Trouble with the Bush Administration
Discussion
Ok, I was just heading off to work when I heard briefly that President Bushes administration is in hot water again. Is it serious this time then ? Anybody want to fill in the details ? All I know that it has something to do about the vice president lying or leaking secret information and being caught at it ?
Any of our American PH'ers want to add their view on this.
Cheers John S
Any of our American PH'ers want to add their view on this.
Cheers John S
Here is a link to a news report for you: www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-10-28-libby-indicted_x.htm?csp=24
Like you can cover all the trouble with the Bush Administration in one thread. Hah! This would be the Sean Connery thread (except less funny) in no time. You're going to crash the site or something.
Yes, they are investigating the leak of a CIA operative's name, but this came out in the news many, many months ago. Right now, it's back in the news because they are closing up the investigation, I guess. The investigation is part of a larger effort looking into what exact information provided by the CIA was available in making certain executive decisions.
How serious is it? It depends on what the precise allegations turn out to be. Did they have inaccurate information (honestly given) or did they fabricate something intentionally? And who told whom, and who was responsible for accuracy, etc.
Yes, they are investigating the leak of a CIA operative's name, but this came out in the news many, many months ago. Right now, it's back in the news because they are closing up the investigation, I guess. The investigation is part of a larger effort looking into what exact information provided by the CIA was available in making certain executive decisions.
How serious is it? It depends on what the precise allegations turn out to be. Did they have inaccurate information (honestly given) or did they fabricate something intentionally? And who told whom, and who was responsible for accuracy, etc.
Well, Cheyne's Chief of Staff, Lewis Libby has been indicted and will now have to face a judge. He has just handed in his reesignation. Karl Rove, Bush's Deputy Chief of Staff, is awaiting a final decision as to whether he will be indicted.
Bush is gradually being left to fend for himself. He is normally very dependent on these individuals for advice and they have now been effectively removed or sidelined.
Oh joy!
Bush is gradually being left to fend for himself. He is normally very dependent on these individuals for advice and they have now been effectively removed or sidelined.
Oh joy!
Been listening to Hal Turner's online radio station, some very eye-opening stuff about the bush administration.
Bush played the game very well with his fathers and deeply connected families support. But even they cant save him now, sooner or later the truth of 'crisis instigation and crisis control' will come out, but knowing Bush, for a low IQ, he's got friends in places us mortals arent even aware of! It'll be years before that man loses his position.
Bush played the game very well with his fathers and deeply connected families support. But even they cant save him now, sooner or later the truth of 'crisis instigation and crisis control' will come out, but knowing Bush, for a low IQ, he's got friends in places us mortals arent even aware of! It'll be years before that man loses his position.
Almost 100% on the mark LA, except two things:
1) The serious law is against revealing the identity of an undecover operative (NOC).
2) Plame was not NOC. In fact she was transitioning to a different position within Langley at the time.
sidebar: According to Wilson, even when Plame was NOC she told him what she did on their second date. Mata Hari she most certainly is not.
Also, after two years of investigation and the only thing that they can charge Libby with is obstruction. Yes, this isn't politically motivated. But I suppose if they can get Clinton on lying about hummers in the oral office...
ErnestM
1) The serious law is against revealing the identity of an undecover operative (NOC).
2) Plame was not NOC. In fact she was transitioning to a different position within Langley at the time.
sidebar: According to Wilson, even when Plame was NOC she told him what she did on their second date. Mata Hari she most certainly is not.
Also, after two years of investigation and the only thing that they can charge Libby with is obstruction. Yes, this isn't politically motivated. But I suppose if they can get Clinton on lying about hummers in the oral office...
ErnestM
los Angeles said:
Well, Ernest, you make it sound like a mere technicality.
I'm with your countrymen who see it this way: Clinton ran the American economy well, trying various ways of hitting terrorists in countries they were being trained, but was caught cheating on his wife. Bush is flushing the American economy down the toilet,
Unemployment is lower than the best Clinton years and the stock markets are at all time highs....what are you now, an economist?
