even displacing the FBI spy scandal. After all, Roger Clinton was unsuccessful and
there is no evidence to date that he received any payments for his efforts.
Mr. Chairman, I want to comment for the record on your insistence that Beth Dozoretz be
required to assert the Fifth Amendment during today’s hearing. Mrs. Dozoretz has already
informed the Committee that given the U.S. Attorney’s investigation in New York, she will not
be able to participate in today’s hearing. There is congressional precedent for requiring a witness
to assert the Fifth Amendment. But I don’t think it’s constructive to call Mrs. Dozoretz before
the Committee if the goal is to punish her for asserting a constitutional right and to create a
media spectacle.
I also want to note my disappointment in the Committee’s treatment of Peter Kadzik. Mr
Kadzik was informed a few days ago that he might be invited to today’s hearing. The hearing
conflicted with appointments he already had scheduled in California for today, and he informed
the Committee he could not participate, but was willing to cooperate in any other way possible
with us.
When Mr. Kadzik stepped off his plane yesterday in Los Angeles, he was greeted by a
federal marshal, who served him with a subpoena requiring his presence today. So Mr. Kadzik
had to cancel his meetings and immediately board another flight back here.
That all would have been necessary if Mr. Kadzik were an essential witness for today’s
hearing. But he’s not. In fact, earlier this week, your staff told him that he wouldn’t have to
testify if I would agree to excuse Scooter Libby from today’s hearing. Since Mr. Libby was Marc
Rich’s lawyer for more than ten years and helped develop the argument that was ultimately
presented to the President as a justification for his pardon, we felt he should testify. I regret he
has been placed so far down on the witness list that we won’t hear from him for at least four
hours and maybe even after nightfall.
Mr. Chairman, given the developments of the last few weeks, I think it’s appropriate to
have this hearing. Clearly, there is widespread interest in obtaining the views of today’s
witnesses. But I think we need to think twice before continuing with additional investigation.
There’s a criminal investigation going on in New York that can answer whether illegal conduct is
involved. We could spend months investigating the details of all of President Clinton’s pardons,
but I seriously question whether it makes sense for us to conduct another redundant investigation.
I look forward to listening to today’s witnesses.
|
Waxman's second installment of <b>Rep. Waxman's Statement - "The Controversial Pardon of International Fugitive Marc Rich -- Day Two”</b>
is even more illuminating and it can be found here: http://oversight.house.gov/documents...1245-54779.pdf
Waxman points out how unfairly Clinton was treated by the republican congress, and contradicts Tony Snow's claim that "Clinton had left office and there was no big reaction by republicans to his pardoning of Marc Rich.
Waxman also relates that Scooter Libby was Marc Rich's lawyer for more than ten years, and that prominent republicans in former presidential administrations lobbied aggressively for Marc Rich's pardon...
Last edited by host; 07-05-2007 at 04:29 PM..
|