https://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Logo-Web.png
0
0
emptywheel
https://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Logo-Web.png
emptywheel2007-06-07 18:06:002007-06-07 18:06:00Nadler Puts Cheney in His Sights
On Those Letters Bork Tries to Fire Another Prosecutor
Scroll to top
Dear EW,
I hope your mum is well, and that she’s enjoying her visit. I also hope that she’s appropriately proud of her daughter, truly one of our national treasures. I hope she’ll understand that you find it hard to wean yourself from the keyboard, with all that’s swirling around in DC these days.
So. Have a nice visit, and keep fighting the good fight.
Hurray!!!! I’ll bet that letter pissed Cheney off.
Like Darth Cheney, I too hope that â€our system will return a final result consistent with what we know of this fine man.†What we know of this â€fine man†from the evidence presented is that he committed perjury and obstruction of justice. In the trial court, the jury and Judge Walton have returned interim results consistent with what we know, and I’m certain that Darth will join me in celebrating the final affirmation of those results.
Shorter Bradbury: go Cheney yourself.
It would be deeply divisive, and invite deep cynicism and disrespect for the legal process, were the American people to conclude that Mr. Libby undertook actions that subjected him to criminal liability to protect you, knowing or believing, or having the facts ultimately reveal, that you would thereafter take steps to protect him from the consequences of his criminal conduct.
Wow wow waa wah!
Maybe Nadler is just what Conyers needs to keep this inquiry on the most productive course.
Great post EW.
Bradbury is a real piece of work. Google and enjoy, but use his initial, G., because there is a speed skater with the same name.
He was a securities lawyer before joining DOJ, great preparation for doing constitutional law. No doubt he practiced that pedantic wordplay preparing crafty phrasings to sell securities to the dull. He is apparently in the Office of Legal Counsel, replacing Jack Goldsmith, so he knows whereof he speaks when he talks about the various opinions on the FISA program.
He held an â€Ask the White House†last year in which he writes that the US does not torture people. Here is his take on the Geneva Conventions: â€But other provisions of Common Article 3 are hopelessly vague and subject to almost unlimited interpretation – such as its prohibition on “outrages upon person dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment.†â€
He was up for confirmation as head of the Office of Legal Counsel, but that got put on hold perhaps because Bush refused to provide clearances to the DOJ personnel to investigate the actions of that division, and Kennedy and others asserted that he would not be confirmed until he personally was cleared of wrong-doing.
And this just in, Nadler plans to subpoena the stuff he won’t produce on fraudulent grounds: http://www.statesman.com/blogs…..g_sub.html
Josh Marshall, Talking Points Memo, today had a very interesting video interview with Nadler. Can’t find it just now.
Josh Marshall, Talking Points Memo, today had a very interesting video interview with Nadler. Can’t find it just now.
Here is the video
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.c…..014509.php
didn’t he just vote against the ethics package that all but 14 voted for? this isn’t a comforting thought that Nadler has voted with a very small minority of people that would want to hide things and keep people protected if they do wrong in the house. very questionable judgement. or is the voting record I saw wrong?
That Letter from Conyers / Nadler must have shortcircuited shooter’s pacemaker something fierce >>>
Vice President Richard Bruce ’Dick’ Cheney, a survivor of four heart attacks including a mild one shortly after the 2000 election, will have a routine heart checkup on Friday.
http://today.reuters.com/news/…..CHENEY.xml
EW, I was a bit surprised by Tim Grieve’s â€Was Plame Covert?†over at Salon. Any response to the piece?
Okay, Bradbury is another complete creep doing wonderful â€government service.†Kind of a different flavor than the rest of the recent selections, mostly from Gonzo’s bumbling politicized DoJ, great Americans like Schlozman, Goodling, Sampson, throw in Doan for good measure, and the hapless gang of misfits is led by Gonzo. Or Miers and ultimately Rove, of course. Who am I forgetting? They’re all buffoons, especially when you line them up against solid law guys like Comey, Graves, Iglesias I guess. Then there’s Fitz of course.
But new boy Bradbury has a distinct Cheney je ne sais quoi, no? The staccato â€no you’re wrong that’s not what I’m saying†version of lying has a completely different vibe.
Nice work by Nadler. Comes across as completely prepared, digs in, breaks down the senseless parsing, moves on, keeps the pressure on. And it seems like he’s got a full dance card, likes sitting up on that podium with his papers and reading glasses and questions, and isn’t going anywhere anytime soon. Great stuff.
Wall,
Plame wasn’t IIPA covert. Otherwise someone could have been charged with that by Fitzgerald. He had at least 3 people, Armitage, and the Press secretary, and Libby to charge.
Fitzgerald only tried Libby for lying, and Armitage for nothing at all, and gave the Press Secretary immunity.