LA - it is a very serious technicality. Plame worked for the CIA as an analyst in counterproliferation. She was not NOC.
Hence the original reason that the investigation was started was not valid. There could be no crime under the statute because she was not NOC
Now, this all began to heat up after Judith Miller (New York Times reporter - fervent antiadministation rag) was sent to jail by a Federal Judge because she did not identify her source of information concerning where she learned about Plame's vocation.
When the Grand Jury days were drawing to a close Judith dramatically revealed that she could now disclose her source as she had sought and received permission (thus freeing herself from incarceration).
Curiously, according to the Libby camp, permission had been granted to Miller to reveal that she had discussed Plame with Libby prior to Miller ever going to jail. I guess it was more dramatic for Judith to serve time for her principles.
However...
Let's look at the indictment and what has been charged:
Count one: obstruction of justice
The grand jury charges that Libby did "knowingly and corruptly endeavor to influence, obstruct and impede the due administration of justice... by misleading and deceiving the grand jury" about when and how he learned that covert operative Valerie Plame worked for the CIA. He is also accused of misleading the grand jury about how he disclosed that information to the media.
Remember, this all happened two years ago. Proving this is going to be a bear if they are trying to prove intentionally misleading.
Count two: false statement
The grand jury charges that Libby "did knowingly and willfully make a materially false, fictitious and fraudulent statement" in an FBI investigation. Specifically, the indictment says Libby misled FBI agents in response to questions about a conversation with Tim Russert of NBC News in July 2003.
Again, the knowingly and willfully part is going to be hard to prove unless Libby bragged to somebody that he lied to the FBI
Count three: false statement
Libby is charged with misleading FBI agents about his July 2003 conversation with another reporter, Matt Cooper of Time Magazine.
See Count Two
Count four: perjury
After taking an oath to testify truthfully, Libby knowingly made a "false material declaration" about his conversation with Russert, the grand jury alleges.
Knowingly is the hard part to prove again
Count five: perjury
Also under oath, Libby is accused of knowingly making a "false material declaration" about his conversation with Cooper.
Knowingly is the key to this count as well
LA, with your knowledge of the legal system, how hard do you think it will be for this to be proven in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt(because that is the test of a criminal case)? Any first year law school student could get him out of this.
---
This entire thing was not about Plame, outing a spy or even weapons of mass destruction. The damage that was sought has been done by the indictments alone. Just like the cases now winding their way through several Texas Grand Juries about a prominent member of Congress by a Texas State/District Attorney that vowed "I'm going to get him"
---
What people in the UK need to understand is that under the Grand Jury system, the prosecuter presents his case to the jurors. There is no defense. There is not cross examination. There is no alternate viewpoint. The prosecuter presents the case, but it is up to the Grand Jury to decide if there is even enough evidence to require the individual to be charged (indicted) for the alleged crime. This prosecuter had two years and couldn't get a yes indictment for the alleged crime that started the whole thing (the outing of Plame)
The guy took two years. If the Grand Jury didn't indict on something, the prosecuter's carreer would be over. So, instead of indicting on the original charge, they indicted him on the easier to indict but harder to prove (in a court of law) charge of "false statements", "lies", etc...
...the other side benefit of that indictment is that just the mention of lies, damned lies, is enough to convict the person as well as the administration in the court of public opinion.
Just a little perspective.
ErnestM
PS: Jimbeaux, Unemployment is correct but my Dow and NASDAQ stuff was way better in the Clinton years. Not that it matters though because, as I have stated before, neither President has or had a direct impact on the US economy IMHO.
>> Edited by ErnestM on Saturday 29th October 05:06
Hence the original reason that the investigation was started was not valid. There could be no crime under the statute because she was not NOC
Now, this all began to heat up after Judith Miller (New York Times reporter - fervent antiadministation rag) was sent to jail by a Federal Judge because she did not identify her source of information concerning where she learned about Plame's vocation.
