Plamegate

[Akash]

Don't get too excited. You're still THE butt nugget.



Edited By Akash on 1195986449

[criddic3]

I love this board!

[Akash]

And wrong beats being smug and condescending. Especially since smug and condescending is usually just a way to mask one's own insecurities.



Edited By Akash on 1195935107

[Sonic Youth]

One day, you'll be a butt nugget too.

Beats being wrong.

[Akash]

You're a butt nugget.

[Sonic Youth]

Counterpunch
November 22, 2007
McClellan's Dish
Impeachment is Back on the Table

By DAVE LINDORFF

It's not happening. Get over yourself, Dave.

Even I - yeah, me! - think the importance of that quote has been blown way out of proportion.

[Akash]

Since you decided to ignore my post, I therefore conclude that you concede my argument and you have seen the errors in your reasoning. You don't have the courage to admit it, natch.

Sonic, he does this ALL the time when he's cornered with logic or can't argue against something. I'm amazed you have the patience to keep sitting through another criddic dog and pony show!

Anyway, this made me smile. I'm sure criddic will have some lame defense -- or he won't and we won't hear from him.

Counterpunch
November 22, 2007
McClellan's Dish
Impeachment is Back on the Table

By DAVE LINDORFF

The most powerful leader in the world had called upon me to speak on his behalf and help restore credibility he lost amid the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. So I stood at the White House briefing room podium in front of the glare of the klieg lights for the better part of two weeks and publicly exonerated two of the senior-most aides in the White House: Karl Rove and Scooter Libby.

There was one problem. It was not true.

I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the Vice President, the President's chief of staff, and the President himself.

--Excerpt from Scott McClellan's forthcoming book "What Happened"
(Public Affairs Books, due out in April 2008)

With that one little statement, released on the Public Affairs Books website this week, all excuses for not impeaching President Bush and Vice President Cheney, not to mention indicting Cheney (who of course has no immunity from prosecution while in office), have evaporated.

Here is rock-solid evidence from a man who, as press secretary, was privy to the inner workings of the White House, of a vile conspiracy involving the two top men in the Bush/Cheney administration, as well as their top three staffpeople, to expose the identity of an important CIA undercover operative, Valerie Plame, and then, when caught, to obstruct a criminal investigation by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, into that crime.

Forget for a moment the administration's other high crimes and misdemeanors and acts of bribery and treason, though many, like defying laws passed by the Congress, or violating the Nuremburg Charter, are surely far more egregious. This particular set of crimes--conspiracy, obstruction of justice, lying, and of course the underlying crime of abuse of power and perhaps treason (since Plame's responsibility as a high-rankiing CIA operative was preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, particularly in the Middle East!)--is serious enough.

There is no way that American democracy can continue to survive, even in its current truncated form, if the Congress continues to duck this issue and pretend that it has "more important things to do," as Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her retinue of "leaders" in the House have continued to claim for an entire year in control of the Congress.

To keep impeachment "off the table," knowing that the president and vice president brazenly lied to the American people and to the Special Counsel's office about such a serious offense, is to make a mockery of the Constitution and the law.

Bush and Cheney must be impeached at this point if only to save school districts across the nation the cost of having to buy all new American history and civics texts, revised so as to remove all discussion of the notion of Constitutional checks and balances and the word "impeachment."

It is of course possible that the political reality is that Republicans in Congress have become such an antidemocratic conglomeration of authoritarian yes-men that they would defend their political leaders no matter what their crimes, and that thus impeachment would be a dead end, either in the House or certainly in the Senate. This, however, is no excuse for not calling the president and vice president to account in impeachment hearings in the House, where Democrats have a solid majority.

An impeachment hearing before the House Judiciary Committee, with full subpoena power granted to that committee, would lead to revelations and exposures far beyond that of Scott McClellan's, though putting McClellan under oath on national TV in such a hearing promises to be as enlightening and entertaining as was the testimony in 1974 before the same panel by Nixon White House attorney John Dean.