From the Conyers / Nadler letter to Cheney: â€It would be deeply divisive, and invite deep cynicism and disrespect for the legal process, were the American people to conclude that Mr. Libby undertook actions that subjected him to criminal liability to protect you, knowing or believing, or having the facts ultimately reveal, that you would thereafter take steps to protect him from the consequences of his criminal conduct.â€
Umm, not to get too cynical here, but isn’t that just what Cheney wants?
I mean, I agree with everything in that statement, but unfortunately, it sounds like just the kind of thing Cheney would read as both invitation and justification to lobby for Libby’s pardon.
Not that it much matters, I suppose. It’s not as if Cheney would ever consider recusing himself anyway.
I still suspect that Bush will ultimately refuse to Libby, in keep from pissing off CIA any further. Bush is fundamentally a paranoid coward. I think he’ll be fearful of giving the CIA any more cause to be lackadaisical in its protection of him.
Jodi
I’m curious–could you tell us what your understanding of the IIPA statute is?
Marcy, have you gotten a copy of Libby’s filing yet? Is there any way to tell an already displeased judge that you think his rulings–which he has already said are bulletproof–are so stupid that they aren’t going to hold up on appeal?
P.S. You know, I’ve been totally ignoring him/her, but I have to say that I’m more and more impressed with Jodi. It must take an enormous amount of effort to read this blog on a regular basis and still remain so willfully ignorant. I wish I had that much stamina when it came to sticking to my exercise routine.
Just watched the other â€excerpts†from the subcommittee website. It’s funny how it comes across as focused and actually rather partisan, a congressional weblink saying â€are they kidding? It’s obvious that you can’t do this kind of stuff.†As Dems and dirty hippies who were out in the woods for a dozen years, it’s kind of surreal. In a great way… I guess kind of like the old days.
Hmm, that last paragraph should read:
I still suspect that Bush will ultimately refuse to pardon Libby, to keep from pissing off CIA any further. Bush is fundamentally a paranoid coward. I think he’ll be fearful of giving the CIA any more cause to be lackadaisical in its protection of him.
EW–Not worth the discussion, and you’re obviously a blazing typist so it’s a 5 second aside, but I’m a little surprised that you would give Jod even that much of your attention and time at this point. Though I guess, like FProbst, she/he deserves some recognition for showing up so consistently. That was part of my last comment, about the â€partisan†subcommittee excerpts: what does someone like Jodi think when they look at that? It has to make them nuts. Do they sit back and say, yeah Bradbury, that’s exactly right! You just hit it right on the nose–it’s so obvious!?
You’re doing crucial, really important work… and there have to be better things on your plate. Not that anyone would want to spoil your fun however you want to find it, but a good Swopa 1-2-6 workout, for instance, is obviously more worthy of your superior talents and valuable time…
JGabriel – I agree completely with your character analysis; but that trait could also manifest itself as demanding a pardon if Libby gives the impression he will roll if not pardoned, or more importantly, if Cheney says that is the case. Bush craps on himself either way; being King ain’t so grand right about now.
I wonder what effect the still alive civil case would have on any pardon. If they get discovery, and Libby is free of incrimination, seems like they could ask him lots of interesting questions. And Fitz is always there to ask him new questions too. Maybe they’ll pardon him right after they bomb or invade Iran.
emptywheel,
The IIPA defines the conditions that must be satisfied if a person is â€covert†under certain criminal statues. This is so if â€someone†exposes that person as a covert agent then the â€someone†can be charged with a crime.
For example there is a requirement that the person be not known as a CIA agent, that they maintain their secret identity at all times, that they have been stationed overseas recently, that the one exposing the person knew that the person was covert (and here I assume under the statue), etc.
Sure Ms Plame might be called covert by some, but it seems that there are at least two definitions used, which is why IIPA now exists. She seems not to be IIPA covert.
Many people more knowlegeable than me are right now arguing over those definitions and how they apply to Ms Plame.
It is the classic bit of inclusion/noninclusion logic that goes like:
â€all beagles are dogs, but not all dogs are beagles â€
Along the way as I started looking into the Plame-Wilson-Rove story, there were a lot of info about this, here at TNH, and JOM.
.
But today let us check out something more recent, and in a different place.
\\
— a nice summary—-
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html
Salon War Room
â€Was Plame covert? Conservative commentators weigh inâ€
(16:03 EST, June 6, 2007)
– Alex Koppelman
\
Still I know that there are shades and shades between what some call facts and others call opinions.
My main thought tonight is simple. I stated it earlier in another thread.
It would appear (even to me) that Mr Libby lied. There were 7 or 8 witnesses and his own notes idicating that. While you can say that the witnesses had their own problems, still there were a lot of them.