When the Grand Jury days were drawing to a close Judith dramatically revealed that she could now disclose her source as she had sought and received permission (thus freeing herself from incarceration).
Curiously, according to the Libby camp, permission had been granted to Miller to reveal that she had discussed Plame with Libby prior to Miller ever going to jail. I guess it was more dramatic for Judith to serve time for her principles.
However...
Let's look at the indictment and what has been charged:
Count one: obstruction of justice
The grand jury charges that Libby did "knowingly and corruptly endeavor to influence, obstruct and impede the due administration of justice... by misleading and deceiving the grand jury" about when and how he learned that covert operative Valerie Plame worked for the CIA. He is also accused of misleading the grand jury about how he disclosed that information to the media.
Remember, this all happened two years ago. Proving this is going to be a bear if they are trying to prove intentionally misleading.
Count two: false statement
The grand jury charges that Libby "did knowingly and willfully make a materially false, fictitious and fraudulent statement" in an FBI investigation. Specifically, the indictment says Libby misled FBI agents in response to questions about a conversation with Tim Russert of NBC News in July 2003.
Again, the knowingly and willfully part is going to be hard to prove unless Libby bragged to somebody that he lied to the FBI
Count three: false statement
Libby is charged with misleading FBI agents about his July 2003 conversation with another reporter, Matt Cooper of Time Magazine.
See Count Two
Count four: perjury
After taking an oath to testify truthfully, Libby knowingly made a "false material declaration" about his conversation with Russert, the grand jury alleges.
Knowingly is the hard part to prove again
Count five: perjury
Also under oath, Libby is accused of knowingly making a "false material declaration" about his conversation with Cooper.
Knowingly is the key to this count as well
LA, with your knowledge of the legal system, how hard do you think it will be for this to be proven in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt(because that is the test of a criminal case)? Any first year law school student could get him out of this.
---
This entire thing was not about Plame, outing a spy or even weapons of mass destruction. The damage that was sought has been done by the indictments alone. Just like the cases now winding their way through several Texas Grand Juries about a prominent member of Congress by a Texas State/District Attorney that vowed "I'm going to get him"
---
What people in the UK need to understand is that under the Grand Jury system, the prosecuter presents his case to the jurors. There is no defense. There is not cross examination. There is no alternate viewpoint. The prosecuter presents the case, but it is up to the Grand Jury to decide if there is even enough evidence to require the individual to be charged (indicted) for the alleged crime. This prosecuter had two years and couldn't get a yes indictment for the alleged crime that started the whole thing (the outing of Plame)
The guy took two years. If the Grand Jury didn't indict on something, the prosecuter's carreer would be over. So, instead of indicting on the original charge, they indicted him on the easier to indict but harder to prove (in a court of law) charge of "false statements", "lies", etc...
...the other side benefit of that indictment is that just the mention of lies, damned lies, is enough to convict the person as well as the administration in the court of public opinion.
Just a little perspective.
ErnestM
PS: Jimbeaux, Unemployment is correct but my Dow and NASDAQ stuff was way better in the Clinton years. Not that it matters though because, as I have stated before, neither President has or had a direct impact on the US economy IMHO.
>> Edited by ErnestM on Saturday 29th October 05:06
ErnestM - why try to defend what happened to Plaime? Is what happened to her NOT serious then? Should members of the Bush Administration NOT have to answer truthfully to these charges? Are they somehow excused from having to be honest?
By the way, the country her husband investigated was Niger, not Nigeria.
By the way, the country her husband investigated was Niger, not Nigeria.
los Angeles said:And if Hillary's not available for President in '08, we can amend the Constitution and draft in George Galloway.
Well, Ernest, you make it sound like a mere technicality.
I'm with your countrymen who see it this way: Clinton ran the American economy well, trying various ways of hitting terrorists in countries they were being trained, but was caught cheating on his wife. Bush is flushing the American economy down the toilet, dividing his countrymen, junking the respect of his country in the eyes of the world, and one of his key staff is a liar. Clinton did not begin an unjust war that has slain innocents on all sides. Bush has. So much for a "new era of truth and moral righteousness" in the Whitehouse.