The critical importance of such hearings to the future of American democracy, and to public understanding of the nature of the coup that has been undermining that democracy should be obvious. It wouldn't matter what the vote was following such hearings. Certainly articles of impeachment would be voted out of the committee and sent to the floor of the House. Almost as certainly, the House would end up having to support those articles. So Bush and Cheney would at least stand impeached, probably with at least some Republican's voting for impeachment. They would probably also be forced, like President Clinton before them, to stand trial in the Senate--if Republicans didn't first succeed in convincing them to resign to spare their party a disaster at the polls next November.

Certainly it's possible that proponents of conviction in the Senate would not be able to convince the 16 or 17 Republican necessary to win a conviction and removal from office, but it wouldn't matter at that point. The Bush administration would stand condemned for all time as a gang of criminals and usurpers.

It's worth noting that following Clinton's impeachment and trial, which failed to remove him from office, the Oval Office has been off-limits to unchaperoned interns, and it is likely to be a long time before felatio is re-enacted under the Oval Office desk. Similar action against Bush and Cheney would make future Constitutional crimes equally unlikely for the same reason, even without conviction.

This would be even more true if Special Counsel Fitzgerald were to do his duty, as he clearly should, and reopen his Plame investigation with an indictment of Cheney, and with the naming of Bush, like Nixon before him, as an "unindicted co-conspirator."

For starters, Pelosi must take this moment to declare that impeachment is "back on the table."

Dave Lindorff is the author of Killing Time: an Investigation into the Death Row Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal. His n book of CounterPunch columns titled "This Can't be Happening!" is published by Common Courage Press. Lindorff's newest book is "The Case for Impeachment", co-authored by Barbara Olshansky.

He can be reached at: dlindorff@mindspring.com
http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff11222007.html

[OscarGuy]

Too bad this is coming so late in the Bush Administration's run.

Former aide blames Bush for leak deceit By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer
23 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan blames President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for efforts to mislead the public about the role of White House aides in leaking the identity of a CIA operative.

ADVERTISEMENT


In an excerpt from his forthcoming book, McClellan recounts the 2003 news conference in which he told reporters that aides Karl Rove and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby were "not involved" in the leak involving operative Valerie Plame.

"There was one problem. It was not true," McClellan writes, according to a brief excerpt released Tuesday. "I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest-ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice president, the president's chief of staff and the president himself."

Bush's chief of staff at the time was Andrew Card.

The excerpt, posted on the Web site of publisher PublicAffairs, renews questions about what went on in the West Wing and how much Bush and Cheney knew about the leak. For years, it was McClellan's job to field — and often duck — those types of questions.

Now that he's spurring them, answers are equally hard to come by.

White House press secretary Dana Perino said it wasn't clear what McClellan meant in the excerpt. "The president has not and would not ask his spokespeople to pass on false information," she said.

McClellan turned down interview requests Tuesday.

Plame maintains the White House quietly outed her to reporters. Plame and her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, said the leak was retribution for his public criticism of the Iraq war. The accusation dogged the administration and made Plame a cause celebre among many Democrats.

McClellan's book, "What Happened," isn't due out until April, and the excerpt released Monday was merely a teaser. It doesn't get into detail about how Bush and Cheney were involved or reveal what happened behind the scenes.

In the fall of 2003, after authorities began investigating the leak, McClellan told reporters that he'd personally spoken to Rove, who was Bush's top political adviser, and Libby, who was Cheney's chief of staff.

"They're good individuals, they're important members of our White House team, and that's why I spoke with them, so that I could come back to you and say that they were not involved," McClellan said at the time.

Both men, however, were involved. Rove was one of the original sources for the newspaper column that identified Plame. Libby also spoke to reporters about the CIA officer and was convicted of lying about those discussions. He is the only person to be charged in the case.

Since that news conference, however, the official White House stance has shifted and it has been difficult to get a clear picture of what happened behind closed doors around the time of the leak.

McClellan's flat denials gave way to a steady drumbeat of "no comment." And Bush's original pledge to fire anyone involved in the leak became a promise to fire anyone who "committed a crime."

In a CNN interview earlier this year, McClellan made no suggestion that Bush knew either Libby or Rove was involved in the leak. McClellan said his statements to reporters were what he and the president "believed to be true at the time based on assurances that we were both given."