These witnesses said Mr Libby exposed Ms Plame to them, and/or that the witnesses didn’t expose Ms Plame to Mr LIbby. The jury believed the witnesses and convicted Mr Libby on perjury, and obstruction. (The obstruction case seems somewhat presumptious, but not the perjury cases)
I think that if Mr Libby broke the IIPA statue then he could be charged for that, and I believe the jury would have found him guilty of that.
Mr Fitzgerald didn’t charge him. Further, Mr Fitzgerald didn’t say that he would have made the charge except that Mr Libby didn’t meet some or all of the requirements under IIPA.
So I assume that the IIPA didn’t apply to Mr Libby or to Ms Plame, meaning it didn’t apply at all.
emptywheel,
I have a good friend from college. We met in a few very serious math courses that I took that she was also in. I was actually in a different college. We did homework together in those courses.
She now works in Washington at a place that doesn’t really exist, though the name is thrown about in the press, especially recently. We met a few years after graduation and chatted about things. She then told me that she worked at XY company. I said â€but … I heard that ….â€
She put her finger on my lips and said, â€Please, (name- maybe Jodi), I work for XY company!â€
I will never say even â€XY company†when someone asks. I only say, she has a number crunching job for some kind of lobbyist, analyst, or law firm or something, and that she has switched jobs a few times. I don’t remember the names. Oh yes, and she has married but the new name escapes me but I saw the picture of her darling little boy.
And finally, â€well yes when/if I run into her again, I will give her your name and number.†((… so my friend will make the decision to make a contact or not.))
â€Loose lips sink ships.â€
emptywheel
98+ percent of your readers love you for you deliver to them, with exceptionally hard work and zeal, a product that pleases them. But they don’t really understand that for a work or a theory to become strong and polished, it must be challenged. When I look at a proposal, I ask for and look for detractors. I don’t want to hear only the fawning possible benefactors of the proposal and their friends.
â€What are the pros, the strengths?â€
â€What are the cons, the weaknesses?â€
â€Where can it fail? How could it fail?â€
â€Do we have a plan to overcome all we
can anticipate that might go wrong?â€
And finally thanks for the opportunity to post on your blog.
There is no ambiguity about Plame’s status at the CIA – she was a NOC – or whether she traveled outside the US on CIA business in the five years prior to when senior government officials blew her cover – she did. I can’t cite the source for you. I think we learned the former in Fitz sentencing memo. I can’t remember where we learned the latter.
Toensing and others want you to believe Plame was not a NOC (secretary with a desk job?) and that to charge IIPA Plame needed to be â€stationed†abroad, as in residing abroad, but Toensing is wrong. The statute does not say â€stationed†abroad, it says â€service†abroad. I hope Waxman slaps Toensing with a perjury charge if she didn’t correct the record. The meme that Plame does not qualify as a covert agent under IIPA is a fallacy. BushCo and NeoCon central is entitled to its own opinion, it is not entitled to its own facts.
In his press conference, Fitzgerald explained everything you need to know, strike that, everything he can tell you about why he didn’t charge Libby or other parties for violating IIPA. He needs to know all the facts. Libby threw sand in his eyes so he could not get all the facts. That is why he did not charge IIPA violation. He’ll try to squeeze Libby for 30 months. Maybe Libby will give up the truth. Not charging IIPA has nothing to do with the facts of Plame’s status or her work aboard in the last five years, it has everything to do with Libby’s obstruction of justice.
To a person, folks who blog here know this. The person who doesn’t, still won’t believe it after reading it.
Jodi
You say â€for a work or a theory to become strong and polished, it must be challengedâ€
You are entitled to your opinion and I don’t want to engage in any debate but why don’t you challenge your own assumptions and your preconceived notions?
On the IIPA thingy that all the neo-cons harp on all the time, I suggest you read this rebuttal of Koppelman’s piece by Larry Johnson who actually is an intelligence professional.
Let’s not get into the weeds of parsing that the neo-cons are as so fond of on this matter. The facts are that even Gen. Hayden certified to Congress that Ms. Wilson was covert. And this coming from a man who believed the Constitution did not prevent the government from spying on citizens without a warrant. And lets not forget that Fitz representing the government provided into the trial record confirmation about Ms. Wilson’s status.
Who do you believe – Alex Koppelman or Gen. Hayden the DCIA? Or are you just going to keep parsing because you are unable to challenge the neo-con point of view?
P.S. You know, I’ve been totally ignoring him/her, but I have to say that I’m more and more impressed with Jodi. It must take an enormous amount of effort to read this blog on a regular basis and still remain so willfully ignorant. – Frank
I don’t find it impresive at all but I concur with your assessment about his/her willful ignorance.
Thank you, emptywheel!
I’ll bet Dick Cheney really enjoys being slapped around like that, don’t you? Whaddya think– will he out another CIA agent to retaliate?
Anyway, I am anxious for impeachment proceedings to begin! I realize, like looseheadprop sez, we need to be sure of our ground first, but we’re priming the pump over at http://priming-the-pump.wikispaces.com/ collecting sample Articles of Impeachment, and supporting evidence. This is a group project, and others are invited to help.