Had Bush been in any way a dynamic leader he could have saved his nation all this time, speculation and money by calling in his top aides, demanding the truth, and on getting it, asked those responsible to hand in their resignation and face the law. He could have lanced the puss before it supturated, before his aide lied before a Grand Jury. Instead, as with everything else, he showed how weak and muddled he is. I take no pleasure in this country's self-inflicted woes, but Bush is incapable of solving a one-word crossword puzzle let alone his country's problems. It's not the politics, it's the man and the message.
LA
Clinton was a decent enough President who did a better job of managing the Government finances than Bush and who signed into law some very innovative legislation, but I would take issue with your claim that he had a better way of dealing with terrorism than Bush.
Terrorists were allowed to go effectively unpunished during his time in power. Do you remember the bombing of the American warship (can't remember the exact location); his response was to blow up a pharmaceutical company in Sudan and a few tents in a Terrorist training camp in Afghanistan.
After the Sep 11 attacks George Bush eliminated the regime sheltering the Terrorists (the Taliban in Afghanistan) and is attempting to build a stable democracy to replace them.
Clinton was a decent enough President who did a better job of managing the Government finances than Bush and who signed into law some very innovative legislation, but I would take issue with your claim that he had a better way of dealing with terrorism than Bush.
Terrorists were allowed to go effectively unpunished during his time in power. Do you remember the bombing of the American warship (can't remember the exact location); his response was to blow up a pharmaceutical company in Sudan and a few tents in a Terrorist training camp in Afghanistan.
After the Sep 11 attacks George Bush eliminated the regime sheltering the Terrorists (the Taliban in Afghanistan) and is attempting to build a stable democracy to replace them.
los Angeles said:
1) Clinton did not begin an unjust war that has slain innocents on all sides. Bush has.
2) before his aide lied before a Grand Jury.
Clinton did not have UN okay to attack Kososvo...why don't you call that illegal?
It is Dick Cheney's aide, not the President's...and he has not been tried or found guilty yet.
Eric Mc said:
ErnestM - why try to defend what happened to Plaime?
What did happen to her? If she is a non-NOC analyst working for the CIA in counterproliferation, what really happened to her? Just because somebody works for the CIA does not mean that they are automatically covered under this law. They have to be an undercover operative and the outing of the undercover operative has to put that person in danger.
Eric Mc said:
Is what happened to her NOT serious then?
I don't know. I seriously doubt it, however.
Eric Mc said:
Should members of the Bush Administration NOT have to answer truthfully to these charges?
Sure they should. These guys, however, talk to 20 reporters a day. How many of us could recall, with detail a specific instance, in our business life, that happened over a year ago. Say, for instance, a line of financial information on a client's books, if you are an accountant, without referring to some sort of written record. What if there were no record?
Eric Mc said:
Are they somehow excused from having to be honest?
If there is proof that there was a deliberate attempt to mislead or impede the investigation of the Grand Jury, they should throw the book at him. However, evidence of this beyond the shadow of a doubt is very hard to prove. That is why there are so few criminal conspiracy trials in the US. Unless you have an unimpeachable witness that Libby had intent, you're done.
IMHO, the prosecuter should have extended the Grand Jury one more time (he had the power) until he could, clear and convincingly, come before the American people and say "There was a crime - here's your man" or "This is all crap - the law does not apply". I would have respected that more and supported whatever the prosecuter had said. Ginning up additional charges because the Grand Jury term is set to expire is a sign of futility and face saving on the part of the prosecuter. He is saying to the American People "Look. Here you go. Got someone. Didn't waste your money."
Eric Mc said:
By the way, the country her husband investigated was Niger, not Nigeria.
Quite correct. Wilson, also, was not a member of the Bush Administration. He was a minor career foreign service diplomat under several Presidents. His trip to Niger was nothing more than a quick visit and he undertook virtually NO proper investigation. Yet, he is quoted as an authoritative source on whether or not any Uranium was sold to Iraq. The thing that kicked all of this off was an op-ed piece that Wilson wrote for the New York Times attempting to use his "investigation" to discredit the administration.