Bush most recently addressed the issue in July after commuting Libby's 30-month prison term. He acknowledged that some in the White House were involved in the leak. Then, after repeatedly declining to discuss the ongoing investigation, he said the case was closed and it was time to move on.

[Sonic Youth]

You're half right.

I'm entirely right, a-hole.

No, half right.

The court made no ruling as to the legality or illegality of the program, which belies the false claim you made earlier. So I'm entirely right and you're half-wit.

[criddic3]

You're half right.

I'm entirely right, a-hole.

No, half right. Doesn't matter, though. If this makes it to the Supreme Court, which is a distinct possibility, we'll see if it is indeed deemed unconstitutional.

[99-1100896887]

Pardon my ignorance, but what does a 2-1 decision on this matter by the Cinncinatti circuits court prove? Isn't this of highest possible priority and should be dealt only with your supreme court
Please answer: anyone but criddic.

[Sonic Youth]

You're half right.

I'm entirely right, a-hole.

[criddic3]

There's no point, Cam. As you notice, Criddic is still towing the company line regarding the warrantless surveillance program as being LEGIT...If he can't grasp the reality of the illegality of that program, then he's forever lost and will have nothing important nor competent to say about the political landscape.

A federal court just ruled against a lawsuit brought on the program, so that's not a true statement Oscarguy.

Stop lying, silly Criddic! The federal court made no ruling on the lawsuit. Read the articles again.

<span style='font-size:7pt;line-height:100%'>Now Criddic is going to highlight a passage saying that the court would not hear the lawsuit as if it proved his point, mistakenly thinking it means they ruled against it.</span>

COURT GIVES BUSH A WIN ON WIRETAPS
AP
July 7, 2007 -- CINCINNATI - A federal appeals court yesterday ordered the dismissal of a lawsuit challenging President Bush's domestic spying program, saying the plaintiffs had no standing to sue.

The 2-1 ruling by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel was not on the legality of the surveillance program, but it vacated an order last year by a lower court in Detroit.

That court had found the post-9/11 warrantless surveillance aimed at uncovering terrorist activity to be unconstitutional, violating rights to privacy and free speech and the separation of powers.

The American Civil Liberties Union led the lawsuit on behalf of other groups including lawyers, journalists and scholars it says have been handicapped in doing their jobs by the government monitoring.

The case will be sent back to the U.S. District judge in Michigan for dismissal.

--

You're half right. There was a ruling, but the court didn't say if the program was legal. However, the ruling did dismiss a case that was aimed at proving the program wasn't legal. It's not the end of the road for these types of appeals and lawsuits, but there is no basis yet to call it illegal. Let's just say I believe it is legal, constitutional and purposeful. If it gets to the Supreme Court and they call it illegal, I'll accept that verdict.

[criddic3]

It's Only Fair To Commute Libby
By Ed Koch

Let me now -- and not for the first time -- rush in where angels fear to tread. I support President Bush's commutation of Scooter Libby's prison sentence.

I have never met Mr. Libby. I have not been asked by any of his friends or family to assist him. So why am I taking this step, which is sure to be criticized by many of my friends and supporters?

It is because I believe in fairness. To remain silent because speaking out would not be popular is to invite punishment in the world to come.

What are the facts in the Libby case? The story begins when Robert Novak, a widely syndicated reporter, revealed in his newspaper column of July 14, 2003 that a woman named Valerie Plame, was a CIA covert (secret) operative.

A federal law makes such disclosure subject to criminal sanction under certain circumstances. Democratic opponents of President Bush -- believing that Novak's source was the White House -- ignited a firestorm of protest. The flap became so heated that the Deputy U.S. Attorney General James B. Comey appointed a special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald -- then and now the U.S. Attorney from Illinois -- to investigate the disclosure.

Novak was questioned by the special prosecutor before a grand jury, whose proceedings are secret. Indeed, it is a federal crime to release such testimony. It is now known that the U.S. Attorney was told that the information did not come from the White House. The person who leaked the information to Novak was in fact former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, a Clinton appointee.

Novak, in his column of July 5, 2007, wrote, "Even before he began his long investigation, Fitzgerald was aware that the leak to me that started the case was made by then Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. No proponent of the Iraq intervention, Armitage did not neatly fit left-wing conspiracy theory about Iraq policy. Consequently, he disappeared from the Internet blather about the CIA leak constituting treason. Armitage was not indicted because the statute prohibiting the disclosure of an intelligence agent's identity was not violated. But Fitzgerald ploughed ahead with an inquiry that produced obstruction of justice and perjury charges against Libby though there was no underlying crime."

Libby, who had been chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney until his indictment, was interviewed by the FBI (any statement to the FBI is deemed by law to be made under oath) and was questioned before the grand jury. In both situations, he apparently stated that he first heard the name of Valerie Plame and her CIA connections from journalist Tim Russert of "Meet The Press" fame. Russert was called before the grand jury and apparently testified and repeated his testimony publicly that he had done no such thing and did not know of Ms. Plame at the time of the alleged conversation with Libby.

Libby was indicted and convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice for misleading law enforcement agencies seeking to ascertain who had leaked the information about Ms. Plame. Neither Robert Novak nor Richard Armitage was ever prosecuted in this matter, although Novak had published the material and Armitage had provided the information to him. The law is, apparently, extremely technical and proved too difficult to apply to either Novak or Armitage. The New York Times described the problem, "A prosecutor seeking to establish a violation of the law has to show an intentional disclosure by someone with authorized access to classified information. That person must also know that the disclosure identifies a covert operative 'and that the United States was taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the Unites States.' A covert operative is defined as someone whose identity is classified information and who has served outside the United States within the last five years. "

Libby was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice and received a sentence of 30 months in prison, 2 years' probation and a $250,000 fine. President Bush has now commuted the prison time and left intact both the civil fine and probation. Unless he wins his appeal, Libby will also be disbarred as a lawyer. After all appeals have been exhausted, the President reserves his right to issue a full pardon.

My own belief is that when Libby answered the question by saying it was Russert who told him about Valerie Plame's CIA status, he was providing information that he believed to be true. Surely, he knew Russert would be asked if that occurred. If Libby's recollection failed, that would not be the basis for charging him with a crime. Only if he deliberately lied could he be accused of perjury.

Would anyone, particularly someone in high government office with an exemplary record of public service and admittedly a high achiever under these circumstances, lie, deliberately misstate the facts where his testimony would be refuted by a popular television personality certain to be asked? It defies common sense. If he were deliberately lying, he would have said, "I can't recall," or "I think it was Tim Russert," leaving the opportunity to admit error, and in neither case could he, I believe, have been indicted and convicted.

Why is there such an enormous furor, particularly in Democratic political circles, demanding that Libby go to prison? I believe it is the kind of mob rage that has regrettably dominated American politics. The anger that existed against FDR, Truman, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan and currently, the team of Bush and Cheney. That mob hate of Bush and Cheney for a host of reasons -- the Iraq war, the two elections that elected and reelected them, their tax policies, their attitudes and policies directed at Islamic terrorism and a dozen other issues. They know they can't directly strike at Bush and Cheney whose terms of office dwindle with each passing day. They are striking at Libby as their surrogate. If they could in their lust for blood and vengeance, they would perform an auto de fe and burn Libby at the stake.

Some will respond, "A jury found him guilty, how can you question their collective judgment." Many of those people believe, as I do, that the jury that found O.J. Simpson not guilty was wrong and have no problem in questioning the verdict of that jury.

Regrettably, the politics of hatred rules the day. In this atmosphere of hysteria and rage, we should remember that the demons of yesterday -- FDR, Truman, Clinton and Reagan -- are hailed by many of their former critics as political saints of today.

Ed Koch is the former Mayor of New York City.

[Sonic Youth]

There's no point, Cam. As you notice, Criddic is still towing the company line regarding the warrantless surveillance program as being LEGIT...If he can't grasp the reality of the illegality of that program, then he's forever lost and will have nothing important nor competent to say about the political landscape.

A federal court just ruled against a lawsuit brought on the program, so that's not a true statement Oscarguy.

Stop lying, silly Criddic! The federal court made no ruling on the lawsuit. Read the articles again.