Bob in HI
why does this jodi character hate america ??
Responding to him/her will just encourage Jodi to come back here. I realize it’s your blog, EW, but I hate the weeds that Jodi’s posts and the responses take us into.
This â€mind†is never going to be changed or even expanded. I’m hoping this discussion is an effort to show you/we have tried, and we can now move on, to the theme of â€don’t feed the trolls.â€
zhiv — I concur with your assessment that Bradbury has a â€distinct Cheney je ne sais quoi, no?â€. It does seem as though we’ve peeled back the insubstantial layers of the onion a bit (the hacktacular lightweights Sampson, Goodling, Schlozman, and heck even Gonzo) to get a little bit of peek at the core. Funny how it looks and smells like Cheney…
This is actually my first visit her altho I’ve read your postings at FDL for a time.
Very impressive and an enjoyable addition to my daily wanderings, Marcy, thanks. And thaanks for all the work you guys did at Scooter’s coming out/going in party the other day.
Imagine all the constructive work trolls could do for the good of this country if they applied their hair-splitting talents to areas that would serve the good of the people and that really need nit-picking, like fixing the bankruptcy law, or health care reform, or really fixing the AMT.
Thanks for all the effort u put into this.
Did Cheney ever graduate from college?
TALKING POINT:
If there was no crime, why did Libby lie? He’s a lawyer, an officer of the court. He knows how vital it is to our judicial system to not permit perjury.
No underlying crime? Then why lie?
LizDexic – according to Wikipedia, he received his B.A. and M.A. degrees in political science from the University of Wyoming.
clichy… hairspliting talents… indeed, Lord have mercy, they sure do have the hairsplitting down.
John Starbuck… preeeecisely why lie if there was no wrong doing?? It’s absurd. How stooopid do they think we are? Dare I ask?
I LOVE John Dean.
Okay Jodi, thanks for answering honestly.
Now please go to the statute and show me where it says this:
For example there is a requirement that the person be not known as a CIA agent, that they maintain their secret identity at all times,
At another time, I’d be happy to show how all the other characteristics you’ve given have been proven to be true. But for now, I’d point out that you’re misreading the statute here.
Also, please explain to me how it is that Martha Stewart got busted for obstruction, and not insider trading, when there is an abundance of evidence that she traded stocks that she had received insider information on before that stock’s price fell precipitously.
Plame was clearly covert. As I understand it, the problem for Fitz prosecuting people for the disclosure of Plame’s name were twofold: for the people like Armitage, the evidence that the name was leaked with knowledge or intent that it would damage the US was lacking; and for Cheney and Libby the problem was that Libby lied and obstructed so that Fitz could not gather the necessary eviodence. Same goes for Rover.
I had expected Cheney to claim that his special status under the Const actually gave him the pardon power too. Brovo Nadler.
I think one thing which is really confusing the issue was the dual-job Plame had. I’d guess it was very unusual for someone to be a desk jockey and then do field work as a NOC. That would certainly give Cheney some leeway on the IIPA charge. It doesn’t protect much on the charge of disclosing classified information. Of course, if Cheney left office the Dems probably wouldn’t chase him.
BTW, I don’t think Jodi is terribly disrespectful, so I see no reason to get upset about her presence.
ab initio,
I do challenge my thinking on this subject. That is why I come here and other places of a similar mind set and read very carefully. That is why I also write things to see and weigh the responses. To do these things I have to endure personally directed insults from a few insecure people, but I always consider the source.
MarkH,
thanks. You are not an insecure person.
I have read everyone else’s comments too.
With all respect I have to say that I am not convinced to the prevalent point of view of this blog.
I will say this though. Looking beyond criminal liability, the White House shouldn’t have spoken or written the name â€Plame†or said â€wife of Wilson.†In the same vein, I disagree with much of the politics of destruction that is practiced by all the parties in this country.
emptywheel,
I got to go now, but I will answer your specific questions later.
please don’t feed the shit stain
that’s my job
still trying to prove that one phoney talking point, shit stain ???
The CIA and the DOJ seemed to think Plame was covert, and a panel of Apellet Court Judges agreed
the opinion of a SHIT STAIN doesn’t realy fucking matter in the face of that overwhelming and legally binding opinion
does it, shit stain ???
if people cared what the shit stains think, paris hilton would have walked free today
that’s why we ignore the shit stains
For Jodi:
As proven by the limited charges filed against him, Al Capone was only guilt of tax evasion.
Discuss.
————
Another obvious point: Consensual sex is legal, so why did Clinton lie about it? No underlying crime, right?
More on topic: I’m amazed how often it seems necessary to point out why perjury and obstruction of justice matter, when lives and careers of US agents are at stake. I am amazed.