ErnestM
>> Edited by ErnestM on Saturday 29th October 13:06
Jaglover said:
After the Sep 11 attacks George Bush eliminated the regime sheltering the Terrorists (the Taliban in Afghanistan) and is attempting to build a stable democracy to replace them.
Bollox. Utter bollox.
Yeah, Afghanistan is now a peaceful haven of calm with no terrorists at all. Get a grip, the afghan 'government' has little or no jurisdiction outside of Kabul. Terrorists are proliferating there, as is the now flourishing opium trade, that was all but destroyed before the war.
And then there's Iraq. A production line for terrorists, not only in Iraq, but it seems, also here too.
Ernest,
If it's all so harmless, and a 'storm in a teacup' as you seem to make out, and if the charges are so flimsy that a 'first year law school student' couldn't make them stick, then why have they been indicted? Why has Libby resigned? Why is there such a massive fuss and scandal, that appears on the front pages of even our newspapers in the UK?
If it's all so harmless, and a 'storm in a teacup' as you seem to make out, and if the charges are so flimsy that a 'first year law school student' couldn't make them stick, then why have they been indicted? Why has Libby resigned? Why is there such a massive fuss and scandal, that appears on the front pages of even our newspapers in the UK?
968 said:
After the Sep 11 attacks George Bush eliminated the regime sheltering the Terrorists (the Taliban in Afghanistan) and is attempting to build a stable democracy to replace them.
Bollox. Utter bollox.
Yeah, Afghanistan is now a peaceful haven of calm with no terrorists at all. Get a grip, the afghan 'government' has little or no jurisdiction outside of Kabul. Terrorists are proliferating there, as is the now flourishing opium trade, that was all but destroyed before the war.
And then there's Iraq. A production line for terrorists, not only in Iraq, but it seems, also here too.
Calm down 968, take deep breaths.
Do you dispute that the Taliban were sheltering Al'Quada? (sp)
And I said attempting to build a stable democracy, there are still some remnants of the old regime still to be eliminated.
As for Iraq I did not mention it.
Jaglover said:
Calm down 968, take deep breaths.
Do you dispute that the Taliban were sheltering Al'Quada? (sp)
And I said attempting to build a stable democracy, there are still some remnants of the old regime still to be eliminated.
As for Iraq I did not mention it.
Oh no, don't try and wriggle out of it. You were attempting to justify Bush's sparkling record on controlling terrorism, whilst criticising Clinton in the same regard. It's an utter absurdity, given the exponential rise of international terrorism that has occurred in the 5, dark years since Bush's administration has taken over.
968 said:
Ernest,
If it's all so harmless, and a 'storm in a teacup' as you seem to make out, and if the charges are so flimsy that a 'first year law school student' couldn't make them stick, then why have they been indicted? Why has Libby resigned? Why is there such a massive fuss and scandal, that appears on the front pages of even our newspapers in the UK?
Politics to the first two questions and because they want to sell papers to the next question.
I am actually pretty upset with this prosecuter. I had been hearing for months about what an honest and fair person he was and how he was going to investigate this allegation and give the American public a clear and definitive resolution post investigation.
What he has given the American public is equivocation. I wanted to know, dammit. If somebody broke the law, be they the white house coffee boy or the President of the United States, I wanted to know that, without equivocation. Why couldn't he just have concluded whether or not the law was violated?
Nobody has been charged with breaking that law.
I have had some huge concerns with the Bush administration of late, as have a lot of Americans. The concerns don't have anything to do with foreign policy, but I still wanted to know if there was any sort of law breaking going on by the white house staff.
Instead of a conclusion, the American public (and media outlet owners) have been handed a starting point for another story. While the media will, no doubt, regale us with continued insight, the American public will, no doubt, collectively yawn.
ErnestM
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff